Slavery

[imhereforyou]

I saw someone say they're 'a slave to christ'.
The term slave/slavery has a negative connotation to most of us so it seemed odd to use the term in such a manner.
I get the meaning as it was used but I wonder how beneficial/positive it is to use such a word (or any other word) that has such a negative history in a way that is meant to be positive.

We all know words and their usage changes over time and even between cultures in current times, but as a teacher once told me "words have meanings - mean what you say and say what you mean."

Does society do this (use a word/term/phase that's know to be negative in a opposite manner) with any other belief system or is it unique within Christianity? Can you think of examples?
Is it healthy to do such a thing? Does, in this instance, using such a negative word/phrase/term in such a manner dilute, or take away the historical impact, word/phrase/term? Or does it make a positive meaning less positive?
Or should we be more loose with words and their meanings?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to post 138 by bluethread]

Please don't ignore entire posts. Looks really bad.

First, How does my assurance regarding a deities concern for me make it not possible for that deity to be apathetic or even hostile toward some?
Second, it is possible that a deity could be omnibenevolent, I just don't see that happening, so I am not going to defend that viewpoint. Third, what we had established is that the type of deity we are discussing is neither omnibenevolent nor omnimalevolent. I presume that you honor your parents, even though they are neither omnibenevolent nor omnimalevolent.

Firstly,

I did not said omnibenevolent or omnimalevolent.
I said benevolent or malevolent.
Q: Are you unable to read dear sir?Smile))

Secondly,

Dear sir my parents are not omnipotent, omniscient, mortally perfect, super wise, just, merciful; they are deeply flawed humans.

Q: Why are you comparing supposedly perfect beings with deeply flawed beings? Eh?
That’s illogical.


Also I am not worshiping my parents.

Also my parents
-do not order some humans to inflict countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals); to not show mercy and compassion to non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals);
-do not promises to inflict countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals);
-do not inflicts countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals). He burns alive, drowns countless of them. Do not kill countless of them by plagues, sword either directly or by proxy.

But your God does.

Q: Why are you defending, worshiping a capricious, malevolent, genocidal, infanticidal bully? Why are you defending a being that inflicts countless suffering, pain and death to innocents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals)

That passage is speaking of general goodness and compassion, not omni-benevolence. We know that to be the case, because later in that same psalm it says, (Ps. 145:18) "The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth. He fulfills the desires of those who fear him; he hears their cry and saves them. The LORD watches over all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy." Adonai is not equally benevolent to all. That is the point that we were discussing.

Firstly,

The bible is clearly saying is benevolent, loving towards all, towards all he has created.

"8 The Lord is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and rich in love.
9 The Lord is good to all;
he has compassion on all he has made."

Q: Do you not understand what good to all, towards all he has created means? 😊)

Secondly,

The point is not wicked vs non-wicked dear sir is Israelites vs Gentiles, people from a specific geographical region vs the rest in regards to slavery.
The Israelites are no more superior then the rest of the world population.


Thirdly,

Non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals) are not wicked dear sir but innocent.
It is logically impossible for a non-moral agent to be wicked.

Q: So why is your God(who is suppose to be omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, super wise, just, merciful) showing malevolence towards them, huh?

[Bust Nak]

The pertinent phrase is this:

practicing slavery against all races except one"

The "one" presumably being the Hebrew race, no? This has already been proven false. Jews could be enslaved by their fellow Jews.

Oh, I get you now. But do bear in mind that some insist that having a clause that allow Hebrew to go free after 6 years, means it does not qualify as slavery.

[Bust Nak]

Bust Nak post 104

That was Danmark, not I, but I'll answer too.

The Torah submissive individual recognizes that the morality of slavery depends on the basis of one's morality. It may utterly condemn Christianity as immoral based on secular humanism. However, what makes secular humanism the absolute moral standard?

My opinion that it ought to be the absolute moral standard? Did you mean to ask what makes it the objective moral standard? If so then it doesn't as morality is subjective.

I would contend that even professed egalitarians do not treat all humans equally. Regarding you throwing "fair" into the mix. That is also a subjective concept. Who says that secular humanism treats humans more fairly, secular humanists? Well, da.

Well if slavery is condoned on the basis of race doesn't qualify as being less fair than secular humanism to you, then could you make it explicit so that can be debated?

Again, the omni card. It is poosible, but why is it necessary, because it makes you feel better?

