Is Slavery Moral?

[2PhiloVoid]

So if you would not mind, let's start simple....

...alright. That's sounds fair enough.

So let's start with the definition of 'slavery', as it pertains to the Bible. What is it, and why am I not interpreting it in the correct way? How is 'biblical slavery' different than other slavery?

Ok. That sounds like a good place to start, but before I get into a direct discussion with you about how we should “define slavery as it pertains to the Bible,” I'm going to lay out some preliminary considerations, just so you better understand where I'm coming from. Think of it as a prologue....

*****************************************
So, here it goes-

Personally, I wouldn't just jump into the Bible without first forming some understanding of 'slavery' as a historical, multiform phenomenon, one that has been present in the world since time immemorial and exists even today in various parts of the world. (I mean,yeah...it's not gone yet, which I can agree really sucks!)

I'll admit that when I first became a Christian 30+ years ago and began reading the Bible for the first time as a teenager, I probably did come to the whole issue of 'biblical slavery' in a more or less simple and direct fashion. If my memory serves me right, I had never heard of the word “hermeneutics,” and I remember coming across the passages describing how slavery was imposed by the Israelites and being quite baffled by it all. My first emotional responses, I think, were, “But I thought God was good and purposeful and that He was supposed to make people nicer to each other? I don't get it. Isn't slavery supposed to be really wrong? Didn't God just get done freeing the Israelites from slavery from under Pharaoh?”

Of course, back then, I hadn't studied nearly anything that I have studied since that time. Back then, I had been an art student for the most part, and what little real ethical realization I had in my mind as to why slavery was 'immoral' came as the remnants of having been acculturated and "educated" in scant fashion in small town America. By the time I became a new Christian, I had only had a few fleeting lessons about slavery and about civil rights in junior high and high school history classes, and I had picked up a few notions about slavery by having seen the old t.v. mini-series, "Roots," and "Harriet Tubman," the constantly replayed Charlton Heston movie, "The Ten Commandments." So, when I newly encountered the Old Testament, I had no idea about how to analyze, differentiate, contrast, contextualize, or really how to more fully and equitably understand the whole social matrix I found in the pages that I was reading. Instead, like many people, and based on what little I knew about the phenomenon of slavery in the world, I just saw “beat your slave...” and thought “Dang! That's awful!”

Now, I would approach this whole thing in a completely different way, mainly because I recognize a plethora of factors that play into our understanding of what we are reading. This expansion of understanding doesn't take away my feeling of cringe worthiness when I read about biblical slavery—no, it's still a sad state of affairs to read about—but at least I have insight into how biblical slavery is constituted, how it was enforced AND how it differs from both the slavery already extant in the Ancient Near East as well as with how it differs with the oh so obviously and utterly inhumane way that the Atlantic Slave Trade was operated.

Of course, being the social science advocate that I am , there are....shall I say...some associated and derivative insights I've gained about why we see the world the way we do today, especially as to why and how we assume the cogency of certain modern articulations regarding human rights, civil rights and ethics that then feed into and shape the way we appraise the ethical contents of the Old Testament.

Feel free to offer comments on this, and then we can begin to dig into 'slavery and the bible.'

 

[cvanwey]

...alright. That's sounds fair enough.

Ok. That sounds like a good place to start, but before I get into a direct discussion with you about how we should “define slavery as it pertains to the Bible,” I'm going to lay out some preliminary considerations, just so you better understand where I'm coming from. Think of it as a prologue....

*****************************************
So, here it goes-

Personally, I wouldn't just jump into the Bible without first forming some understanding of 'slavery' as a historical, multiform phenomenon, one that has been present in the world since time immemorial and exists even today in various parts of the world. (I mean,yeah...it's not gone yet, which I can agree with really sucks!)

I'll admit that when I first became a Christian 30+ years ago and began reading the Bible for the first time as a teenager, I probably did come to the whole issue of 'biblical slavery' in a more or less simple and direct fashion. If my memory serves me right, I had never heard of the word “hermeneutics,” and I remember coming across the passages describing how slavery was imposed by the Israelites and being quite baffled about it all. My first emotional responses, I think, were, “But I thought God was good and purposeful and that He was supposed to make people nicer to each other? I don't get it. Isn't slavery supposed to be really wrong?”

Of course, back then, I hadn't studied nearly anything that I have studied since that time. Back then, I had been an art student for the most part, and what little real ethical realization I had in my mind as to why slavery was 'immoral' came as the remnants of having been acculturated and "educated" in scant fashion in small town America. By the time I became a new Christian, I had only had a few fleeting lessons about slavery and about civil rights in junior high and high school history classes. So, when I newly encountered the Old Testament, I had no idea about how to analyze, differentiate, contrast, contextualize, or really how to more fully and equitably understand the whole social matrix I found in the pages that I was reading. Instead, like many people, I just saw “beat your slave...” and thought “Dang! That's awful!”

Now, I would approach this whole thing in a completely different way, mainly because I recognize a plethora of factors that play into our understanding of what we are reading. This expansion of understanding doesn't take away my feeling of cringe worthiness when I read about biblical slavery—no, it's still a sad state of affairs to read about—but at least I have insight into how biblical slavery is constituted, how it was enforced AND how it differs from both the slavery already extant in the Ancient Near East as well as with how it differs with the oh so obviously and utterly inhumane way that the Atlantic Slave Trade was operated.

