• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Is Slavery Moral?

Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by cvanwey, May 13, 2018.

  1. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,169
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I understand that you are saying there is no correlation, and that they are identical. I am saying that the concurrence of brain activity and thought experience are not indicative of identity. Being contingent does not indicate equal identity either. The law of identity can determine if they are the same, and they are not.

    The problem is I can no more disagree with you than I can a chemical reaction, neither have anything to do with formulating truth propositions. The problem is that you haven't thought about anything you are saying, you are absent of thought. This reductionist commitment to metaphysical naturalism is nothing short of self demolition.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2018
  2. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,169
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    The burden of your OP continues to be yours.

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

    Prove it ok? Thanks.

    Until then I will keep your chair warm for you, and wear your mantle as well as I can tolerate.
     
  3. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,169
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    What you said was a slogan in the broadest scope, not a finely crafted response. The statment covers all Roman laws, and it's intent is over any immoral law, there is no walking that back. You can recant your statement if you want, but don't act like it is something other than what was on your mind when you spoke it.

    This Chapter in Romans was part of my quiet time yesterday. Since you left me with no specifics I am left to wonder at the point you are trying to make, so I guess I will just tell you my thoughts from yesterday during my quiet time.

    This entire chapter is being used as an example to explain the state of Israels rejection. It is God who continually reveals and makes Himself known to mankind through His general revelation. It is His abiding presence and Spirit that calls and softens our hearts, and it is we who harden our hearts against His seeking presence to go after the desires of our own hearts, and so it is for their sake that He withdraws His presence which leads to a further hardening of the heart. This may be the patience and longsuffering shown to them for ones judgement is relative to the revelation of God they did receive and how they responded to it. (Matthew 10:15)

    Would you ever want to talk privately about your testimony and why you left Christianity?
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2018
  4. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private

    I do not agree. Exodus 21:1-11 speaks about 'servants', and never once uses the word 'slave'.

    Then verses 12-36, the topic changes to 'personal injuries', and no longer speaks about 'servants'. The verses instead mention general persons, parents, pregnant women, slaves, and bulls. In verses 20-21 specifically, then first speak about 'slaves' (while never referencing 'slaves' as 'servants'.)

    The instructions for 'servitude' stops at verse 11. From then on, the subject changes to other parties and individuals, whom are classified accordingly.

    It is crystal clear. Verses 20-21 speak about slaves, and not indentured servants.

    It is crystal clear. Verses 20-21 and speak of slaves as property and may be beaten, as long as they do not die within 48 hours.

    Later, in Leviticus 44-46, speaks about slaves, not servants again, coming from other locations (not Jews). They can be inherited to others and kept for life. The slaves are to be referred to as property for life. And then verse 46 specifically states if they are Jewish, to instead not rule over them as ruthlessly.
     
  5. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid A Crash Test Dummy's work is never done! Supporter

    +5,082
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Do you have any sources to cite which support the notion that Israelite and/or Jewish agents of law/jurisprudence, of any era, would interpret these verses in the same way in which you interpret these verses? Or did you come up with this purely on your own?
     
  6. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Would it even matter? Would you ask me how I translated a verse which we both saw as 'good'.? I doubt it. I've told others... Many English Bible versions exist, which are already translated. If the English translations cannot come up with a better interpretation (instead of 'slave', 'property', 'for life', 'beat', and 'inherit'), for Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25; and from a claimed perfect and God inspired text, why would you expect me too?

    Secondly, this is supposed to be the inerrant perfect word of God. One might think God would come up with a 'better' and more universal method, (verses) expecting many to re-re-interpret, re-re-analyze, or re-re-define words - (if they appear unappealing). Wouldn't God realize that languages die, change, and that it would already be re-translated into multiple languages? Again, this is not just any other stated/claimed historical text from antiquity. This is claimed to be a 'perfect written offering'. Therefore, it becomes preposterous to expect the same type of textual analysis, as all other admitted fallible human written texts, which also stem from oral tradition and growing legendary tales.

    So to recap...

    Exodus 21:1-11 speaks of Jewish indentured servants.
    Exodus 21:12-36 speaks of people, slaves, parents, pregnant women, and bulls.

