Is Slavery Moral?

[Nihilist Virus]

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?

Come on, I thought you were educated. We all know David never existed.

 

[Strathos]

Come on, I thought you were educated. We all know David never existed.

The Tel Dan Stele says otherwise.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Come on, I thought you were educated. We all know David never existed.

Oh, I've read my Finkelstein and my Dever. Don't you worry about that.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The Tel Dan Stele says otherwise.

And the Koran says Muhammad was a prophet.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Oh, I've read my Finkelstein and my Dever. Don't you worry about that.

Try some Carrier.

 

[cvanwey]

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?

I'm sorry, but this is a false analogy.

US government law can be amended. The US government does not claim to provide 'objective' and 'never changing moral' pronouncements. The words written to provide the US laws, by the US government, do not claim to be provided from a higher power.

Now, getting to your question...

In my OP, I state the Bible condones slavery. Does the government 'allow/condone' abortion? Yes. Might this change in the future? Maybe/maybe not? But the law might later change, via human provided approaches, and NOT appealing to laws given from 'above'.

Off topic, mind you... Do I feel abortion is moral? Mostly no. But it's very situational. You see how easy that was to answer If I have a problem with abortion axiomatically, I can lobby the government accordingly ;-) Can you do that with Bible? The Bible is all or nothing, without compromise or changes. People just rationalize the parts they do not agree with, (in which many filter through their own 'morality')....

The claim, from every English provided Bible, states that non-Jews, women, others, can be:

- slaves for life
- property for life
- beaten for life
- inherited for life

If some person claimed later divine revelation from 'above', stating an amendment to the above Biblical pronouncements, would you believe them? (This is a rhetorical question... Of course you wouldn't). Hence, these pronouncements are permanent and binding forever, with no possible law changes forthcoming...

It's fairly safe to say, that no one would sign up for such scenarios. Which concludes the verses pertain to predominantly non-voluntary means...

I sincerely doubt any alternative language disputes such 'objective and God provided' claims. And IF it does, then maybe EVERY English based translation may want to update appropriately, to then comply with the actual and universal correct translated conclusion --- because there sure appears to be quite a bit of confusion to the many 'English only' speaking individuals whom say to themselves, "hey, these Bible verses do not actually say that, do they?" And then have no later verses which clarifies them or places such stated verses into another context --- (i.e.) Exodus 21:12-36 and Leviticus 25:44-46

Furthermore, No one here has made much of any attempt to directly dispute such claims (via, for life), as presented in Exodus and Leviticus (via the OP).

Thnx

 

[cvanwey]

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.

What is requested of you, actually requires very little 'lifty lifty'. Just demonstrate how the Bible does not actually state that if you are Non-Jew, a woman, or other, you are condoned/allowed to be:

- a slave for life
- property for life
- beaten for life
- inherited for life

Not that hard (unless you are unable to do so).

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.

I rather choose intellectual honesty. Your definition of 'lazy' appears to be me not being able to 'justify/rationalize' ALL English translated verses condoning:

- slavery for life
- property for life
- beaten for life
- inherited for life

If I were still a teacher, and you were a student in one of my classes.....you would flunk.

Well, unfortunately for you, this is a forum arena, not a controlled classroom, where the instructor dictates the rules Furthermore, if I ask my teacher such basic questions, which were never answered honestly, I would probably have dropped such a class and switched instructors.

So if you would not mind, please demonstrate that the Bible does NOT actually state:

- slavery for life
- property for life
- beaten for life
- inherited for life

Otherwise, I'm just reading a lot of words...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

What is requested of you, actually requires very little 'lifty lifty'. Just demonstrate how the Bible does not actually state that if you are Non-Jew, a woman, or other, you are condoned/allowed to be:

- a slave for life
- property for life
- beaten for life
- inherited for life

Not that hard (unless you are unable to do so).



I rather choose intellectual honesty.

I cut off the quote here because really all that's required is for the Christian to say, "Yes, the Bible is clearly pro-slavery, particularly chattel slavery, and we simply don't have an answer."

If they could just do that, we wouldn't have 50 pages of gymnastics and they would gain credibility.