Of course, being the social science advocate that I am , there are....shall I say...some associated and derivative insights I've gained about why we see the world the way we do today, especially as to why and how we assume the cogency of certain modern articulations regarding human rights, civil rights and ethics that then feed into and shape the way we appraise the ethical contents of the Old Testament.

Feel free to offer comments on this, and then we can begin to dig into 'slavery and the bible.'

Okay, sounds good, keep going.

 

[Sanoy]

Prior to proceeding, as asked elsewhere, please provide (your) specific definition of the word slave, as it pertains to the Bible?

Please then also provide (your) definitions for the following, if they differ, or are out of context to how any lay person may view such verses?

I'll make it easy for you. Just fill in your definition to where the question marks are (if my translation, or perception is askew):

slave - ?
property - ?
beat - ?
but - ?
not - ?
punish - ?
buy - ?
bequeath - ?
inherit - ?
for life - ?
ruthlessly - ?

And then, any other words, which may need special clarification for the following verses?

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.

P.S. My definition of 'condone':

con·done
kənˈdōn/
verb
verb: condone; 3rd person present: condones; past tense: condoned; past participle: condoned; gerund or present participle: condoning
accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
"the college cannot condone any behavior that involves illicit drugs"
synonyms: disregard, accept, allow, let pass, turn a blind eye to, overlook, forget; More
forgive, pardon, excuse, let go
"we cannot condone such dreadful behavior"
antonyms: condemn
approve or sanction (something), especially with reluctance.

Define the term slavery that you used in your OP and then tell us which distinction you are referring to, and then tell us why that is the distinction used in those verses. You should need nothing from me to substantiate the claim of your OP.

 

[cvanwey]

Define the term slavery that you used in your OP and then tell us which distinction you are referring to, and then tell us why that is the distinction used in those verses. You should need nothing from me to substantiate the claim of your OP.

Okay, cool... If you are not a Jew, you are allowed (by God) to be kept for life, beaten just short of death without punishment, and referred to as property for life (as indicated by the fact that they are allowed to be beaten as much as possible, with no restriction, just short of death).

It does not matter if you replace the word slave with "person who is bankrupt", "person in debt", or other. Any word one might choose, still does not make it better. See.... I'll show you below... I'll replace the word 'slave' with 'debtor'. But it won't make much sense any more, because I doubt slave traders, I mean debt collectors, would be going around buying up foreigner's debts. It would instead most likely be locals who owed them money. It appears fairly clear that the passages pertain to either POW's, or buying slaves from abroad for life, and being allowed to do really whatever the owner wants, as long as the slave doesn't die really quickly from it.

Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)
44 “‘Your male and female 'debtors' are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy 'debtors'. 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 debtors for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female's 'debtors' with a rod must be punished if the 'debtor' dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the 'debtor' recovers after a day or two, since the 'debtor' is their property.

You see, the rest doesn't really matter. You must replace a bunch of words before it starts to make any sense, from your perspective, via, 'slavery was different for them'.

If you are NOT a JEW, you can be kept for life, beaten, and referred to as property. Just like any other slave. Which basically states such passages were influenced by Jews.

And yes, this was 'condoned', 'allowed', 'accepted', 'sanctioned,' apparently by God, as the author indicates.

I state these verses were instead written by humans, with no divine guiding hand. Because, if not, I must then observe inherent morals given by 'God.'

Property means the human is no longer a human, but is instead a pet, cattle, farm animal, or other, with restricted or no rights. They are no longer human. Why?, Because again, if you are not a Jew, this is what the Bible states.

K? Thnx.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes they add it because it is in the context of how they are translating the other word. But as I have said we have these words in the LLX and they make much more sense as a tributary, and it makes more sense in context of a peace agreement.

No, a peace agreement might end in them not being a tributary. It's labor or death. That isn't peaceful. I'll give you the possibility of a tributary. It's also entirely possible they had labor camps for public works projects in Israel.

Right it does not say voluntary or involuntary, so we don't know from the verse. However the surrounding content does lean against involuntary. I'm not adding, I am using contextual reason to interpret the content. You are concluding based on English.

You're adding when you say that "the slave trade was outlawed". There is quite explicitly verses that state men and women can be purchased as slaves, so that cannot be accurate. The verse in question says kidnapping victims can't be bought and sold. It does not refer to any other type of person, that is where you are adding.

You will have to give me the verses about Israeli men and women being slaves for life, it contradicts Leviticus 25:42. And contradiction does appear to happen between the books though I have not investigated each occurrence. Foreign slaves can voluntarily become slaves for life "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,"

For starters, the bit you quoted is about Hebrew slaves, not foreigners. Here is the rest of it in context:

When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.​

That is how a Hebrew man can be a slave forever. Hebrew women could be sold as permanent slaves without any special rules in the very next verse though:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.​

Now, you may be thinking that it just means leaving the house, or something else. But look back at the wording for the male slaves previously: "he shall go out free" but for women "she shall not go out as the male slaves do". Same wording, in context, they're two sides of the same coin.

By saying Jesus should have condemned every Roman law that is even partly immoral you are making Him an enemy of the state. This is an outrageous expectation.

