While I empathize with the epistemological quandry you feel is implied in all of this, it doesn't matter what you think about voluntarism/involuntarism in this instance since we are assessing the overall text of the Torah's narrative and embedded Law. The text (of the Torah) implies that foreigners of various kinds were indeed MAKING choices to either agreeably live among the Israelites and live by their Law or to indeed even convert and join them.
Yeah, on second thought, a human lifetime of misery being dispersed to the majority of all humans for the majority of humanity's era of civilization does not merit consideration.
They should have fully converted to the faith of the Israelites and then they could have had an opportunity to find freedom among the Jewish brethren of the state (which is seemingly implied in Isaiah 56 as one of the griping points of the prophet toward Israel in their spiritual and social failures). If the slaves persist in their own alternative (Canaanite?) religious beliefs, they'll find themselves under the rod for a very, very long time. If we take the texts in wholesale fashion, should the Israelites have respected the Canaanite beliefs? I think not.
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but you wouldn't convert to Islam even at gunpoint. So it's not a stretch to think you wouldn't convert to their religion if one of them was your master. Why, then, you think the exact same thing should happen is beyond me.
While I empathize with the epistemological quandry you feel is implied in all of this, it doesn't matter what you think about voluntarism/involuntarism in this instance since we are assessing the overall text of the Torah's narrative and embedded Law. The text (of the Torah) implies that foreigners of various kinds were indeed MAKING choices to either agreeably live among the Israelites and live by their Law or to indeed even convert and join them.
Guff. I can no more choose to suddenly believe in your (or anyone else’s) god than the Canaanites could in the god of the Jews.
And whether or not they could pretend to believe in their god, the situation remained that they were foreigners in that land. They could, according to the law, still be purchased as slaves under those conditions. Being a Jew was not only a matter of religious fealty...
Ah. The simplicity of a simple view (i.e. theirs, not mine). The truth is, I'm not actually "dodging." Rather, I'm refusing to engage further when there's simply no reciprocation. It's not up to me to do all of the heavy lifting around here; no, in my view it's a joint effort. So, no "lifty, lifty" on the part of others, no excessive "lifty, lifty" on my part, either-----supposed burden(s) of proof not withstanding.
So, I'll just stand by my existing, as yet un-explicated assertion in response to the OP: in a sinful world such as ours, SOME forms of slavery (or servitude generally speaking), at least, may be moral, given the right social constraints, perhaps even qualifiably preferable. (Ew! Eek! Shock of shocks! How could 2PhiloVoid say such a thing? Quick everyone, make a hasty conclusion about why he's said this!!!!)
.....all of CF falls over in a mass faint.
In all honesty, let's put it another way: I'm not going to willingly support or willingly subsidize an otherwise Benthamite social/legal/penal philosophy. And in words reminiscent of those from that MAD but illustrious brother in Christ of mine, @AV1611VET, "Jeremy Bentham can take a hike!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
There really is no 'heavy lifting' required. The Bible states:
- slaves for life
- property for life
- beating for life
- inherited for life
This would not fall under 'indentured servitude' (under any rational definition). No one in their right mind would 'volunteer' for such life time arrangements.
Learning other language translations and Hermeneutics is not going to change anything, regarding such above pronouncements (via 'for life')
It appears fairly obvious that one of two conclusions prevail:
1) God is 'a okay' with slavery for life - (which defies claims of being loving, equal, and just).
(or)
2) Humans wrote such verses and passed them off as being 'instructed by God' to make it appear authoritative.
I elect for option 2).
Which then begs the next question... What else is NOT 'God inspired', and how might one assess?
Yeah, on second thought, a human lifetime of misery being dispersed to the majority of all humans for the majority of humanity's era of civilization does not merit consideration.
What are you talking about and how does this address what I was specifically delineating above about how I think a more biblical model of slavery could be a moral option for contending with criminal containment? But you're suddenly talking about worldwide slavery and whatnot. I'm not following you here since you're coloring outside the lines that I've delineated thus far.
OF COURSE it's not in humanities' best interest to run slavery as some kind of general application for the entire world at all times and in all ways for every social situation involving "others" --- as they used to do in 'yesteryear.' Duh! No one is saying that here.