    It is not until verse 20, that this book speaks of slaves, beating, and property. This has nothing to do with 'debtors' or 'servants'. This has to do with slaves. This is exactly how slaves are treated (referred to as property, kept for life, and beaten). Most would not kill their own purchased slaves, as the slave (or purchased working property) is there to work for the owner. Simply, the slaves are considered property (in which you can beat and keep for life, as long as you are not a Jew - according to the God inspired Bible).
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2018
  7. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,790
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    And I stand by it. Why in the world do you think I don't? I am honestly baffled by this accusation.

    I use the same rule for our talk about the OT, essentially. All it takes for something to be legal is for there to not be a law against it. They didn't write a law that said, "You may pick your nose" because it was legal to pick your nose.

    So when it says "He hardens whom He hardens" it really means "we harden ourselves"? Come on...
    In Jesus' case it wouldn't really take a "hardening of the heart" anyways. He can just make them think Jesus was no big deal. He could strike them blind if they did decide to arrest Him like He did for Lot's family. He could paralyze them like the soldiers outside of Jesus' tomb if they decided to arrest Him. Any attempt a Christian makes to excuse some thing that God or Jesus' didn't do because "God can't" really just seems like a lack of imagination to me. Nothing is impossible with Him, right? I know that sounds snotty and sarcastic, but I don't mean it that way. If nothing is impossible, then how can you tell me "God can't"? You really need to show me a good reason that God didn't want to.

    I'll talk about it publicly. I left out of apathy and disinterest. After coming back to see if I was missing something, albeit made more skeptical during my absence, I've found it harder to believe than ever. There isn't some deep emotional story about not getting a desperate prayer answered or anything like that.
     
  8. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,169
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    This statement "All it takes to condone something is to say and do nothing" accuses everyone of condoning anything that they fail to say or do anything about. It is a broad slogan, that is why it doesn't use a personal name, and uses "something" rather than a specific condition. It is very clear what it is. Now your intent is for the slogan to apply to Jesus, and over immoral law, that is obvious, but the semantics of that statement cover every single immoral law the Romans have. If Jesus didn't do or say something against it, He condoned it in via your moral slogan.

    No, that is not what I said, which you would know if it did not pain you to read such things. I said we harden our hearts against God by turning to our own desires, then God turns His general revelation and presence away from us hardening it further. The Bible very clearly shows that we also harden our hearts - Mat 19:8 to give an example. Your "what if" objection violates their conscious free will. There were two prophecies of the Messiah, one that came on a donkey that would die, and one that came on the clouds that would conquer. Jesus's mission did not include paralyzing Roman soldiers just because you fancy Him condemning all Roman law and paralyzing soldiers until Caesar submits, His mission was not to abide to your hardened heart, it was to rescue those who still heard His voice. God can't create square Circles, He can't do anything against His nature. There may be a million reasons why He chose the course He did, which you don't know, which you are in no position to know, and which you are in no position to debate like you know, because you don't. You cannot make a logical argument for this case, and if you think you just did then you grossly underestimate what is necessary for that. Not to mention you have no high ground to accuse anyone of anything, your moral landscape is an endless plane. Whatever moral high ground you imagine yourself to be upon is illusory, just fizz in your brain that tells you "you're doing great".

    What was your testimony that led you to turn your heart to Jesus and put your life in His hands? I don't want your redacted testimony from the present, I am asking for the testimony you would have given while you yet called yourself a Christian. If it was genuine, then don't try and weaken or mitigate it, as I will probably take notice.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2018
  9. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid A Crash Test Dummy's work is never done! Supporter

    +5,082
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Actually, I would. I assume that every verse of the Bible is open to various hermeneutical measures, and whether they are deemed to be artificially classified as either "good" or "bad," as you've put it, has little or nothing to do with the way in which any of us should apply various modes and aspects of Hermeneutics. And by this, I don't just mean "biblical hermeneutics," but rather Hermeneutics as a field of philosophy on the whole. (You did watch that little video I attached several posts back, didn't you? No?)

    I would expect you too because you have a good mind and I would assume, and kind of expect, that you'll use it in these matters. Besides, I've never gone in for all of this mumbo-jumbo which involves the misinterpretation/misapplication of verses in the Bible that comes from those who say that "all we need to do is read the Bible, and the Bible alone, for the Holy Spirit will do all of the interpretation (and thinking) for us." Yeah, I don't really think that's what the 'bible says.' No, we have a lot of academic work to do. Sorry buddy. I don't allow charismatically driven agendas to play trump cards in this discussion, and I don't care if those agendas are espoused by bible thumping Christians or by nihilistically driven skeptics. Surprisingly, I see both of them try to use this silly trump card so they don't have to apply their brains to learning anything outside the bible. Amazing that, isn't it?