Of course, 2PV loves to take the "read in between the lines and in the margins, look at the cultural/historical/sociological/theological/figurative/metaphorical context, but whatever you do don't read the actual words on the page" type of approach.

 

[devolved]

I'm sorry, but this is a false analogy.

US government law can be amended. The US government does not claim to provide 'objective' and 'never changing moral' pronouncements. The words written to provide the US laws, by the US government, do not claim to be provided from a higher power.

Sorry, but you avoided answering my question.

I did not say that US government is completely analogous with God. I did not say anything about analogies with legal amendment process. That was not where proper analogy resides in this point.

I limit it to a very specific idea of "endorsement via permition" that you are promoting. So analogy holds.

So, I'll ask you again. If Government permits abortion, would that mean that government is endorsing it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What is requested of you, actually requires very little 'lifty lifty'. Just demonstrate how the Bible does not actually state that if you are Non-Jew, a woman, or other, you are condoned/allowed to be:

- a slave for life
- property for life
- beaten for life
- inherited for life

Not that hard (unless you are unable to do so).



I rather choose intellectual honesty. Your definition of 'lazy' appears to be me not being able to 'justify/rationalize' ALL English translated verses condoning:

- slavery for life
- property for life
- beaten for life
- inherited for life



Well, unfortunately for you, this is a forum arena, not a controlled classroom, where the instructor dictates the rules Furthermore, if I ask my teacher such basic questions, which were never answered honestly, I would probably have dropped such a class and switched instructors.

So if you would not mind, please demonstrate that the Bible does NOT actually state:

- slavery for life
- property for life
- beaten for life
- inherited for life

Otherwise, I'm just reading a lot of words...

Oh, I'll be more than happy to begin to lay out the overall framework and context by which we SHOULD evaluate the topic of slavery as it sits within the O.T., and I'll do so just as soon as you can tell me why "intertextuality" plays into how we should interpret the entire Torah as one big, networked corpus of meaningful texts, where no one verse stands alone without the consideration of many other verses, however diverse and scattered they may be within that corpus. Deal? And in doing this, I'm going to assume that you value the concept of "contextuality" as much as I do in the course of evaluating what we think we find within the pages of the O.T., or specifically within the Torah. So, don your Kippah and we can get to work. ....................................................

And then, of course, when we've finished there, be ready to follow through by then comparing the form of slavery we find in the O.T. with that which we find in the history of the dear ol' U.S.A. And then, be ready to deconstruct and critique how, when, where, why, the modern (godless?) Human Rights Regime has become "standard" thinking and why it is treated as an idol of sorts in today's world, one that is often spoken of in terms which are not allowed to be critiqued but merely marveled at. [....that's correct. Modern notions of Human Rights have very little--practically nothing, according to some political philosophers--by which they may be grounded, so I advocate Human Rights founded upon the person of Jesus.)

OR

You could just read the following, very brief articles as a beginning point and consider with me how this will play into the overall evaluation we make about the type of, and nature of, slavery we find in the pages of the O.T.

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201102/201102_108_slavery.htm.cfm
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201103/201103_124_OTSlave.cfm

 

[Allandavid]

Rarely does one see such a fine display of flexible contortions...there are a few here who should be in the gymnastics team for the next Olympics...!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I cut off the quote here because really all that's required is for the Christian to say, "Yes, the Bible is clearly pro-slavery, particularly chattel slavery, and we simply don't have an answer."

If they could just do that, we wouldn't have 50 pages of gymnastics and they would gain credibility.

Of course, 2PV loves to take the "read in between the lines and in the margins, look at the cultural/historical/sociological/theological/figurative/metaphorical context, but whatever you do don't read the actual words on the page" type of approach.

And course, we want to be careful of how someone like Sam Harris will read the Bible wherein he loves to take the "don't take any contexts into consideration while, at the same time, ignore all other historiographical and cultural indicia embedded within the overall corpus of texts, and assume that the meanings of various singled out verses [those which bother one the most] can only be read in the most rigid and disconnected way possible, and whatever else is done, make D@$& Sure (i.e. darn sure!) to utterly ignore all other intertwining connotations which actually exist and are embedded in the overall texts as they have been articulated and organized by ancient Jewish minds."

