Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And now we have the objective moralist engaging in slavery apologetics. Being in debt to someone of course means all your choices are free, and they could only beat them till it really hurt and not to death u guise! Yeahhhh, I'll pass
It is wrongly assumed that any reference to slaves or slavery in the Bible necessarily refers to the New World slavery type of the plantations. This is not the case. Most were indentured servants. Which was a mutually contracted servitude into which the individual entered voluntarily. They sold themselves into the ownership of a person to whom they owed money or a somebody who paid off the debts which they owed to another, and paid off their debt with service. The individual was considered the property of their master because they could not leave until it was paid off.
Sometimes the poor would volunteer themselves as servants to wealthy families or people in order to obtain for themselves a superior standard of living or perhaps a different sort of perk.
In the ancient world poor father might sell his daughter into a well-to-do family in order to ensure her future security. The sale presumes a marriage to the master or his son.
Most types of slavery there did not exhibit the type of characteristics associated with "New World" slavery. Such as being treated as property and commodities or their use exclusively as labor and lack of freedom.
Freedom in the ancient Near East had a relative, not an absolute meaning, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in the regions shows. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. Translation is often an inexact science.
And it is important to note that there are things which the Bible records which it does not approve of, as it is a book of History. Some figurative and metaphorical, some historical.
In any case, it does not say that it is okay to treat a servant poorly. And if they were being treated poorly at any point then it was right for them to leave. Just as the Israelites fled from Egypt. It is actually debated what sort of slaves the Israelites were in Egypt. Some think that they were of the indentured servant type, some say it was more like the modern day type which we associate with plantations etc. What is clear is that they were mistreated, so they left.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28
You do not feel that there are any objective morals?
I don't believe that 'because god said so' is a basis for objective morals.
And when an objective moral system ends up endorsing slavery of any kind, I'll take my chances with subjectivity.
Really though, the whole objective vs subjective morals debate is simplistic. Moral systems typically contain a mixture of objective and subjective components.
Apparently I've been clear in conveying a point other than the exact one that I had in mind. That's readily obvious to me.
Let's see if I can understand you better my friend. What does it mean to you to say that all people are equal? Equal in what ways? And why do you feel that we are equal?
Apparently I've been clear in conveying a point other than the exact one that I had in mind. That's readily obvious to me.
Let's see if I can understand you better my friend. What does it mean to you to say that all people are equal? Equal in what ways? And why do you feel that we are equal?
Many of you have accurately pointed out that certain Christians certainly do no behave as if they are equal and in fact act superior. This is true. Realize that they are acting like this because they are idiots. It is not because Christ taught us that we are better than anybody. In fact, Christ spent the majority of his time with outlaws and prostitutes etc. The Christians who act un-Christian do not represent the theology of the religion, but are confused. They are indeed sinning.
You do not feel that there are any objective morals?
Actually technically speaking 'god said so' (and here is his list) is an objective moral standard. So is Plato said so.
Such a system is objective as the moral standard is adherence to what was said.
Sadly if seems most people have no idea what objective and subjective actually mean and have some vague notion that objective means good and subjective mean not as good.
Actually technically speaking 'god said so' (and here is his list) is an objective moral standard. So is Plato said so.
Such a system is objective as the moral standard is adherence to what was said.
Sadly if seems most people have no idea what objective and subjective actually mean and have some vague notion that objective means good and subjective mean not as good.
Another thing I should state is that it does no good to explain to me how certain societies have held positions of equality. Because in my eyes, these people live in the same world that we do, under the same creator. So even if they do not worship the same as I do, they still exist in a world created by The Lord and have thus been influenced in some way by His morals. So by showing that other societies have had equality just further proves my point for me. For it is my submission that they could not have held a position of true equality for all if they did not exist in a world where a loving creator revealed morals to us in certain indirect ways. But they do hold people as equal. This is exactly my point.
You do not feel that there are any objective morals?
Exactly. So to what do they appeal to then?
Weird the first thing you'd go to in a discussion of objective morality is our subjective feelings on the subject. Does something become objective if enough people's subjective feelings line up the same way?
Pretty much anything that isn't a god. It isn't like "atheists who believe in political equality" is a monolithic group of clones.
If you're really interested, there's libraries full of writings from enlightenment thinkers with various opinions on the subject. Look up any of the big names in the American or French revolution and you'll find more than you can digest.
Nope, and even if there were, everyone would interpret them differently so they would always be subjective in practice.
What if I were to attempt to cut your head off one day? I'm assuming you would consider this wrong. And not wrong simply because it's an opinion of yours. You would think that it was obviously objectively wrong and would expect other people to see that it was wrong and would grow upset if people tried explaining to you that in their opinion I really did nothing wrong. You would be appealing to them to recognize the universal truth of what I did was wrong. And you would be absolutely right. There would be no arguing that what I did was wrong. And you would expect me to feel bad about it.
Or if I am wrong you would not feel this way, please correct me.
Thanks!
Most people agree that lopping someone's head off is a bad thing because they wouldn't want it done to them. It's part of being human - empathy; not some "universal truth."
A universal truth? Who could say.Most people agree that lopping someone's head off is a bad thing because they wouldn't want it done to them. It's part of being human - empathy; not some "universal truth."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?