Unfortunately you saying it, does not make it so. Wish it were that simple I guess. Not condemning it, is not the same as condoning it. If you find a passage that specifically says it's a great thing, please point it out - and please also remember that this is totally disregarding the actual definition of what a slave was during those times, which is radically different to our definition in the 20th century.
Already have, where God explicitly states these are the rules. That is condoning, you know, where God says 'do this'.
I don't recall reading where it says they were forced into a sexual relationship.
The owner of the female had a say in her entering the relationship. While any good father/master would ask her consent, there was no requirement to. And when dealing with those who are too young to consent by our standards, they were allowed to consent by theirs.
Once again you are assuming things and leaping ahead with your assumptions without any thought or considering as to context and what the Bible actually says.
Perhaps it is that I have actually studied what the Bible says, looked into the culture back then and studied it, and also studied other books considered key to Jewish law which are not in the Bible, but which is where Rabbi's discussed technicalities the Bible left out.
It's attractive to do so, but it unfortunately the validity of the conclusion is not relative to how fast you reach it, so I would suggest slowing down, and perhaps taking your own advice to me about reading
what is posted. In order to keep the marriage covenant sacred, females who entered sexual relationships were not allowed by law to leave.
You should perhaps slow down, being you are the one who keeps tripping up. First off, I wasn't talking about the female married to a master or his sons, and I already pointed out she became part of the family and was no longer a slave. That said, point 5 of your link is clearly wrong, as this only applies to female slaves married to the master or his sons, not to all female slaves. Point 2 in that link has a reversed side, trying to point out the silver lining does not make the storm cloud disappear, and point 4 is misleading, as the slave may stay because he loves his family too much to leave them, even if he dislikes his master.
Also, it never once points out the slave must consent to become a wife. Considering that she never consented to be sold into slavery, and considering the culture back then, evidence needs to be offered that her consent was required, and I haven't seen any.
The minimal level being that for indentured servitude there is to be no abuse, no violence, no killing, no mistreatment and those servants who willfully entered into a contract with the master are protected by law and can file complaints against their master if such actions occur.
Actually, striking your slave such that they do not die or remain unable to get up for more than a day was allowed.
I don't think you understand what that passage says, please read the link I posted above and remember what I said where not condemning it, does not mean, it is condoned.
Exodus 21:1. God is saying clear as day this is the rules He wants them to follow. Giving out rules to allow something is condoning it. It isn't like the Bible just mentioned slavery without every saying how God felt about it.
To me it's telling that you assume so much.
It is quite telling that you must falsely see me as assuming so much to protect your own position. I assume very little, and even most of that comes from sources I have read in the past I do not currently have with me (but they are most likely still on JSOTR).
I mean I've posted barely a handful of times, and you assume to know what motivates me to find something morally wrong.
Who ever said I was assuming something about you. I was merely pointing out that a Christian who is good only out of fear of God was worse off than an Atheist who was good without the need of God standing over them. If you reach the conclusion this is describing you, which I did not imply, then that is telling. I was merely pointing out the idea that Atheist are worse off because they have no reason to be moral is absurd, I hold more respect for Christians who are generally good, who generally lover their neighbor, than those who do so out of fear or for the rewards in Heaven. I somewhat even question where their heart lays. The Atheist who is moral is far more similar to the former Christian than the latter.
You assume that I think or feel non-theists are not emotional or mental equals.
I never assumed such a thing.
You assume I find things morally and ethically wrong, because I am forced or under pressure to do so.
Once again, I never assumed this applied to you. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of the logic that the atheist is worse off than some Christian.
And lastly, I find it telling you feel the need to masquerade. Do you feel you will be treated differently if you are open and honest?
Masquerade? About what? I'm quite open that I honestly don't understand why God allowed slavery, and I am left pointing out why the common lines of reasoning are not adequate.
Or that you can perhaps win some support for these misguided views if you show some solidarity?