I didn't say that, for one. But even if He did say, "Don't do this thing that Rome says is okay" about everything that is supposed to be immoral that Rome disagrees with, that wouldn't make Him an enemy of the state. Only if He said something like, "Stop Rome from doing this evil thing!" would that argument hold water.

I am glad that you are confirming that your moral grounding is free roaming. So there is no real way to condemn anything anyone did in the ANE in any real sense through your grounding. The word God however is not a floating place holder. God's nature is immutable. He is a maximally great being. Good things refer to a defined concept, bad things refer to the abstraction of the good.

That's not what I said, and it's awfully dishonest to paint it that way. I said that you could imagine it being different. But what you imagine doesn't change it. It is what it is and there's no reason to think that will change.

Ok I understand what you are referring to now. These are the Tributary cities outside the promised land God is giving them. They still retain their identity but remain under Israelite rule. This is a weak indication that further adds to the view of Tributary.

You don't know that. Maybe they plundered the city and shipped all the people back to Israel to be put in labor camps. That's what they did if they ended up killing all the men, except in that case, women and children were made into personal slaves. Unwilling wives, if you want to call them that.

What I said was we don't know how they are treated as POW's. I know about Deuteronomy 21:10. It is often used in Polemics but it is not as you imagine. There is some sense we can draw in the POW camps that the intent is to integrate the people back into society in the fact that they are still wearing their original cloths. It was common practice to rape the women during battle, and so women would dress seductively to entice the men where they can be distracted and killed. So the fact that they are still wearing these clothes is indicative that the intent is to put them back into society rather than remain in what ever conditions they remain in. Now as to the rest of it this is anti rape legislation. Moses is saying, 'no, we will not rape women'. They will be held captive, and if you wish to have one for your wife you may, but she must change out of her seductive cloths, shave her head (possibly her eyebrows as well) and remain ugly for 1 month (possibly 3) before they can consummate the marriage. That is to overcome the mans desire for her and make sure she would be a compatible wife. Once married if she hates him she may go free. If she loves him her first born receives the inheritance. Once again, the Camelot of the ANE. Now as to the forcing, the word is not rape, it is unique formulation of the word to bare out the starting condition of the marriage, IE she is a POW. It does not say whether or not she can refuse, but she is not in a position of choosing her ideal husband.

No, no, no. Verses that give permission to have sex with women without mentioning the woman's consent are not "anti rape legislation". That is ridiculous. It also doesn't state that the woman gets a choice in leaving, the man gets to choose whether he keeps her, that's it.

Tributaries get to keep their land, they just pay taxes and go to war and probably some other things. The Cherem was a judgement from God that was 400 years in the making, there is no command to chase after people. They are condemned from the land.

I'll tentatively grant you that tributaries are a possibility, but you'll need to demonstrate that as more likely than labor camps. As to the genocidal part, there is no command to chase people away. The command is to kill all that lives. How far they chase them is irrelevant to whether it was a genocidal act or not. The OT explicitly calls for killing infants in these circumstances.

 

[Sanoy]

Okay, cool... If you are not a Jew, you are allowed (by God) to be kept for life, beaten just short of death without punishment, and referred to as property for life (as indicated by the fact that they are allowed to be beaten as much as possible, with no restriction, just short of death).

It does not matter if you replace the word slave with "person who is bankrupt", "person in debt", or other. Any word one might choose, still does not make it better. See.... I'll show you below... I'll replace the word 'slave' with 'debtor'. But it won't make much sense any more, because I doubt slave traders, I mean debt collectors, would be going around buying up foreigner's debts. It would instead most likely be locals who owed them money. It appears fairly clear that the passages pertain to either POW's, or buying slaves from abroad for life, and being allowed to do really whatever the owner wants, as long as the slave doesn't die really quickly from it.

Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)
44 “‘Your male and female 'debtors' are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy 'debtors'. 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 debtors for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female's 'debtors' with a rod must be punished if the 'debtor' dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the 'debtor' recovers after a day or two, since the 'debtor' is their property.

You see, the rest doesn't really matter. You must replace a bunch of words before it starts to make any sense, from your perspective, via, 'slavery was different for them'.

If you are NOT a JEW, you can be kept for life, beaten, and referred to as property. Just like any other slave. Which basically states such passages were influenced by Jews.

And yes, this was 'condoned', 'allowed', 'accepted', 'sanctioned,' apparently by God, as the author indicates.

I state these verses were instead written by humans, with no divine guiding hand. Because, if not, I must then observe inherent morals given by 'God.'

Property means the human is no longer a human, but is instead a pet, cattle, farm animal, or other, with restricted or no rights. They are no longer human. Why?, Because again, if you are not a Jew, this is what the Bible states.

K? Thnx.

I asked you to define the word slavery being used, explain which distinction is being used, and prove why these verses refer to it. All you have done is what I told you is insufficient, that is quote them in English.

prove it, k?
Thanks.

 

[Sanoy]

No, a peace agreement might end in them not being a tributary. It's labor or death. That isn't peaceful. I'll give you the possibility of a tributary. It's also entirely possible they had labor camps for public works projects in Israel.

You're adding when you say that "the slave trade was outlawed". There is quite explicitly verses that state men and women can be purchased as slaves, so that cannot be accurate. The verse in question says kidnapping victims can't be bought and sold. It does not refer to any other type of person, that is where you are adding.