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but you wouldn't convert to Islam even at gunpoint. So it's not a stretch to think you wouldn't convert to their religion if one of them was your master. Why, then, you think the exact same thing should happen is beyond me.
I don't know about that. IS Islam morally superior to Christianity? Does Islam indeed have ethical qualities that provide more social stability than my present religion does for me (and thereby draw me in through its aesthetic appeal?)
Additionally, any SANE person can compare the mode of living of the Ancient Israelites to their neighbors in Canaan and see that Israel had a 'cleaner,' more moral society [...if they obeyed the Law], and this was the case because of two things: 1) it provided harsher measures for what was decidedly a wider array of cited social dysfunctions [...like barbecuing one's own children, for instance], and yet 2) it required more instances of social beneficence and care to be meted for other people, even for foreign born people. [And don't try to change tracks here and pull in the alleged "genocides" that Israel supposedly promulgated. If you want to go there, I've already dealt with that in another thread here in the Ethics section. Go find it.]
I don't know. Obviously, as a Christian on this side of the New Covenant, I think Christians are supposed to fulfill the Law in and through the person and model of Christ, which actually means going above and beyond the typical requirements for caring about others that even the Israelites had to adhere to. [And I think it can be argued that on a Christian level alone, Christianity implies the advocation of freedom, of both a spiritual and political nature, so even though more can obviously be said about the potentiality of freedom for humanity, at the very least, we can realize that owning another Christian person as "property," or treating them harshly and as a mere form of chattel, isn't really an option at all.]
Moreover, from what Paul Copan states, it's not so clear that the verses in question--by which I'm assuming you're alluding to Exodus 21:20-21---actually express the concept of "property" as we would so conceive of it today. (Copan, p. 136). From what Copan relates, the Hebrew language and the overall context of the passage imply that the "slave" in these verses represented an "investment" into which the slave/servant placed himself. If you disagree, that's fine, and I'm willing to hear you out. But in that case, do you have sources that say otherwise? And if so, bring them out for us to consider.
Copan, Paul. (2011). Is God a moral monster? Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Guff. I can no more choose to suddenly believe in your (or anyone else’s) god than the Canaanites could in the god of the Jews.
And whether or not they could pretend to believe in their god, the situation remained that they were foreigners in that land. They could, according to the law, still be purchased as slaves under those conditions. Being a Jew was not only a matter of religious fealty...
Well, when it comes to biblical epistemology, all that you've just said can basically be tossed out the window since a Supreme God is assumed to be involved to some extent. Surely you recognize this ontological and epistemological possibility within a world that may have an actual God in it.
However, if there is no God, then sure, I can agree with you that we all may default in one way or another to Kantian limitations where we face a kind of forced agnosticism about metaphysics and/or theology.
There really is no 'heavy lifting' required. The Bible states:
- slaves for life
- property for life
- beating for life
- inherited for life
This would not fall under 'indentured servitude' (under any rational definition). No one in their right mind would 'volunteer' for such life time arrangements.
Learning other language translations and Hermeneutics is not going to change anything, regarding such above pronouncements (via 'for life')
It appears fairly obvious that one of two conclusions prevail:
1) God is 'a okay' with slavery for life - (which defies claims of being loving, equal, and just).
(or)
2) Humans wrote such verses and passed them off as being 'instructed by God' to make it appear authoritative.
I elect for option 2).
Which then begs the next question... What else is NOT 'God inspired', and how might one assess?
This is a rehash of all that you've said before, and since you're not apparently willing to "lift a finger," I'm just going to refer back to the fact that you yourself admitted that you and I are at an impasse since we have just way too many disagreements on .... just about everything regarding methodology and our respective modes of deliberation.