Yeah, I hear that type of approach reaps rich dividends for the reader, especially for those who'd really rather not contemplate the existence of God and would like to be completely free from having to actually think deeply on what is being said in the O.T. (not to mention the N.T.).

Yep, that's one way to go......................It's not the way I'd go, but everyone seems to have their "own thing," don't they?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Rarely does one see such a fine display of flexible contortions...there are a few here who should be in the gymnastics team for the next Olympics...!

You mean, the same gymnastics that are displayed by persons like, say, Hugh Hefner or Richard Carrier?

 

[devolved]

Rarely does one see such a fine display of flexible contortions...there are a few here who should be in the gymnastics team for the next Olympics...!

I'm sorry, you are in the wrong room. This is Ethics and Morality debate thread.

"Do you want to be a judge on Australia Got Talent?" audition is three doors down.

 

[devolved]

Rarely does one see such a fine display of flexible contortions...there are a few here who should be in the gymnastics team for the next Olympics...!

Wait... I got more...

Something about one boy's crushed dream of being contortionist, but he never stopped dreaming as he sees contortionists everywhere he looks.

I know it's not a completely fleshed out bit. I'm still working on it

Black to the topic...

 

[devolved]

Come on, I thought you were educated. We all know David never existed.

I'm not sure "know" would be a proper term here.

 

[devolved]

Yeah, I hear that type of approach reaps rich dividends for the reader, especially for those who'd really rather not contemplate the existence of God and would like to be completely free from having to actually think deeply on what is being said in the O.T. (not to mention the N.T.).

I think that his approach is quite telling when he discusses the religious issue with Jordan Peterson, or when discussing politics with someone like Scott Adams.

He claims to be intellectual, but when it comes down to the core of his arguments, these are very emotional in nature.

His recent discussion with Peterson was along the lines of:

Peterson: Sam, how do you get morality based on scientific methodological approach?
Sam: Well, imagine a state of suffering that's worst possible physical and mental anguish
Peterson: Sounds like a religious idea of hell to me

So, there's a lot of these circular re-appropriation of religious concepts and then claiming that these concepts are more viable because they now don't have the word "God" attached to them. That's really all he does with his morality arguments.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wait... I got more...

Something about one boy's crushed dream of being contortionist, but he never stopped dreaming as he sees contortionists everywhere he looks.

I know it's not a completely fleshed out bit. I'm still working on it

Black to the topic...

devolved, I think you're a brilliant guy, really, and I'd like to laugh with you on this post because it is rather funny, but please do correct that tiny "typo" I see that could be taken the wrong way. Thanks my friend.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think that his approach is quite telling when he discusses the religious issue with Jordan Peterson, or when discussing politics with someone like Scott Adams.

He claims to be intellectual, but when it comes down to the core of his arguments, these are very emotional in nature.

His recent discussion with Peterson was along the lines of:

Peterson: Sam, how do you get morality based on scientific methodological approach?
Sam: Well, imagine a state of suffering that's worst possible physical and mental anguish
Peterson: Sounds like a religious idea of hell to me

So, there's a lot of these circular re-appropriation of religious concepts and then claiming that these concepts are more viable because they now don't have the word "God" attached to them. That's really all he does with his morality arguments.

I'll have to look that discussion up on youtube. It does sound rather interesting. Thanks for the heads-up.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think that his approach is quite telling when he discusses the religious issue with Jordan Peterson, or when discussing politics with someone like Scott Adams.

He claims to be intellectual, but when it comes down to the core of his arguments, these are very emotional in nature.

His recent discussion with Peterson was along the lines of:

Peterson: Sam, how do you get morality based on scientific methodological approach?
Sam: Well, imagine a state of suffering that's worst possible physical and mental anguish
Peterson: Sounds like a religious idea of hell to me

So, there's a lot of these circular re-appropriation of religious concepts and then claiming that these concepts are more viable because they now don't have the word "God" attached to them. That's really all he does with his morality arguments.

Also, there's a video discussion between Neil deGrasse Tyson and Sam Harris that is interesting as well; at one point or two, Tyson deals out to Harris what I think is an interesting corrective to the methodology of Harris' thought.

Actually, here it is (9 minutes), and it's a rather "morally electrifying" podcast/video discussion, really, and Tyson makes some interesting taxonomical forays over Harris :