For starters, the bit you quoted is about Hebrew slaves, not foreigners. Here is the rest of it in context:

When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.​

That is how a Hebrew man can be a slave forever. Hebrew women could be sold as permanent slaves without any special rules in the very next verse though:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.​

Now, you may be thinking that it just means leaving the house, or something else. But look back at the wording for the male slaves previously: "he shall go out free" but for women "she shall not go out as the male slaves do". Same wording, in context, they're two sides of the same coin.

I didn't say that, for one. But even if He did say, "Don't do this thing that Rome says is okay" about everything that is supposed to be immoral that Rome disagrees with, that wouldn't make Him an enemy of the state. Only if He said something like, "Stop Rome from doing this evil thing!" would that argument hold water.

That's not what I said, and it's awfully dishonest to paint it that way. I said that you could imagine it being different. But what you imagine doesn't change it. It is what it is and there's no reason to think that will change.

You don't know that. Maybe they plundered the city and shipped all the people back to Israel to be put in labor camps. That's what they did if they ended up killing all the men, except in that case, women and children were made into personal slaves. Unwilling wives, if you want to call them that.

No, no, no. Verses that give permission to have sex with women without mentioning the woman's consent are not "anti rape legislation". That is ridiculous. It also doesn't state that the woman gets a choice in leaving, the man gets to choose whether he keeps her, that's it.

I'll tentatively grant you that tributaries are a possibility, but you'll need to demonstrate that as more likely than labor camps. As to the genocidal part, there is no command to chase people away. The command is to kill all that lives. How far they chase them is irrelevant to whether it was a genocidal act or not. The OT explicitly calls for killing infants in these circumstances.

If it's not peaceful, it's not a peace agreement is it? So that should tell you it doesn't make sense to go with forced labor. Tributary is more than a possibility, some translators use it, the LLX translation uses it, and the LLX Greek gives no room for forced labor. The LLX is one thousand years older than the Masoretic. It's the better case.

You are not quoting me when you quote "the slave trade was outlawed" and you know what verse and topic I'm referring too from that verse, and that is involuntary slave trade. Voluntary servant is allowed. It's just senseless to call voluntary servitude slavery in English, that would be deliberately contrived when the English language is robust in words with specific meaning.

You are right that this verse regarding becoming a servant for life refers to a Hebrew slave. However it is a provision for a Hebrew, which entails it is already in effect for a non Hebrew servant. That verse regarding female servants does not say they are permanently slaves but refers to how they go out in relationship to how they went in. It does not pivot on "free" but the condition of entrance.

You are saying he should condemn every Roman law, by condemning him for one. Because the logic you are using for one law stands for all. Remember how you said "All it takes to condone something is to say and do nothing. If it existed, and they never condemned it, then they condoned it." To now only include Slavery is cherry picking here. But the case still stands with one, you can't condemn the backbone of an empire without becoming an enemy of the state.

I am sorry if I have misstated you but you said that you could imagine evolution could have turned out differently, which means our moral values are not a necessity by definition, nor is it stationary as you imagine it could completely change in million years. That sounds like a free roaming moral value condition to me. And whatever you may say or not say this is the factual consequence of your condition, peoples morals will evolve, and our morals could have other than they are. It definitely doesn't put one in any truly meaningful position to condemn the evolved morality of the ANE. Or anyone in the present age for that matter as their moral values are just what they have, no different than you.

Do you think Israelite ate pigs when they left Israel? I hope not that would be mistaken. Of course their moral culture extended into other lands, how could we think otherwise? I am sure they had laws regarding conflicts with other nations, it would be unreasonable to conclude they didn't. All we have is merely a collection of law here.

I don't know that they didn't just ship these people back in labor camps, and neither do you. I do know the best explanation of what we see is that it is a tributary, which you have yet to provide any reason otherwise. They could have been sold as sacrifices to other nations, we can do what if's forever, but that doesn't change where the strong explanation lies.

It is antirape legislation. It was custom to rape the women on the battlefield. This is absolutely, and without a doubt in direct view of that practice. These are simple law statements, not formal law code. It is especially wrong to make an argument from silence here.

I have demonstrated they are more likely tributaries, I even gave you the Greek words from the LLX, one thousand years your versions senior. I explained why it makes the best sense of the context of peace. Not to mention 11 translations use Tributaries, even Young's Literal Translation "and it hath been, if Peace it answer thee, and hath opened to thee, then it hath come to pass -- all the people who are found in it are to thee for tributaries, and have served thee". My work has long been done on each of these topics, you need to provide a counter reason that it isn't an argument from silence.

 

[cvanwey]

I asked you to define the word slavery being used, explain which distinction is being used, and prove why these verses refer to it. All you have done is what I told you is insufficient, that is quote them in English.

prove it, k?
Thanks.

You, my friend, appear to represent the embodiment of all in which I used to represent. Meaning, when verses in the Bible appear man made/invented and/or 'jacked up,' set an unattainable standard for others to 'disprove'. I would shift the burden of proof, and try to get the skeptics to justify the their interpretation of such verses, or, randomly spin definitions in order to retain my indoctrinated position. This is exactly what I used to do to skeptics and non-believers, until I realized the verses appear to be written by individuals whom wanted to endorse slavery for their own selfish needs, and pass them off as God pronouncements.