Hang on a minute, I was asking you were suggesting that it was impossible because you used the word "never," now it sounds like you are saying it is possible. Can you explain this, it sounds to me like an inconsistency?

No, I believ in a diety that is neither omnibenevolent or omnimalevolent. On what basis do you assert that is less than morally perfect?

Because omnibenevolent is more benevolent than mere benevolent.

[bluethread]

Bust Nak post 104

That was Danmark, not I, but I'll answer too.

The Torah submissive individual recognizes that the morality of slavery depends on the basis of one's morality. It may utterly condemn Christianity as immoral based on secular humanism. However, what makes secular humanism the absolute moral standard?

My opinion that it ought to be the absolute moral standard? Did you mean to ask what makes it the objective moral standard? If so then it doesn't as morality is subjective.

Thank you, for your correction of my post. Let me address the issue from your prospective. Since morality is subjective, so is any justification or opposition of slavery. All one can do then is to verify whether or not slavery is consistent with one's subjective view of morality.

I would contend that even professed egalitarians do not treat all humans equally. Regarding you throwing "fair" into the mix. That is also a subjective concept. Who says that secular humanism treats humans more fairly, secular humanists? Well, da.

Well if slavery is condoned on the basis of race doesn't qualify as being less fair than secular humanism to you, then could you make it explicit so that can be debated?

Fair is subject and therefore is merely a statement of philosphical consistency. There are many race based philosphies, but the one presented in HaTorah is not one of them. In is initially hereditary, but citizenship is vailable to all who are willing to attach themselves to the Covenant.

Again, the omni card. It is poosible, but why is it necessary, because it makes you feel better?

Hang on a minute, I was asking you were suggesting that it was impossible because you used the word "never," now it sounds like you are saying it is possible. Can you explain this, it sounds to me like an inconsistency?

I don't think I said that it is impossible for a deity to arrange the world according to one's personal preferences. One could make he argument that aranging the world according to everyone's preferences is a bit of a stretch. However, the real question is wh would deity do that?

No, I believe in a deity that is neither omnibenevolent or omnimalevolent. On what basis do you assert that is less than morally perfect?

Because omnibenevolent is more benevolent than mere benevolent.

On what basis is benevolence morally perfect?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 138 by bluethread]

Please don't ignore entire posts. Looks really bad.

First, How does my assurance regarding a deities concern for me make it not possible for that deity to be apathetic or even hostile toward some?
Second, it is possible that a deity could be omnibenevolent, I just don't see that happening, so I am not going to defend that viewpoint. Third, what we had established is that the type of deity we are discussing is neither omnibenevolent nor omnimalevolent. I presume that you honor your parents, even though they are neither omnibenevolent nor omnimalevolent.

Firstly,

I did not said omnibenevolent or omnimalevolent.
I said benevolent or malevolent.
Q: Are you unable to read dear sir?Smile))

Secondly,

Dear sir my parents are not omnipotent, omniscient, mortally perfect, super wise, just, merciful; they are deeply flawed humans.

Q: Why are you comparing supposedly perfect beings with deeply flawed beings? Eh?
That’s illogical.


Also I am not worshiping my parents.

What do you mean by worship? What is it that you think I do with regard to Adonai, that you do not do with regard to your parents?

Also my parents
-do not order some humans to inflict countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals); to not show mercy and compassion to non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals);
-do not promises to inflict countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals);
-do not inflicts countless suffering and pain to countless non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals). He burns alive, drowns countless of them. Do not kill countless of them by plagues, sword either directly or by proxy.

But your God does.

Are you saying that your parents do not allow spiders to kill flies, do not plan for the extermination of infestations, and do not kill insects themselves?

Q: Why are you defending, worshiping a capricious, malevolent, genocidal, infanticidal bully? Why are you defending a being that inflicts countless suffering, pain and death to innocents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals)

I am recognizing that deities are not humans and, if they exist, my ignoring them would not make all of those thing to cease to exist. In fact, they don't exist, those thing do not cease to exist. So, the question becomes, how is one to deal with these things that you object to?

That passage is speaking of general goodness and compassion, not omni-benevolence. We know that to be the case, because later in that same psalm it says, (Ps. 145:18) "The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth. He fulfills the desires of those who fear him; he hears their cry and saves them. The LORD watches over all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy." Adonai is not equally benevolent to all. That is the point that we were discussing.