    .......ok. You need to know right now that I don't give a rat's petoot about the concept of inerrancy. It's superfluous to the whole consideration of whether the bible is actually some form of revelation from God. Why? Because there are a whole host of factors to consider from outside the bible that actually will come to bear on whether or not any one of us, individually, will come to "see" the bible as somehow inspired of God and Jesus as worthy of our life-long attention, and no one verse in the Bible, all by its lonesome, will abrogate this imposition of outside factors, not even Proverbs 30:5, which itself is in need of interpretive measures like all other verses of the bible.


    Yeah, I think your interpretive approach is, shall I say, uninformed by Jewish measures. Here, maybe the following documents will be a good place to begin, ay? ;)

    May, Max. "Jewish criminal law and legal procedure." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1931-1951) 31.4 (1940): 438-447.

    Rosenberg, Irene, and Yale Rosenberg. "Comparative American and Talmudic Criminal Law." (2016).
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2018
  10. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,790
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    Uh huh... Now show me where I backed off from that by saying there was some immoral law He didn't need to mention.
    So what that it violates their free will? Pharaoh had a hardened heart to God before God did anything, fine. The story goes that he would have let the Israelites go sooner, but God didn't let him make that free choice. God violated his conscious free will to ensure His will was done.
    See, there you go again saying "all Roman law". It implies that there is some long laundry list of things Jesus needed to condemn or that Roman law specifically was what He was here to condemn. I'm saying if He was here, in at least some capacity to tell us specifically how to act, then He should have completely told us how to act regardless of how the Romans would feel about that, instead of leaving it to us to take 1000+ years to figure it out on our own.
    It isn't logically impossible nor is it against God's nature to perform miracles to control the course of human events. If you don't know why Jesus didn't condemn slavery, then say "I don't know". I don't have to prove that Jesus liked slavery through some logical argument. All I'm showing is that the reasons you have invented don't hold water.
    Ah, see? I knew that's what you were up to all along. This is exactly what I said I was suspicious of when you first asked me about my moral framework. You might have noticed that my responses in this post in particular have become a lot more snippy than usual, and that's thanks to this remark. I won't be walking that attitude back either. I don't need to prove that slavery is wrong. That isn't what we were discussing. We both agree slavery is wrong so how I come to that conclusion and how you come to that conclusion is irrelevant. We were discussing whether the Bible condemned it or not. Just as I suspected, you weren't asking about how I arrive at my morals to show me that they actually come from God, you just wanted to be able to claim yours are better in an attempt to dismiss an argument that we weren't having. If you had bothered to really endeavor to understand my position you would have found that it bases itself in an ultimately inexplicable metaphysical concept that is absolutely open to being caused by the divine. But instead, you chose to attack it, based on about a paragraph of a description, for your true ends to dismiss my argument that the Bible expressly allows for slavery. I'll learn to be less trusting of Christians in the future who ask me irrelevant questions about myself.
    My personal story, while not something I generally bother to hide, is not the topic of this thread and I don't want to see it used to some dishonest end to dismiss the argument we were having in a similar way that you have used questioning my moral framework, so I won't be answering questions of this nature anymore.
     
  11. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,169
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    You didn't back off specifics, you backed off of absolutes.

    I don't believe God violated his free will, nor is that implied by hardening his heart. As I told you it is God who opens our hearts to Him. It is He that reveals Himself to us without which our hearts are hardened. While His absence may be considered a conditional cause, that is not a violation of ones free will.

    Jesus went through a laundry list of of Jewish law with a fine toothed comb, do you think Roman law would have less to go through? It wouldn't. There would have been a lot of things, even things that would surprise us today, to avoid this fallacious and unreasonable condition of condoning whatever you do not mention.

    It is impossible to maintain free will while violating it. No one knows why something that didn't happen didn't happen. But the lack of condemnation does not indicate something is condoned. Nor are you in a position to judge God's decision. You have no foreknowledge, you know little of Roman History, nor do you know mens hearts.