I asked you to define the word slavery being used, explain which distinction is being used, and prove why these verses refer to it

Based upon the said passages, in regards to what the 'slave owner' appears condoned to inflict upon the 'slave', below seems to be the most befitting definitions:

slavery - 'the state of a person who is a chattel of another.' (this specific definition appears appropriate because the 'slave' is referred to as 'property'. Please also see:

Chattel slavery is what most people have in mind when they think of the kind of slavery that existed in the United States before the Civil War, and that existed legally throughout many parts of the world as far back as recorded history. Slaves were actual property who could be bought, sold, traded or inherited - Then compare such a definition with Exodus 21:20-21 and Leviticus 25:44-46

Chattel slavery, also called traditional slavery, is so named because people are treated as the chattel (personal property) of the owner and are bought and sold as commodities.

slavery - 'a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.' (this definition appears relevant again due to being owned forever, beaten at will, and kept for life. Again, this is if the 'slave' is NOT a JEW).

All you have done is what I told you is insufficient, that is quote them in English

As I've stated many times now. Seems as though God would have provided a more universal method, as to not cause such confusion (with ever-changing, multiple, and also dying languages). Your request is absurd really. Anytime one does come across words used in the Bible which appear 'messed up' from their own moral tastes, they are then required to hunt down alternate language references, in hopes to make the word more palatable?

Again, wouldn't you think the MANY English translated versions of such versions would have done the very thing you are requesting of me? You don't think Bible translators are up on hermeneutics? How might one know if/when WHICH words and statements are to instead be critiqued with an ALTERNATE conclusion?

Again, this seems to more-so represent a failure on the original author, versus the reader. However, it is understandable you might request such a task from me, as it is so easy to point out how such scripture appears to dehumanize humans.

In conclusion, it's not that God/Yahweh did not have any hand in any of the Bible. However, based upon my observations, it would appear fairly clear God would not have assigned such verses, if this God claims to be a just God, in favor of humans.

Which one may only conclude, what other verses were not furnished by Yahweh?.?.?.?

Thanks

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, sounds good, keep going.

Cvanwey, I hope that by having read what I wrote in my “prologue” you understand more of where I've come from in forming my evaluations about biblical slavery. And as I said above, I think it's natural that the whole topic itself will remain as something that makes us cringe, especially when we appraise it by our modern social and political mindsets as they reflect today's Western notions of social justice.

Additionally, I'd like to propose that for us to work through our effort to grasp the nature of biblical slavery as it may have been in toto, we take a neutral position as to what we think the Bible 'is.' And by this I mean that I don't think we have to assume the bible as having been inspired by God in order to simply read and analyze the text for its overall contextual meaning. Instead, we can begin (existentially) by assuming that it is just an archaic collection of ancient Jewish writings containing many ancient Israelite folkways, religion and law. That's all we need to do. Our goal here doesn't need to be motivated to first prove that the bible is the Word of God. Otherwise, I'd be doing APOLOGETICS, AND THIS ISN'T THE APOLOGETICS FORUM---NO, THIS IS THE ETHICS & MORALITY FORUM. No, all we have to do is decide that we'll do our best (I.E. our academic best, really) to try to understand how either the original writers, or at least the original, ancient Jewish organizers, keepers, and interpreters of the Torah would likely have handled and applied the remnant of the writing, both legal and theological in essence, that is still existing in our hands today.

Ok? Are you with me so far? So, first of all, I think we need to discuss how we conceive of slavery in our individual minds; that is, we need to understand how we identify it as a historical issue of ethics and then define it before we crack open the archaic pages of the bible and attempt to apply our modern evaluations to what we find therein, especially since there are multilayered contexts to consider. (And this means that as you have a discussion with me, you need to cite your sources that contribute to your mode of evaluation...we're not just going to assume that our own private, personal opinion counts for all that much.)

 

[Moral Orel]

If it's not peaceful, it's not a peace agreement is it? So that should tell you it doesn't make sense to go with forced labor. Tributary is more than a possibility, some translators use it, the LLX translation uses it, and the LLX Greek gives no room for forced labor. The LLX is one thousand years older than the Masoretic. It's the better case.

Even if it's a tributary, it's forced labor. It just isn't a labor camp. The work they do farming, crafting, and trading is for the Israelites, and they don't want to. Their only option is to fight and probably die though, so many probably chose the lesser of two evils. Of course, the "terms of peace" offered could have been dishonest as well. The Israelites weren't above deception in warfare (and I'm not even saying that's wrong), but they could have lied to get them to open the gates and then forced them into submission.

You are not quoting me when you quote "the slave trade was outlawed" and you know what verse and topic I'm referring too from that verse, and that is involuntary slave trade. Voluntary servant is allowed. It's just senseless to call voluntary servitude slavery in English, that would be deliberately contrived when the English language is robust in words with specific meaning.

Here you say this:

The permission to buy slaves says nothing of the condition of it being involuntary which would stand in opposition to prior laws which explicitly condemn slave trade and prior textual narrative.

The law states a specific kind of involuntary slave, not all involuntary slaves in general. To expand a kidnapping victim to mean all involuntary slavery is adding to the verses.

You are right that this verse regarding becoming a servant for life refers to a Hebrew slave. However it is a provision for a Hebrew, which entails it is already in effect for a non Hebrew servant. That verse regarding female servants does not say they are permanently slaves but refers to how they go out in relationship to how they went in. It does not pivot on "free" but the condition of entrance.

