The so-called "biblical" view on slavery ...

[Nihilist Virus]

Do you have a moral position on slavery as described in the Bible?

Good luck getting that one answered, lol.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Do you mean, can I cite and quote Scripture to back these things up? Or do you have some other so-called "demonstration" in mind that you want me to provide by way of pulling a rabbit out of some magical hat?

Can you provide evidence that support your claims are actually true? If you want to just say that the bible says these things, I agree.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Good luck getting that one answered, lol.

I think it is interesting that there was only 2 comments and 333 views of my thread Slavery, a Guide, that just quoted the bible word for word and my summary of what the text actually says. Seems no one wants to comment on the actual text. Phil got mad and posted a video but never said what he agrees with in the video. It is all just a tactic to avoid the text in my opinion. If they have straight forward rebuttals to the text they would just provide it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can you provide evidence that support your claims are actually true? If you want to just say that the bible says these things, I agree.

Apparently, you've been sold a basket of epistemological goods (or 'bads' as they might be more appropriately called in this case) which keep you in a mode where you frame your questions by what I consider to be false axioms of expectation for "demonstration" and "evidence," particularly where the Bible is concerned. Of course, some of this misapplication of epistemology might be due to the conditioning you received by having only a more superficial understanding of the subject.

If I pointed to the Devil in the World, would you count it as "evidence"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think it is interesting that there was only 2 comments and 333 views of my thread Slavery, a Guide, that just quoted the bible word for word and my summary of what the text actually says. Seems no one wants to comment on the actual text. Phil got mad and posted a video but never said what he agrees with in the video. It is all just a tactic to avoid the text in my opinion. If they have straight forward rebuttals to the text they would just provide it.

I haven't got that far yet. Have you noticed how many of you are commenting to me? You're not the only one. On top that, I have a job to attend to and a life to live. You guys need to get over this crap where you think that if your interlocutor can't address each and every little tidbit you brainstorm within 5 minutes of your post that he has nothing to say ....................................

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Apparently, you've been sold a bad basket of epistemological goods (or 'bads' as they might be more appropriately called in this case) and you keep framing your questions by way of what I consider to be false axioms of expectation for "demonstration" and "evidence" where the Bible is concerned. Of course, some of that might be due to the conditioning you received by having only a more superficial understanding of Epistemology.

More insults and questioning credentials. Do you have anything else in your bag of tricks?

If I pointed to the Devil in the World, would you count it as "evidence"?

Sure, probably not sufficient evidence.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I haven't got that far yet. Have you noticed how many of you are commenting to me? You're not the only one. On top that, I have a job to attend to and a life to live. You guys need to get over this crap where you think that if your interlocutor can't address each and every little tidbit you brainstorm within 5 minutes of your post that he has nothing to say ....................................

This is demonstrably untrue. You started an entirely new thread 45 minutes after I posted my thread that copied and pasted biblical scripture..........................................................................................

 

[2PhiloVoid]

More insults and questioning credentials. Do you have anything else in your bag of tricks?

I don't really NEED anything else other than to question your credentials. You keep on and on implying that you're a veritable expert on the subject of epistemology, and you've done so ever since you've arrived to CF several months ago, but I have yet to see you demonstrate that you actually have the philosophical chops by which to evaluate any claims of evidence that you also happen to keep asking from me.

Sure, probably not sufficient evidence.

Well then, so be it. I'll just take that kind of response as a virtual declaration of war against Christianity ... because it sounds like you don't want to "see" truth in Christianity and have decided already, despite your claims to the contrary, that it has none. And you're just here to rub in what it is you think is philosophical failure on the part of Christians.

Go ahead.................."report" me!

 

[Jok]

There is always gonna be room for the atheist to take issue with the way the Biblical God allows reality to play out, honestly I have objections of my own, but I think the objection to slavery is miscategorized. I see slavery as being a subcategory of the problem of suffering & evil, not as a category in its own right that is endorsed. I think the objection to slavery is more accurate & consistent with an objection that would complain about God not immediately coming to the rescue of a victim of child abuse; people aren’t going around saying “God endorses child abuse” they are instead complaining about God not intervening to overthrow evil & suffering in an instant. I think slavery more accurately fits inside of the same objection.