If you can't peruse, glean, cite, and then contend with the materials that I've cited in above posts, then we're at a stand still. If I see no "lifty, lifty" on your part, there'll be no "lifty, lifty" on my part. It's really NOT up to me to do all of the work here. You don't apparently wish to even challenge your own present understanding of things, and it shows that you're a bit lazy. If I were still a teacher, and you were a student in one of my classes.....you would flunk. In fact, it's attitudes like yours (which seem to be prevalent in the population) that motivated me to forget about wanting to ever be a teacher in a mainstream capacity ..... if you don't have the motivation to learn, then there's little for me to address since an obstinate and unmotivated stance on the part of one person---such as yourself in this instance---typically precludes another person---such as myself---from having any meaningful, more expansive, or even educational, interlocution with that first person.
What are you talking about and how does this address what I was specifically delineating above about how I think a more biblical model of slavery could be a moral option for contending with criminal containment? But you're suddenly talking about worldwide slavery and whatnot. I'm not following you here since you're coloring outside the lines that I've delineated thus far.
Apologies. Seems I've butted in without having read everything that was said.
OF COURSE it's not in humanities' best interest to run slavery as some kind of general application for the entire world at all times and in all ways for every social situation involving "others" --- as they used to do in 'yesteryear.' Duh! No one is saying that here.
OK... but the Bible says it. You renounce that part of the Bible, then?
I don't know about that. IS Islam morally superior to Christianity? Does Islam indeed have ethical qualities that provide more social stability than my present religion does for me (and thereby draw me in through its aesthetic appeal?)
Islam is probably the most disgusting thing on this planet. But Islam didn't exist at the time here, and the Israelis did wage war on villages without provocation. That's a very Muslim thing to do. And then you think it's reasonable that a prisoner of war, who will never see his family again because they're either dead or enslaved elsewhere, will choose to mutilate his penis and join the culture that had destroyed his life.
Additionally, any SANE person can compare the mode of living of the Ancient Israelites to their neighbors in Canaan and see that Israel had a 'cleaner,' more moral society [...if they obeyed the Law],
and this was the case because of two things: 1) it provided harsher measures for what was decidedly a wider array of cited social dysfunctions [...like barbecuing one's own children, for instance],
Where does it say you can't sacrifice another persons' child? I must've missed that part. Numbers 31 is a great read if you think the Israelites were morally superior to their neighbors.
and yet 2) it required more instances of social beneficence and care to be meted for other people, even for foreign born people.
Foreign people of importance, sure. But foreign peasants were... oh no... it's happening...
- slaves for life
- property for life
- beating for life
- inherited for life
If an ambassador from an African country visited the white house in early America, and he was treated with dignity and respect, would that be evidence that early America treated Africans with dignity and respect?
[And don't try to change tracks here and pull in the alleged "genocides" that Israel supposedly promulgated. If you want to go there, I've already dealt with that in another thread here in the Ethics section. Go find it.]
Well, you got me there. The genocides never actually did happen. Nothing in Joshua actually happened, including the existence of Joshua. When the Jews got to Jericho, for example, it was already rubble. They scavenged it.
But if what you're really talking about is the words on the paper, then yes there were genocides, plain and simple, and not just "alleged" genocides.
And I don't see the point in hunting for some old thread of yours just to see you tap dance. You're already doing a great job of that right now. Here, I'll put 50 shekel in your hat. Now go buy yourself a virgin and her.
I don't know. Obviously, as a Christian on this side of the New Covenant, I think Christians are supposed to fulfill the Law in and through the person and model of Christ, which actually means going above and beyond the typical requirements for caring about others that even the Israelites had to adhere to. [And I think it can be argued that on a Christian level alone, Christianity implies the advocation of freedom, of both a spiritual and political nature,
so even though more can obviously be said about the potentiality of freedom for humanity, at the very least, we can realize that owning another Christian person as "property," or treating them harshly and as a mere form of chattel, isn't really an option at all.]
I'm glad you feel that way about slavery. Perhaps at some point you'll be interested in where you got that idea. Because it surely wasn't from the Bible.
Moreover, from what Paul Copan states, it's not so clear that the verses in question--by which I'm assuming you're alluding to Exodus 21:20-21---actually express the concept of "property" as we would so conceive of it today. (Copan, p. 136). From what Copan relates, the Hebrew language and the overall context of the passage imply that the "slave" in these verses represented an "investment" into which the slave/servant placed himself. If you disagree, that's fine, and I'm willing to hear you out. But in that case, do you have sources that say otherwise? And if so, bring them out for us to consider.
