Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is Slavery Moral?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="cvanwey" data-source="post: 72871880" data-attributes="member: 409550"><p><span style="color: #0000ff">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?</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">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...</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">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. <u>However</u>, if it is a 'human only' written book, (written just like <u>any other</u> text) thousands of years ago, then yes. The Bible is supposed to be the be-all-end-all publication, inspired from the perfect creator.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">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.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Again, we are speaking about many English versions, which all choose the words "slave', 'property', 'beat', 'inherit', 'for life', etc...</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Right off the bat, I see no alternative spin or translation which one could account for a human <u>owning</u> another human <u>for life</u>, which may be <u>beaten just short of death</u>, and to be considered <u>property for life</u>. This again, has <u>absolutely nothing to do with 'indentured servants.</u>' And thus again, is not talking about Jews.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">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.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">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.. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite3" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" /> 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.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Peace</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cvanwey, post: 72871880, member: 409550"] [COLOR=#0000ff]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. [U]However[/U], if it is a 'human only' written book, (written just like [U]any other[/U] 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 [U]owning[/U] another human [U]for life[/U], which may be [U]beaten just short of death[/U], and to be considered [U]property for life[/U]. This again, has [U]absolutely nothing to do with 'indentured servants.[/U]' 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 [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is Slavery Moral?
Top
Bottom