Meh, my actions are probably influenced by Social Judgment Theory. But if this is so, it is only because others have a point where they will not listen to an argument regardless of the merits found within.
To address these concerns:
On a theistic worldview, I believe that every humane has the same built in moral compass. We share the same emotional, mental, ethical and moral absolutes.
I don't. I think we all had the capacity to at some point in our life, but there is too many things that can screw it up.
I believe we have freedom to adhere to them or not, but irrespective of our will to choose so, I believe that they are always there, always present and unchanging. As such, I do not believe slavery to be wrong because I am threatened to do so, in fact I would wager that the idea of eternal destruction (which is what I believe in, eternal as in permanent, not ever-lasting) factors not a whit in all of my decisions. Death, is what I have now. It's not something I will be given if I do enough good deeds or acts. It's already mine. So factoring in something I already have into any decision I make seems totally futile and pointless. I believe that Biblical slavery is not remotely analogous to our modern day idea of the word.
Study slavery then, from the past to the present. There are big differences, but the most major difference can be summed up in one symbol, $ Modern day slaves are dirt cheap compared to the past, so they are treated like they are disposable, but in many ways, the similarities are greater than the differences.
As such I do not find the idea of Biblical slavery wrong. During those times they had structures and laws in place to govern the payment of large debts, one of which was indentured servitude and I see nothing wrong with that. In addition to females remaining, if they had entered into a marital relationship, again I cannot see why they would A) Want to leave if they had married their master or B) See why it is wrong that law forbids them given the views of the marriage covenant.
Honestly, you missed the whole point about females leaving.
I am talking about the females who were married to male slaves being unable to leave with the male slave. You are talking about those who were married to the master and his son, I wasn't talking about those female slaves.
Finally, I find the idea of our modern day definition of slavery morally wrong, because it removes freedoms and rights in a negative, dictatorial way, giving absolute control to one person over life, death and the welfare of others.
Back then, the control was still too absolute in some areas. And just remember, the penalty for hitting a slave so hard they went blind was the slave went free. Considering that slaves were like property, that you could buy them, this amounted to a fine. I'm sure a fine, even if it were somewhat hefty, would not be compensation for me going and blinding someone else. Oh yes, they would sue me in civil court and win a great deal of money. But in criminal court, which I would also attend, there would be a lot more than a fine.
I do not believe these things because I am a Christian. But, my worldview substantiates and provides a foundation for believing them, whereas unfortunately, yours does not.
Now you are making assumptions about what I believe. All this talk about making assumptions here, and look what you go do. Here is a hint, you don't know what I believe, and don't try to read between the lines and guess, because I encode even those.
Richard Dawkins once said that we are sociologically programmed. There is no morality, no right, no wrong, and went on to say we are just chunks of matter that have the sole purpose of reproducing into more chunks of matter.
We are socially programmed. I just believe there is morality, there is right and wrong. But first we must overcome our social programming. The idea of social programming and of morality are not exclusive.
As such, the Nazi scientist who performed live vivisection operations on pregnant Jewish women, who injected chemicals into people and timed how long it took them to die - the people who rape, torture, enslave and destroy are just as right in doing so and have just as much right to do so, as you do in not taking a slave, or in advocating that slavery is wrong.
While off topic, do you know the difference between might makes right, and might enforces right?
You also share the same flaw in that none of you have any foundation to think otherwise.
My foundation is just a strong as yours. But now you gone and started assuming things about my foundation.
For every 'you' that there is, who suggests something is wrong, there could be a 'them' that says it is right and you have nothing more to stand on that your own subjective notions, just as they do and I guess ultimately the question must be asked: Which one of you has authority and on what grounds do you have it?
On the reverse, all God has to do is say something is good, and it is good. For example, Abraham having mens rea to murder Issac, that was good according to God. Yet many would say mens rea to murder one's child is inherently wrong.
Even with a claim of God granted morality, morality is still subjective, the only difference in whose subjectivity we are talking about.
On the upside you at least believe in one of the commandments, so that's good. :>
Same to you, right?