Copan, Paul. (2011). Is God a moral monster? Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Apologies. Seems I've butted in without having read everything that was said.
OK... but the Bible says it. You renounce that part of the Bible, then?
Islam is probably the most disgusting thing on this planet. But Islam didn't exist at the time here, and the Israelis did wage war on villages without provocation. That's a very Muslim thing to do. And then you think it's reasonable that a prisoner of war, who will never see his family again because they're either dead or enslaved elsewhere, will choose to mutilate his penis and join the culture that had destroyed his life.
What a bizarre thing to say.
Where does it say you can't sacrifice another persons' child? I must've missed that part. Numbers 31 is a great read if you think the Israelites were morally superior to their neighbors.
Foreign people of importance, sure. But foreign peasants were... oh no... it's happening...
- slaves for life
- property for life
- beating for life
- inherited for life
If an ambassador from an African country visited the white house in early America, and he was treated with dignity and respect, would that be evidence that early America treated Africans with dignity and respect?
Well, you got me there. The genocides never actually did happen. Nothing in Joshua actually happened, including the existence of Joshua. When the Jews got to Jericho, for example, it was already rubble. They scavenged it.
But if what you're really talking about is the words on the paper, then yes there were genocides, plain and simple, and not just "alleged" genocides.
And I don't see the point in hunting for some old thread of yours just to see you tap dance. You're already doing a great job of that right now. Here, I'll put 50 shekel in your hat. Now go buy yourself a virgin and her.
Slaves, obey your masters.
I'm glad you feel that way about slavery. Perhaps at some point you'll be interested in where you got that idea. Because it surely wasn't from the Bible.
Lol, a book by a Christian arguing that the Bible doesn't say what it plainly says. How novel.
This is a rehash of all that you've said before, and since you're not apparently willing to "lift a finger," I'm just going to refer back to the fact that you yourself admitted that you and I are at an impasse since we have just way too many disagreements on .... just about everything regarding methodology and our respective modes of deliberation.
If you can't peruse, glean, cite, and then contend with the materials that I've cited in above posts, then we're at a stand still. If I see no "lifty, lifty" on your part, there'll be no "lifty, lifty" on my part. It's really NOT up to me to do all of the work here. You don't apparently wish to even challenge your own present understanding of things, and it shows that you're a bit lazy. If I were still a teacher, and you were a student in one of my classes.....you would flunk. In fact, it's attitudes like yours (which seem to be prevalent in the population) that motivated me to forget about wanting to ever be a teacher in a mainstream capacity ..... if you don't have the motivation to learn, then there's little for me to address since an obstinate and unmotivated stance on the part of one person---such as yourself in this instance---typically precludes another person---such as myself---from having any meaningful, more expansive, or even educational, interlocution with that first person.
Apologies. Seems I've butted in without having read everything that was said.
OK... but the Bible says it. You renounce that part of the Bible, then?
Islam is probably the most disgusting thing on this planet. But Islam didn't exist at the time here, and the Israelis did wage war on villages without provocation. That's a very Muslim thing to do. And then you think it's reasonable that a prisoner of war, who will never see his family again because they're either dead or enslaved elsewhere, will choose to mutilate his penis and join the culture that had destroyed his life.
What a bizarre thing to say.
Where does it say you can't sacrifice another persons' child? I must've missed that part. Numbers 31 is a great read if you think the Israelites were morally superior to their neighbors.
Foreign people of importance, sure. But foreign peasants were... oh no... it's happening...
- slaves for life
- property for life
- beating for life
- inherited for life
If an ambassador from an African country visited the white house in early America, and he was treated with dignity and respect, would that be evidence that early America treated Africans with dignity and respect?
Well, you got me there. The genocides never actually did happen. Nothing in Joshua actually happened, including the existence of Joshua. When the Jews got to Jericho, for example, it was already rubble. They scavenged it.
But if what you're really talking about is the words on the paper, then yes there were genocides, plain and simple, and not just "alleged" genocides.
And I don't see the point in hunting for some old thread of yours just to see you tap dance. You're already doing a great job of that right now. Here, I'll put 50 shekel in your hat. Now go buy yourself a virgin and her.