That's exactly backwards. They made a specific distinction for Hebrew men. Why would they do that if they meant Hebrews and foreigners? If they meant everyone, they wouldn't have made the distinction. If, however, the status quo was that slaves were slaves for life, and you wanted to make a special rule just for Hebrew men, then you would write a law that specifically mentions them and excludes everyone else. When we also have a law that explicitly states that Hebrews and foreigners should be treated differently, then we have even more reason to believe that leaving after a period of time, as specifically described as applying to Hebrew males, only applied to Hebrew males.

You are saying he should condemn every Roman law, by condemning him for one. Because the logic you are using for one law stands for all. Remember how you said "All it takes to condone something is to say and do nothing. If it existed, and they never condemned it, then they condoned it." To now only include Slavery is cherry picking here. But the case still stands with one, you can't condemn the backbone of an empire without becoming an enemy of the state.

For starters, He wouldn't condemn every roman law, since most of them overlap with Judeo-Christian values (no murder, no theft, etc). Second, I find it hard to believe that telling people not to own slaves would make someone an enemy of the state. Third, I find it really hard to believe that the Son of God, or God Himself, would have to worry about being an enemy of the state and put that concern before spreading an accurate, complete message about how to act.

Tell me this, if Jesus did become an enemy of the state, would Rome be able to stop Him from preaching before He was ready for the conclusion?

 

[cvanwey]

Cvanwey, I hope that by having read what I wrote in my “prologue” you understand more of where I've come from in forming my evaluations about biblical slavery. And as I said above, I think it's natural that the whole topic itself will remain as something that makes us cringe, especially when we appraise it by our modern social and political mindsets as they reflect today's Western notions of social justice.

Additionally, I'd like to propose that for us to work through our effort to grasp the nature of biblical slavery as it may have been in toto, we take a neutral position as to what we think the Bible 'is.' And by this I mean that I don't think we have to assume the bible as having been inspired by God in order to simply read and analyze the text for its overall contextual meaning. Instead, we can begin (existentially) by assuming that it is just an archaic collection of ancient Jewish writings containing many ancient Israelite folkways, religion and law. That's all we need to do. Our goal here doesn't need to be motivated to first prove that the bible is the Word of God. Otherwise, I'd be doing APOLOGETICS, AND THIS ISN'T THE APOLOGETICS FORUM---NO, THIS IS THE ETHICS & MORALITY FORUM. No, all we have to do is decide that we'll do our best (I.E. our academic best, really) to try to understand how either the original writers, or at least the original, ancient Jewish organizers, keepers, and interpreters of the Torah would likely have handled and applied the remnant of the writing, both legal and theological in essence, that is still existing in our hands today.

Ok? Are you with me so far? So, first of all, I think we need to discuss how we conceive of slavery in our individual minds; that is, we need to understand how we identify it as a historical issue of ethics and then define it before we crack open the archaic pages of the bible and attempt to apply our modern evaluations to what we find therein, especially since there are multilayered contexts to consider. (And this means that as you have a discussion with me, you need to cite your sources that contribute to your mode of evaluation...we're not just going to assume that our own private, personal opinion counts for all that much.)

I agreed to first define 'slavery', as you were pointing out I was blasting you with too much stuff at once. So I complied, and chose to define slavery first, before moving on. However, this is now the second response you've provided sense then, and still no definition of 'slavery', as it pertains to 'biblical slavery', forthcoming? I'm not looking to play 'gotcha' honestly I called truce with (you) the second I sent you a 'friendly' However, I am looking for intellectual honesty.

I can't guarantee how my future responses will be, until you provide them. I will try my best to follow civility, order, and to substantiate my position to the best of my ability. However, if I detect intellectual dishonesty, like I have with many before you; I cannot promise anything specific

'Ethics and morality,' from my perspective, kind of presents as a severe dichotomy, from my estimation. Meaning, they either derive from evolutionary means, or claimed theistic origins. So unfortunately, though this is not the "apologetics" forum, I ultimately asked if slavery is moral. You are a Christian, so ultimately, I would assume such a question is tied to Christian moral realism.

So I would very much appreciate your definition for 'slavery', as it specifically pertains to 'biblical slavery'? We can then move from there?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You cannot observe a thought Dogma. What they do is map brain states, from brain scans, to what a person says they are thinking about. That last part is a requirement, because you can't see thoughts unless you are the one thinking them. You also can't 'know what it's like to ...' from a brain scan. Correlation does not mean identity, and the law of identity, which I discussed earlier, shows they are not the same.

Nonetheless, you do see the brainactivity that produces the thoughts.

 

[Sanoy]

You, my friend, appear to represent the embodiment of all in which I used to represent. Meaning, when verses in the Bible appear man made/invented and/or 'jacked up,' set an unattainable standard for others to 'disprove'. I would shift the burden of proof, and try to get the skeptics to justify the their interpretation of such verses, or, randomly spin definitions in order to retain my indoctrinated position. This is exactly what I used to do to skeptics and non-believers, until I realized the verses appear to be written by individuals whom wanted to endorse slavery for their own selfish needs, and pass them off as God pronouncements.