    I was upfront with you when I asked your moral grounding and told you to decide based on the reasons I listed. One of the reasons I listed was to see if your reasoning is sound. You were hesitant because you knew your foundation is meaningless apart from what it means to you. Yet still you borrow the moral imperatives from God and live inconsistently with your claims by making moral judgements when you condemn Jesus for condoning slavery. So your moral grounding is relevant. It is also relevant in that the rejection of God undercuts ones moral relevance to moral statements and claims. Without a foundation ,claims are merely theoretical. It's fine if you're snippy, I don't take it personally, but I asked you to explain your moral position and you chose to give a limited answer. So it's unfair to accuse me of not trying to beat every once of detail from you. You throw blame at everyone for everything.

    You have not presented any argument that the Bible allows slavery in regards to the modern view. You have only quoted the English and made arguments from silence. If you had, we would be talking about that rather than side issues here. I certainly did not dismiss anything you said, but spent hours and hours of my time studying the text in multiple versions and languages, looking for Journals, and watching lectures to bare it out for your sake. I even said I would do it to your satisfaction. I even cried before God in the literal sense in my morning prayers today over you. So how dare you say I dismissed you. You have dismissed me and what I stand for while calling yourself a seeker. I have no interest in online sports, whatever I do here is done for you!

    PM me your testimony and no one will see it but us, you have nothing to lose if God is a lie. It's convenient for you to falsely call me dishonest, but that is not why you withhold your testimony, and both of us know that.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2018
  12. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,790
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    I did not. The only thing I said He didn't need to condemn are the things that aren't bad, so saying nothing doesn't apply there. "Condone" is only used in context of negative things because there would be nothing wrong with condoning good things.
    It does, by definition:

    condone
    [kuh n-dohn]
    1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like): The government condoned the computer hacking among rival corporations.
    You just don't like the negative connotations of the word because we both agree that overlooking bad things is bad.

    I was hesitant because I was pretty sure you were only asking so that you could do what you did and dismiss anything I've said about whether the Bible allows for slavery by attacking my moral foundation. I wasn't debating with you on whether or not slavery was immoral, I was debating with you on whether the Bible allowed it. One is a moral discussion, one is not, that is why it is irrelevant. If my moral reasoning is off you could say, "Who are you to say that slavery is wrong?", but I haven't made that argument with you, so your dismissal is a weak attempt to escape an argument that you have lost. Your desperation towards the end of our discussion led you to resort to conflating the two so that you could dismiss everything I've said out of hand. My reasons for thinking slavery is wrong are different from my reasons for thinking the Bible allowed it, but you can't allow that distinction because it takes all the wind out of the defeater argument you think you have that is, in actuality, garbage.

    That you thought my limited answer was enough to make claims about it is telling. You believe your moral framework is one way, so clearly even things you know little about must be the opposite way. Face it, you only asked me about my morals because you have a pre-scripted response of "only objective morality comes from God". So without asking a single question for clarity or detail you jumped right into imagining things to try and undermine something that you knew next to nothing about.

    I only "blame" the OT law and Jesus for allowing slavery in a pragmatic sense. The Bible is, at least in part, there to tell people how to act. And if it's important to act in a certain way, then it should describe that way accurately and fully because clearly we don't figure things out on our own very quickly at all. I do blame you, however, for doing one of two simple things I asked you not to do. You told me you were only doing something else, and that was false, just as I predicted all along.

    All it takes for something to be legal is for there to not be a law against it. There is no law against involuntary, permanent servitude except in specific examples which the OT made the distinctions very clear. You can beat your slaves, you can even breed your slaves, in the sense that you can give a slave a wife and you get to keep his kids, and they even made the distinction to treat Israelites better than foreigners. It's not quite a racist policy, more like nationalist, but it's pretty darn close to how we eventually made only blacks slaves here in America. Rome was more egalitarian about it than them.

    There's no law against rape either. It's absolutely laughable that you think a passage describing how soldiers are to deal with their POW wives who, in the context of the distant cites we were discussing, which listed these humans off with the rest of the "plunder" and "spoils of war", just witnessed those same soldiers slaughter their husbands, fathers, sons, and brothers, is "anti-rape legislation". Marrying someone doesn't make it not rape anymore. The idea that these women who witnessed that went willingly into a marriage bed with those soldiers other than at the end of a sword is ridiculous. Those women were sex slaves, and that's worse.