The timeframe where institutions of slavery started falling like dominos lines up with the explosion of technology/industrial revolution, thus setting up a new world system where it became possible for the elite to let go of their domination of the current (worldwide slavery) paradigm, and get their hooks into the domination of the new paradigm of machinery, capitalism, etc (over simplification I admit). So it was more about not going to war with the world paradigm structure than an endorsement of that paradigm. It was not as simple as “Slavery BAD! Please say so Jesus!” This was the world power structure of the elite. You really had to break the back of the world structure to take on slavery. A passing comment wouldn’t have been a passing comment at all, it would have transformed Christianity into something else entirely. It would have transformed Christianity into fitting the zealot narrative to oppose such a locked in system.

So think more in terms of elite power structure being yielded to instead of thinking in terms of slavery being endorsed. When did Jesus ever go after the elite power structure? The pattern is that He didn’t. Had Jesus just answered one little question differently about paying taxes, or made a comment about unfair taxation, Christianity would have been drastically altered into more of a zealot movement. It would not have been “Just one passing comment” it would have changed everything, it would have been the calling out of the elite power structure of taxation. Jesus specifically did not make an attempt to overthrow Roman occupation of the Jews, and that’s when people turned on Him, leading to His crucifixion. There’s no such thing as just a passing comment about not paying taxes, and there’s no such thing as just a passing comment about how slavery is wrong, or just a passing comment that Jews should not be under Roman occupation. Not without a chain reaction that changes everything.

The primary message in the Bible is that miseries that exist in this world are of way less importance than your relationship with God and your eternity. So it isn’t accurate to say that a refusal for making these passing comments was equal to endorsing slavery, unfair taxes, or Roman domination over the Jews. The term endorse implies something different.

I get it that non-Christians think this is all made up anyway, but even if you just pretend that it’s fiction, still the conditions of the Christianity storyline was a passiveness of the main character towards the idea of going after the ruling structure of this world. So there is a method to the madness of why the lead character in the story would not speak out about the atrocities of slavery even though the character seems to be opposed to the mistreatment of people which too easily flows out of a system such as slavery. Because the storyline is very eternity based, very often at the expense of the here & now.

 

[Caliban]

There is always gonna be room for the atheist to take issue with the way the Biblical God allows reality to play out, honestly I have objections of my own, but I think the objection to slavery is miscategorized. I see slavery as being a subcategory of the problem of suffering & evil, not as a category in its own right that is endorsed. I think the objection to slavery is more accurate & consistent with an objection that would complain about God not immediately coming to the rescue of a victim of child abuse; people aren’t going around saying “God endorses child abuse” they are instead complaining about God not intervening to overthrow evil & suffering in an instant. I think slavery more accurately fits inside of the same objection.

Wait--it is Gods specific instruction to the Hebrews--these are laws. Please read my reasoning here (post #11). I think I make a good case.

 

[Caliban]

I get it that non-Christians think this is all made up anyway, but even if you just pretend that it’s fiction, still the conditions of the Christianity storyline was a passiveness of the main character towards the idea of going after the ruling structure of this world.

I take it as literature, but for the sake of the argument, I will step into the theological shoes of the believer to point out flaws.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think it is interesting that there was only 2 comments and 333 views of my thread Slavery, a Guide, that just quoted the bible word for word and my summary of what the text actually says. Seems no one wants to comment on the actual text. Phil got mad and posted a video but never said what he agrees with in the video. It is all just a tactic to avoid the text in my opinion. If they have straight forward rebuttals to the text they would just provide it.

Imagine a man on trial for murder. He should have no issues admitting to something like a speeding violation while recounting the events of the night in question. But if, when you ask him a direct and simple question, he has to stop and think about what the logical consequences of his answer might be, you can bet he's lying and hiding something. All that should matter is whether or not he committed the murder. Even if he had beaten the murder victim half to death in a previous encounter, he would not hide that if he had an absolutely airtight alibi for the night in question. Innocent or guilty, if you can't prove your innocence with strong conviction, you're forced to lie and dodge questions.

For Christianity, all that matters is the resurrection. If I proved it to you to your satisfaction, not even a comical straw man version of an atheist would still insist that Christianity is factually in error due to slavery laws in the Bible. Apologists are acutely aware that they have a weak case for the resurrection, and that's putting it mildly, so they have to tapdance around the other issues in an absurd attempt to make their religion look halfway decent when they know it most certainly is not decent in any meaning of the word.