Based upon the said passages, in regards to what the 'slave owner' appears condoned to inflict upon the 'slave', below seems to be the most befitting definitions:

slavery - 'the state of a person who is a chattel of another.' (this specific definition appears appropriate because the 'slave' is referred to as 'property'. Please also see:

Chattel slavery is what most people have in mind when they think of the kind of slavery that existed in the United States before the Civil War, and that existed legally throughout many parts of the world as far back as recorded history. Slaves were actual property who could be bought, sold, traded or inherited - Then compare such a definition with Exodus 21:20-21 and Leviticus 25:44-46

Chattel slavery, also called traditional slavery, is so named because people are treated as the chattel (personal property) of the owner and are bought and sold as commodities.

slavery - 'a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.' (this definition appears relevant again due to being owned forever, beaten at will, and kept for life. Again, this is if the 'slave' is NOT a JEW).



As I've stated many times now. Seems as though God would have provided a more universal method, as to not cause such confusion (with ever-changing, multiple, and also dying languages). Your request is absurd really. Anytime one does come across words used in the Bible which appear 'messed up' from their own moral tastes, they are then required to hunt down alternate language references, in hopes to make the word more palatable?

Again, wouldn't you think the MANY English translated versions of such versions would have done the very thing you are requesting of me? You don't think Bible translators are up on hermeneutics? How might one know if/when WHICH words and statements are to instead be critiqued with an ALTERNATE conclusion?

Again, this seems to more-so represent a failure on the original author, versus the reader. However, it is understandable you might request such a task from me, as it is so easy to point out how such scripture appears to dehumanize humans.

In conclusion, it's not that God/Yahweh did not have any hand in any of the Bible. However, based upon my observations, it would appear fairly clear God would not have assigned such verses, if this God claims to be a just God, in favor of humans.

Which one may only conclude, what other verses were not furnished by Yahweh?.?.?.?

Thanks

No, I am currently representing what you now manifest daily on the forums. That is the sophomoric demand for "proof" that is a common theme of your threads. The burden of proof for your OP is yours I suggest you bear it.

Your definition, which is from fightslaverynow.org, includes quite a lot more that you left out including the fact that it's involuntary. If you would like to use your own definition, you know the one you had in mind when you wrote the OP, rather than the one you just googled that would be great. Otherwise you take on the entire context of the definitions you are stealing. If you want to define it as property that would be just fine. I have no problem with voluntary servitude.

Your second definition, which you stole from wiki, also includes the following as the second sentence. "A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration". So if you are going to steal this definition you will have to bear the full weight of it also.

Next time do your own work, or at least credit the people you are stealing from, K? Thanks.

Your task still remains.

Define the word slavery being used, explain which distinction is being used, and prove why these verses refer to it.

Prove it ok?
Thanks.

 

[Sanoy]

Nonetheless, you do see the brainactivity that produces the thoughts.

Dogma if the brain activity "produces" the thought then the Brain Activity is logically not the thought.

 

[Sanoy]

Even if it's a tributary, it's forced labor. It just isn't a labor camp. The work they do farming, crafting, and trading is for the Israelites, and they don't want to. Their only option is to fight and probably die though, so many probably chose the lesser of two evils. Of course, the "terms of peace" offered could have been dishonest as well. The Israelites weren't above deception in warfare (and I'm not even saying that's wrong), but they could have lied to get them to open the gates and then forced them into submission.

Here you say this:

The law states a specific kind of involuntary slave, not all involuntary slaves in general. To expand a kidnapping victim to mean all involuntary slavery is adding to the verses.

That's exactly backwards. They made a specific distinction for Hebrew men. Why would they do that if they meant Hebrews and foreigners? If they meant everyone, they wouldn't have made the distinction. If, however, the status quo was that slaves were slaves for life, and you wanted to make a special rule just for Hebrew men, then you would write a law that specifically mentions them and excludes everyone else. When we also have a law that explicitly states that Hebrews and foreigners should be treated differently, then we have even more reason to believe that leaving after a period of time, as specifically described as applying to Hebrew males, only applied to Hebrew males.

For starters, He wouldn't condemn every roman law, since most of them overlap with Judeo-Christian values (no murder, no theft, etc). Second, I find it hard to believe that telling people not to own slaves would make someone an enemy of the state. Third, I find it really hard to believe that the Son of God, or God Himself, would have to worry about being an enemy of the state and put that concern before spreading an accurate, complete message about how to act.

Tell me this, if Jesus did become an enemy of the state, would Rome be able to stop Him from preaching before He was ready for the conclusion?

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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). I am not seeing an unbiased seeker here. What happened with your Christianity, what was your testimony as a believer, and what caused you to leave?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Dogma if the brain activity "produces" the thought then the Brain Activity is logically not the thought.

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).

 

[devolved]

Except that it is.
You can't have one without the other.
A thought does not exist independently from brain activity.

You seem to mistake methodological necessity of such assumption with actual reality behind such assumption.

Even is we assume methodological naturalism as an axiom, the problem is continuum of the process that you call "thought". It's a very long chain of processes of reality that do not begin or end with your brain before it results in "firing of neurons", which is more of a "transmission by accumulation and release" firing.

Thus, brain activity doesn't exist independent of the underlying reality that proceeds as a continuum of that process.

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

Sure, but in such you end up equivocating consciousness with neuron firing, and it doesn't really explain anything. It doesn't explain how you get the coherent mental image of reality that you observe solely from some electric activity that lights up in your brain.