    LOL! You're the only one I'm bothering to keep it from! Why in the world would I PM you? And now you're calling me the liar. There's no sense continuing our discussion about what the Bible allows and condones now that you think you've got this ace up your sleeve about my morals that's entirely irrelevant to the conversation we were actually having. And I'm certainly not going to bother continuing our conversation on morals that you'll simply use as an attack against unrelated arguments. But you go ahead and keep telling yourself you've comported yourself in a completely honest manner. Whatever helps you sleep at night. We're done here.
     
  13. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,169
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I made the statement "By saying Jesus should have condemned every Roman law that is even partly immoral you are making Him an enemy of the state" To which you replied "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..." So yes you are walking back the absolute nature of your prior statement.

    That definition is in the context of authority. Jesus is not in authority over any but Israel, as Israel was Yahwehs portion. This is why Psalm 82 ends with Jesus taking the nations back, and what the Messiah coming on the clouds is about. Do you remember who the god of this world is? That is who has authority in Rome, and why it was offered to Jesus by the adversary in the wilderness.

    You were hesitant about having everything you said dismissed because it should be given your moral grounding. That was the correct fear to have. You have 0 interest in regards to whether the Bible taught modern slavery apart from your moral motivations. Would you be in a thread about Israeli grooming practices? Of course not, you are here because of moral motivations and they are a part of your decisions. And you are making moral judgements so you qualify yourself for scrutiny. Desperation? against what? What have your provided but arguments for silence and what if's? Am I desperate against your moral foundation? The only desperation I see is this attempt to pull ones moral foundation out of the fire.

    When someone asks you your position you should give it clearly, don't blame them if they take you at your word. I gave you both reasons for why I was asking for your moral foundation before you gave it. You knew what you were getting into so you have no one to blame but yourself. You know your foundation is worthless, you know it is not refined and would require you to construct it from google. You sound absolutely terrified of having it see the light of day, and you should be, and you should be embarrassed by it as well.

    Slavery is very pragmatic, so are you blaming them for not making slaves? If you want to win at natural selection slavery is the way to go. Not owning slaves is just moral brain fizz that should be replaced by behavior that passes on your genes. We should all follow the Messiah of naturalism, Genghis Khan, the fittest man of all, not that other Messiah that thinks you should love your neighbor as yourself.

    Actually it was I who predicted how I would use your moral foundation remember? It wasn't you. Your prediction was that it isn't an attempt to hand wave away my opinion and that you'll continue to discuss what the Bible says about slavery. I continually responded to all your opinions via textual, historical, and contextual study. If you recall my predictions were...
    1. I want to go beyond talking about these verses and show you that your moral intuitions are coming from God.
    2. I want to make sure that your reasoning is sound in regards to your disagreement with these verses. So that is the truth of it, and I'll leave it to you to decide.
    So please, blame me and call me dishonest for presenting my reasons before hand and continue acting like you predicted anything.

    All it takes for something to be legal is for there to not be a law against it. That is great if you are talking about a modern formal law code. We are not, we are looking at collection of law whose content is 3,000 years out of modern context. It has to be understood as a whole not singular law statements. The master has the kids because the master paid for the wife who has to take care of the kids, it's not permanent per the rest of the law code. Do you spend anytime at all trying to understand what you are reading? Israel is only treated differently in that they are not to be considered full servants. Unlike the rest of the ANE the law was the same for every person, race, or status (with provisions for the poor). There are even commands to treat your neighbor as yourself, and treat your enemy well and honorably, like returning his ox.

    It does include antirape legislation. It was the practice in the ANE and even in modern times to rape the women when you conquered a city. And the women would even dress in mind to that because any soldier not fighting is vulnerable and could save the city as a whole. This command is to prevent that. Through marriage it is also aimed at integrating these POW's into Israel as these women retain their original seductive clothes. There is no mention of the POW being forced into marriage. The word used is not the word used for rape in Hebrew, it is a unique and singular formation which describes the condition of distress from which the marriage is formed. As to the women she may go free in divorce. If her child is the first born her son inherits the fathers wealth. As for her she is given different clothes and made to be ugly for a month. Her head is completely shaven, possibly her eyebrows too so that the man does not marry her out of lust but out of love. Show me that in the ANE. But here you act as if there is something wrong with rape? Is there Nicholas? Tell me, on your system, why rape is truly wrong? Doesn't natural selection favor those that pass on their genes? And don't think you can shimmy out of this as if you are just making a theoretical analysis. You give yourself away right here "Those women were sex slaves, and that's worse." So your moral grounding is very much in the ring here. It's time to deal with it, if you can, no more sniping from afar, you are in this now.