Slaves, obey your masters.
I'm glad you feel that way about slavery. Perhaps at some point you'll be interested in where you got that idea. Because it surely wasn't from the Bible.
Lol, a book by a Christian arguing that the Bible doesn't say what it plainly says. How novel.
I see that Sam Harris is your train conductor......... yes, yes, I laugh at his simplicity! If only reality, or even the Bible, were really simple in nature.
...and we'll just compare this with.....my approach (below), and everyone can make up their own minds here as to the extent that your singular train track approach misrepresents mine.
No, it's more like there's only so many hours of remedial assistance, even given from within a Constructivist or semi-constructive mode, that any one teacher can offer to any one student in any given time of a standard semester. Sometimes, no amount of help, however large, will help that student over the hurdle and onto a path of understanding.
No, it's more like there's only so many hours of remedial assistance, even given from within a Constructivist or semi-constructive mode, that any one teacher can offer to any one student in any given time of a standard semester. Sometimes, no amount of help, however large, will help that student over the hurdle and onto a path of understanding.
If US government says that abortion is legal, does it mean that it endorses and advocates abortion as something that women should be doing, or that abortion is moral?
Heavy lifting. Hmmmm. Yeah. No hair on the side of your head, no shellfish... these things are obviously immoral. But slavery... that's a tricky one, isn't it?
If there is a God, and especially the Christian one, unlike humans, it would likely be a holistic consequentialist... something that would be very difficult for us to be in our limited awareness.
Hence, in context of "the best for all" in terms of still having a conscious experience and not robotic execution, then holistic consequentialism approach would certainly follow through some peeks and valleys of totality of human experience.
This tread attempts to imply that God must do X to be moral, but that would not be the case if God is acting in context of "best possible outcomes" in terms of broader understanding of outcomes for entirety of humanity.
If there is no God, or a Christian God... then this conversation is utterly pointless.
From a certain point of view, I can very much appreciate your stubbornness. I didn't give up on students either for the short time I was teaching, but for yourself as a long time teacher, surely you've had to realize at times that with some students a reality check comes into play at some point.
From my experience, I went out of my way, and beyond, to provide help to students----sometimes almost spoon feed students----to do what most of the other students would, could or were willing to do to achieve good grades. As a social science and social advocate of sorts, I first and foremost saw students as human beings, and--taking a cue from Pierre Bourdieu---I also empathetically at times saw them as persons being corralled by a bureaucratic system involving sometimes useless requirements in education, especially when the school itself told me to apply certain strictures upon the students as well as certain kinds and certain amounts of work (curricula that were only partially placed into my hands), so don't think I didn't empathize with my students, I did. Moreover, I know what it is like to be a struggling student, and there was a time when I myself was remedial in nature (when I was young), and I remember that due to my family circumstances and my curtailed outlook on life, I was both not able and not motivated to learn some things. But, 30 years later, I'm a bit different about all of that now.
I see that Sam Harris is your train conductor......... yes, yes, I laugh at his simplicity! If only reality, or even the Bible, were really simple in nature.
...and we'll just compare this with.....my approach (below), and everyone can make up their own minds here as to the extent that your singular train track approach misrepresents mine.
Nope. Because if you use that, then we have to get into the (contextualized) semantics of what the text "actually" means to "lean upon" God and then, additionally, to consider all of this from the point of view of the present time from a more existential position that doesn't share the full and immediate experiences and immediate life views of the Ancient Israelites.
Nope. Because if you use that, then we have to get into the (contextualized) semantics of what the text "actually" means to "lean upon" God and then, additionally, to consider all of this from the point of view of the present time from a more existential position that doesn't share the full and immediate experiences and immediate life views of the Ancient Israelites.
You mean like the verses about King David seeing Bathsheba and essentially forcing her into his bedroom for the rest of her life and murdering her husband, Uriah, to make it all happen? I should reject those Bible verses? Well.................sure!
In a way, I do. Isn't everyone supposed to?
yes, yes, I laugh at his simplicity! If only reality, or even the Bible, were really simple in nature.