The materialism axiom is that consciousness is the foam we get as a results of neural activity. But it doesn't explain the nature of consciousness anymore than saying the opposite - your neural activity that you observe subjectively is a foam on top of the activity of consciousness.

The puzzle IS in the fact that we see and aware of our thoughts and conscious experience of reality, instead of being merely robotic reflexive mechanisms that bounce around in reality as materialism suggests.

If all that our thought are is a collection of neural impulses firing... then you've got a methodological dead-end on your hands that's very difficult to get out of.

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).

The opposite can be said... that electrical firing of your display right now "produces" thoughts in your head as it transmits thoughts from mine.

Hence, how do you separate the continuum of this process in which thought is no longer a "thought"? That's essentially the problem of scientific reductionism. You end up reducing the whole that exists on certain continuum to a very narrow scope of observation that you scan, correlate and label... in scope of very narrow variables that you observe and modify.

BUT

Firing of neurons is a form of "pass-through" transmission and not a "generator process". Thus, your reading this sentence right now IS a function of a long continuum of a reality of "my thought" traversing time and space and results in yours.

It's not a process confined to your brain, and one could argue that it's not a process confined to a picture of reality painted by reductionist view of methodological materialism.

What is the product then? Is a thought a product of the brain, or a brain a product of the coninuum of the process that we would label thought? And brain is merely a mechanism that reacts, re-shapes and transmits the thought that exists as a reality beyond it.

My guess is that you have not really thought that far ahead (forgive the pun)

 

[devolved]

So I would very much appreciate your definition for 'slavery', as it specifically pertains to 'biblical slavery'? We can then move from there?

I'm not sure that we can move on from the position that you want this issue to be resolved.

Your question is about whether slavery is morally permissible, and you misunderstand that:

1) There are hierarchy of values that frame morality
2) These values end up clashing and competing depending on context of situation and environment


For example, we may think of a typical scenario you get in an ethics class, like you are a conductor of a train and you are approaching a fork in the railway, in which you would have a choice - to kill 10 people or to kill 1.

It may be a difficult choice to make, and most would choose 1 over 10.

Now, what if that 1 was a genius that would discover cure for cancer? What if one of the 10 was a serial killer who would eventually kill the 10 people on the left? What if the 10 people on the right were ended up being organ donors (after death) that prolonged the lives of 10 people who would ultimately prevented civil war?

Morality would be different in scope of our awareness of "ultimate consequences".

I, among other people here, presented you with plentiful contexts in which slavery would be morally ok in light of the competing network of moral values.

Biblical narrative doesn't explicitly prohibit slavery, BUT it frames values that override slavery as an ideal mode of treating people around you.

Equivalent would be : Yes, it is morally permissible to you punch other people if they are attacking you, but the entire context of the situation is not ideal. It's better to be in environment where people are not attacking you, and where you wouldn't need to punch anyone back.

BUT simply because punching someone is not ideal, you can't say that punching someone is inherently immoral. You are equivocating ideals and morality here. Morality is contextual. Ideals are principles that communicate preferred mode of being given appropriate prerequisites of circumstances.

Whether you propose that God said something or people merely recognize something as immoral doesn't change the above reality. As long as we have a hierarchy of values that would be limited by any given situation in reality... you will have moral choices to make when it comes to certain hierarchy of values that you would hold at any given moment.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agreed to first define 'slavery', as you were pointing out I was blasting you with too much stuff at once. So I complied, and chose to define slavery first, before moving on. However, this is now the second response you've provided sense then, and still no definition of 'slavery', as it pertains to 'biblical slavery', forthcoming? I'm not looking to play 'gotcha' honestly I called truce with (you) the second I sent you a 'friendly' However, I am looking for intellectual honesty.

I can't guarantee how my future responses will be, until you provide them. I will try my best to follow civility, order, and to substantiate my position to the best of my ability. However, if I detect intellectual dishonesty, like I have with many before you; I cannot promise anything specific

'Ethics and morality,' from my perspective, kind of presents as a severe dichotomy, from my estimation. Meaning, they either derive from evolutionary means, or claimed theistic origins. So unfortunately, though this is not the "apologetics" forum, I ultimately asked if slavery is moral. You are a Christian, so ultimately, I would assume such a question is tied to Christian moral realism.

So I would very much appreciate your definition for 'slavery', as it specifically pertains to 'biblical slavery'? We can then move from there?

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​

 

[cvanwey]

No, I am currently representing what you now manifest daily on the forums. That is the sophomoric demand for "proof" that is a common theme of your threads. The burden of proof for your OP is yours I suggest you bear it.

Your definition, which is from fightslaverynow.org, includes quite a lot more that you left out including including the fact that it's involuntary. If you would like to use your own definition, you know the one you had in mind when you wrote the OP, rather than the one you just googled that would be great. Otherwise you take on the entire context of the definitions you are stealing. If you want to define it as property that would be just fine. I have no problem with voluntary servitude.

Your second definition, which you stole from wiki, also includes the following as the second sentence. "A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration". So if you are going to steal this definition you will have to bear the full weight of it also.

Next time do your own work, or at least credit the people you are stealing from, K? Thanks.

Your task still remains.

Define the word slavery being used, explain which distinction is being used, and prove why these verses refer to it.

Prove it ok?
Thanks.

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