    Why is giving me your testimony as you would have given it as a Christian so difficult for you? Am I to believe you have given others your testimony here, as if you were still a christian? I highly doubt it, you may have given the post redacted version but not the real version I asked for, the only version that matters. And why wouldn't you want to tell me how wrong your were to become a Christian, do you now hate me because I point at your feet and say you cannot stand? Or do you now hate me because you cannot accuse God? I gave given you far more than you have returned, dedicating hours and hours of my time in research for the sake of your life and you treat me with contempt for it.

    So now that your moral grounding is in the ring you are going to run? I cannot blame you if you do. If that was my grounding I would be utterly defenseless and have no other choice but to leave or change my worldview.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2018
  14. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,790
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    Oh, I'm not afraid of discussing it. I discussed it at length in the Apologetics section for all the world to see, ironically in a thread that it was completely off topic, but that's only because the OP and I are chums ("Creation and Causality" I believe the thread was called, if anyone's interested). I was actually trying to get an atheist, someone who would be predisposed to liking my theory, tear it apart.

    I just don't appreciate having my time wasted because you think how we arrive at the same conclusion about a moral has some implication on how I read a book. Since you're convinced for bad reasons that it does, this discussion is over, but I'm not putting you on ignore or refusing to discuss things with you in the future. I'll even discuss my system for morality with you should a situation arise that it is actually relevant.
     
  15. Sanoy

    Sanoy Well-Known Member

    +1,169
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Till next time then. I will look for your testimony there, and may respond if it makes sense to do so and does not necro. (I searched the thread and did not find it)

    Peace be with you.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2018
  16. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I'm afraid we are in vast and wide disagreement moving forward. Based upon this response, I honestly do not know how we might proceed?

    If one is to refer to a claimed divine and holy instructional book, there should seem to not require such re-interpretation, re-definition, re-translation, etc...

    As stated, if the book is from God, then it should be fairly universal, and written in a way in which does not change meaning, as time marches forward. However, if it is a 'human only' written book, (written just like any other text) thousands of years ago, then yes. The Bible is supposed to be the be-all-end-all publication, inspired from the perfect creator.

    If you do not care if the text is inerrant or not, then this again honestly raises too many questions in direction, in which will cause this thread to go way off topic very quickly. You are then readily admitting to 'pick and choose' what it literal, what is allegorical, what is paraphrased, what is not to be taken literally, etc.. It becomes open season for whatever interpretation one might wish to choose, with no standard in one's conclusion.

    Again, we are speaking about many English versions, which all choose the words "slave', 'property', 'beat', 'inherit', 'for life', etc...

    Right off the bat, I see no alternative spin or translation which one could account for a human owning another human for life, which may be beaten just short of death, and to be considered property for life. This again, has absolutely nothing to do with 'indentured servants.' And thus again, is not talking about Jews.

    I would also assume God would care to convey such messages to the globe, and not just create special conditions for one specific race. Furthermore, one cannot cry a 'covenant' approach, because Jesus never denounced slavery in any way, but instead only re-affirmed slavery.

    You seem like a well-read and intelligent fellow. However, if I'm going to be quite honest, I'm seeing quite a bit of 'intellectual dishonesty" in such a response.. :( I'm not calling you a liar. Far from it. However, from 'my' perception, it's really no different than the Muslims I have spoken with, which 'justify' assertions, laws, and events from their beloved and believed holy Qur'an. They may believe it, and present measures to 'justify' them. However, such measures do not appear to align, or be consistent, with the rest of their known reality.

    Peace
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2018
  17. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid A Crash Test Dummy's work is never done! Supporter

    +5,082
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    ....I guess since you're apparently the Jewish and Hebrew language scholar, you can school me on all that we need to know here at CF so that we can all drop our faith like a boiling pot of chicken soup. That's how we'll proceed.

    Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, I've given you the initial considerations by which to better interpret these passages, and I'm under the impression you haven't lifted a single finger to look at any of them, and you'll excuse yourself from having to do so. So, with that, that's where we're at with the supposed issue of foreign slavery as you've extrapolated it for yourself from Exodus and Leviticus ...