 

[Caliban]

Imagine a man on trial for murder. He should have no issues admitting to something like a speeding violation while recounting the events of the night in question. But if, when you ask him a direct and simple question, he has to stop and think about what the logical consequences of his answer might be, you can bet he's lying and hiding something. All that should matter is whether or not he committed the murder. Even if he had beaten the murder victim half to death in a previous encounter, he would not hide that if he had an absolutely airtight alibi for the night in question. Innocent or guilty, if you can't prove your innocence with strong conviction, you're forced to lie and dodge questions.

For Christianity, all that matters is the resurrection. If I proved it to you to your satisfaction, would you still insist that Christianity is factually in error due to slavery laws in the Bible? Certainly not. Apolgists are acutely aware that they have a weak case for the resurrection, and that's putting it mildly, so they have to tapdance around the other issues in an absurd attempt to make their religion look halfway decent when they know it most certainly is not decent in any meaning of the word.

A great many Christians insist they are not fundamentalists and they often shy away from inerrancy, but try to show them the moral problem with slavery in the Bible and they dig in their heels.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

There is always gonna be room for the atheist to take issue with the way the Biblical God allows reality to play out, honestly I have objections of my own, but I think the objection to slavery is miscategorized. I see slavery as being a subcategory of the problem of suffering & evil, not as a category in its own right that is endorsed. I think the objection to slavery is more accurate & consistent with an objection that would complain about God not immediately coming to the rescue of a victim of child abuse; people aren’t going around saying “God endorses child abuse” they are instead complaining about God not intervening to overthrow evil & suffering in an instant. I think slavery more accurately fits inside of the same objection.

I would too except for the fact that God is the one making the rules for slavery in the bible. See my other thread.

The timeframe where institutions of slavery started falling like dominos lines up with the explosion of technology/industrial revolution, thus setting up a new world system where it became possible for the elite to let go of their domination of the current (worldwide slavery) paradigm, and get their hooks into the domination of the new paradigm of machinery, capitalism, etc (over simplification I admit). So it was more about not going to war with the world paradigm structure than an endorsement of that paradigm. It was not as simple as “Slavery BAD! Please say so Jesus!” This was the world power structure of the elite. You really had to break the back of the world structure to take on slavery. A passing comment wouldn’t have been a passing comment at all, it would have transformed Christianity into something else entirely. It would have transformed Christianity into fitting the zealot narrative to oppose such a locked in system.

Yet God could have stopped it quickly. But as I said before God is the one making the rules for slavery.

So think more in terms of elite power structure being yielded to instead of thinking in terms of slavery being endorsed. When did Jesus ever go after the elite power structure? The pattern is that He didn’t. Had Jesus just answered one little question differently about paying taxes, or made a comment about unfair taxation, Christianity would have been drastically altered into more of a zealot movement. It would not have been “Just one passing comment” it would have changed everything, it would have been the calling out of the elite power structure of taxation. Jesus specifically did not make an attempt to overthrow Roman occupation of the Jews, and that’s when people turned on Him, leading to His crucifixion. There’s no such thing as just a passing comment about not paying taxes, and there’s no such thing as just a passing comment about how slavery is wrong, or just a passing comment that Jews should not be under Roman occupation. Not without a chain reaction that changes everything.

The primary message in the Bible is that miseries that exist in this world are of way less importance than your relationship with God and your eternity. So it isn’t accurate to say that a refusal for making these passing comments was equal to endorsing slavery, unfair taxes, or Roman domination over the Jews. The term endorse implies something different.

Have you read the passages in the OT on slavery? God does endorse slavery Himself.

I get it that non-Christians think this is all made up anyway, but even if you just pretend that it’s fiction, still the conditions of the Christianity storyline was a passiveness of the main character towards the idea of going after the ruling structure of this world. So there is a method to the madness of why the lead character in the story would not speak out about the atrocities of slavery even though the character seems to be opposed to the mistreatment of people which too easily flows out of a system such as slavery. Because the storyline is very eternity based, very often at the expense of the here & now.

But if Jesus is God as he claimed, and God made immoral rules for slavery, then Jesus does indeed endorse slavery.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I don't really NEED anything else other than to question your credentials. You keep on and on implying that you're a veritable expert on the subject of epistemology, and you've done so ever since you've arrived to CF several months ago, but I have yet to see you demonstrate that you actually have the philosophical chops by which to evaluate any claims of evidence that you also happen to keep asking from me.

You make extreme comments all the time that misrepresent me. I never said I was an expert in epistemology, you are the one that has said that so you can tell me I am simpleminded.

Well then, so be it. I'll just take that kind of response as a virtual declaration of war against Christianity ... because it sounds like you don't want to "see" truth in Christianity and have decided already, despite your claims to the contrary, that it has none. And you're just here to rub in what it is you think is philosophical failure on the part of Christians.

Again, extreme comments. I never said it would be insufficient only t hat it probably would not be. You NEVER provided any such evidence that the devil existed for me to evaluate anyway. This is all you do, ramble on and on about how no one else is as studied as you when all the while never engaging in any conversation. You keep bowing out by impugning the other persons character and education level. If you want to have a real conversation about a topic then we can get into epistemology, until then keep just avoiding real discussion.

Go ahead.................."report" me!

Why? I am not a moderator and I don't care if you broke any rules here.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Imagine a man on trial for murder. He should have no issues admitting to something like a speeding violation while recounting the events of the night in question. But if, when you ask him a direct and simple question, he has to stop and think about what the logical consequences of his answer might be, you can bet he's lying and hiding something. All that should matter is whether or not he committed the murder. Even if he had beaten the murder victim half to death in a previous encounter, he would not hide that if he had an absolutely airtight alibi for the night in question. Innocent or guilty, if you can't prove your innocence with strong conviction, you're forced to lie and dodge questions.

Seems to apply.

For Christianity, all that matters is the resurrection. If I proved it to you to your satisfaction, not even a comical straw man version of an atheist would still insist that Christianity is factually in error due to slavery laws in the Bible. Apologists are acutely aware that they have a weak case for the resurrection, and that's putting it mildly, so they have to tapdance around the other issues in an absurd attempt to make their religion look halfway decent when they know it most certainly is not decent in any meaning of the word.

Slavery laws do not show Christianity wrong, they show God as immoral if he exists. I could believe God exists if there was sufficient evidence for that but he would also have to show me he is moral for me to follow him.

 

[Caliban]

Don't draw pictures, don't eat shellfish, don't build an alter with dressed stones; but this is okay:
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property" (Exodus 21:20-21).

You can beat your slave nearly to death; as long as he lives "a day or two." He is your property after all.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Don't draw pictures, don't eat shellfish, don't build an alter with dressed stones; but this is okay:
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property" (Exodus 21:20-21).

You can beat your slave nearly to death; as long as he lives "a day or two." He is your property after all.

This is God saying this in the bible as well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Imagine a man on trial for murder. He should have no issues admitting to something like a speeding violation while recounting the events of the night in question. But if, when you ask him a direct and simple question, he has to stop and think about what the logical consequences of his answer might be, you can bet he's lying and hiding something. All that should matter is whether or not he committed the murder. Even if he had beaten the murder victim half to death in a previous encounter, he would not hide that if he had an absolutely airtight alibi for the night in question. Innocent or guilty, if you can't prove your innocence with strong conviction, you're forced to lie and dodge questions.

For Christianity, all that matters is the resurrection. If I proved it to you to your satisfaction, not even a comical straw man version of an atheist would still insist that Christianity is factually in error due to slavery laws in the Bible. Apologists are acutely aware that they have a weak case for the resurrection, and that's putting it mildly, so they have to tapdance around the other issues in an absurd attempt to make their religion look halfway decent when they know it most certainly is not decent in any meaning of the word.

Oh, I don't worry about the Resurrection. It's meant to be something ethereal. So, I derive a lot of my faith by looking at this:

All that has to happen for me to be wrong is for the political powers that be.....to turn ultra "nice" to Christianity! That's it! Then I'd know I'm wrong! Whooop-ee!

 

[Caliban]

Oh, I don't worry about the Resurrection. It's meant to be something ethereal. So, I derive a lot of my faith by looking at this:

All that has to happen for me to be wrong is for the political powers that be.....to turn ultra "nice" to Christianity! That's it! Then I'd know I'm wrong! Whooop-ee!

I'll have what she's drinking.