    :cool:
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  18. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Thanks for assuming that I'm lazy, because I do not agree with you. You can believe whatever you wish. However, I have come to no other conclusion, than to employ special pleading, when reading many verses in the Bible. As stated, other religions do it every bit as much as Christians. And I'm quite sure you have been in contact with them as well.

    I have actually researched many topics, in extensive detail, over the past two years (as soon as I decided to actually research such claims, and not just blindly follow asserted authority). Making your statements about me, 2 years ago, might have been fairly on point (i.e.) 'not lifting a finger'. But not as of late. Giving me a reference, and telling me I need to read it, does not then vindicate the conclusion of the cited verses. I do not wish to repeat my perspective, yet again. I feel I have conveyed my position quite clearly. If you do not agree, fine.

    Again, the Bible mentions that if you are not a Jew, one can be slaves for life, beaten with virtually no restrictions, property for life, etc; and merits no additional ad hoc interpretations. Such provocations require no additional research to 'justify.' It's pretty much in your face. It's pretty much the axiomatic conclusion. If you are not a Jew, you can be kept for life, property for life, beaten for life. Again, not being an 'indentured servant', under any classical definition...

    Thanks
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2018
  19. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid A Crash Test Dummy's work is never done! Supporter

    +5,082
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    You're going to have to explain to me specifically, from the original Hebrew texts, how and why you link these passages up like a train of railway cars. As far as I'm concerned, Exodus 21:20-21 isn't specifically referring to foreign slaves, but if you "know better," please enlighten me. Furthermore, as to the passage in Leviticus, I see no reason that if a life-time slave who was not previously a convert to the Israelite faith and culture (i.e. a foreigner) decided to become circumcised as convert (as in the case of a male), or a female who becomes either married to an Israelite master or to a converted slave, wouldn't have some opportunity to be manumitted at some point as per the requirements for Hebrew slaves. But again, you must know better than the rest of us.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2018
  20. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I'm not sure if you read my last several responses, or if maybe you are misunderstanding my responses, or other? I feel as though I stated the exact same thing many times now. But then, for some reason, receive answers which do not address my replies? So let me re-iterate it again one more time, hopefully with crystal clear clarity.

    Exodus 21:1-11 speaks of 'Hebrew servants'. Okay, great. If a Jew 'opts' to reach an agreement to be as such for 6-7 years, fine... (even though there is a life-time loop hole clause attached for providing the servant with a family).

    Exodus 21:12-36, however, no longer speaks about such a topic, and changes the subject, (i.e.) 'Personal Injuries', as they pertain to general 'persons', 'parents', 'slaves', 'pregnant women', and 'bulls'.

    So to recap... Exodus 21:1-11 speaks of 'Hebrew servants', not 'slaves' (they are different). It is not until Exodus 21:20, and beyond, where the Bible speaks about 'slaves' in this chapter.

    There are clearly differing rules, pertaining to clearly differing scenarios, between 'Jewish servants' and 'slaves'.

    Your response makes little sense... The vast majority of American Bible readers are not fluent in Aramaic or Greek, and would not even know to study accordingly. So you honestly think all American translators are doing a poor job at appropriate translation, and/or are deliberately misleading English speakers? You honestly think that because I stop at an English translated version, I'm doing it wrong? Furthermore, many American translations, I would only assume, aspired to reach the best translation possible (i.e.) NIV, KJV, etc.... And yet, you are still asking me to come up with my justification, as to why the Bible actually references non-Jewish slaves as being kept for life, referred to non-Jewish slaves as property for life, and beating them just short of death in two days for life? I'm truly vexed?


    You appear to be attempting to switch the burden of proof. I'm afraid the burden of proof actually rests entirely upon you. I read the Bible verses as axiomatic. They appear very clear and straight forward. When one reads such verses, they read as follows:

    - If you are not a Jew, one is condoned to be a life time slave
    - If you are not a Jew, one is condoned to be property for life
    - If you are not a Jew, one can be beaten for life.
    - If you are not a Jew, one can be inherited as property

    Please demonstrate my mistake, and how you objectively know this? So ultimately, I choose to adhere to the verses in the Bible themselves, and choose to adhere to the sought-after translated versions in which all English versions use. And yes, each translation uses some differing words for these verses. However, they ALL convey the very same over all message, in regards to slavery, property, beating, and for life.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2018
Loading...