Firstly,

The bible is clearly saying is benevolent, loving towards all, towards all he has created.

"8 The Lord is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and rich in love.
9 The Lord is good to all;
he has compassion on all he has made."

Q: Do you not understand what good to all, towards all he has created means? 😊)

Yes, it means that all get lollipops, but not all get grape lollipops.

Secondly,

The point is not wicked vs non-wicked dear sir is Israelites vs Gentiles, people from a specific geographical region vs the rest in regards to slavery.
The Israelites are no more superior then the rest of the world population.

No, it is about the rule of law. The Israelites and the mixed multitude that came with them out of Egypt accepted the Covenant. Those who choose to live in the land and not commit themselves to the Covenant must be compelled to live in accordance with the Covenant.

Thirdly,

Non-moral agents(infants, severely mentally impaired people, non-human animals) are not wicked dear sir but innocent.
It is logically impossible for a non-moral agent to be wicked.

Q: So why is your God(who is suppose to be omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, super wise, just, merciful) showing malevolence towards them, huh?

I do not recall using the term "wicked". That said, a non-moral agent is not necessarily "innocent" either. Innocence infers a code by which to make such a judgement. If these are non-moral agents, they are not innocent, because they do not have the ability to affirm a code any more than they have the ability to violate a code. How they are treated is not determined on those terms. They are treated based on the terms deterined by another, apart from guilt or innocence. The qeustion is what standards are we to use with regard to non-moral agents. Should one permit one's house to be overrun by cats, simply because cats are non-moral agents?

[alexxcJRO]

What do you mean by worship? What is it that you think I do with regard to Adonai, that you do not do with regard to your parents?
Are you saying that your parents do not allow spiders to kill flies, do not plan for the extermination of infestations, and do not kill insects themselves?

Common dear sir why are you boring me, huh?

Firstly,

Worship means the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration, veneration for a deity.
I do not have any feelings or expression of reverence and adoration, veneration towards my parents.
They are deeply flawed humans: ignorant, intolerant, racist, weak, they break golden rule on a daily basis, malevolent beings.
I do not worship malevolent, weak beings dear sir. That includes my parents.
On the other hand we are talking about a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, super wise, just, merciful being.

Q: Why are you comparing supposedly perfect beings with deeply flawed beings?
That’s illogical.


Secondly,

We have been over this.
God if he exists he is responsible for the inter-species malevolence.

I am recognizing that deities are not humans and, if they exist, my ignoring them would not make all of those thing to cease to exist. In fact, they don't exist, those thing do not cease to exist. So, the question becomes, how is one to deal with these things that you object to?

Illogical concept do not exist sir.)

No, it is about the rule of law. The Israelites and the mixed multitude that came with them out of Egypt accepted the Covenant. Those who choose to live in the land and not commit themselves to the Covenant must be compelled to live in accordance with the Covenant.

Dear sir I am talking about why is your God acting like the Israelites are more special then the rest.
They are not.

Q: Why show favoritism? (this is before the covenant)

Q: Is your God a moron? Where is the omnipotence, omniscience, the super wisdom?

I do not recall using the term "wicked"

Q: Seriously?:))

You put this passage: “The LORD watches over all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy." And you bolded the part “all the wicked he will destroy�.

That said, a non-moral agent is not necessarily "innocent" either. Innocence infers a code by which to make such a judgement. If these are non-moral agents, they are not innocent, because they do not have the ability to affirm a code any more than they have the ability to violate a code. How they are treated is not determined on those terms. They are treated based on the terms deterined by another, apart from guilt or innocence. The qeustion is what standards are we to use with regard to non-moral agents. Should one permit one's house to be overrun by cats, simply because cats are non-moral agents?

Firstly,

Your God is saying they are innocent:

“they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. 5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind."

Secondly,

Q: Wait what ?:))

Q: How can infants, severely mentally impaired people overrun anything?

Off course a 3 day infant that can’t see properly, can’t talk or walk, can’t speak or understand language, what is happening in his/her surrounding; that has almost zero experience of the world and it is practically helpless and incapable of doing harm can’t understand complex abstract notions like morality, law, salvation, can’t understand God’s requirements for salvation and can’t do morally reprehensible, illegal acts.

Off course a severely mentally impaired man/woman/child who has severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning can’t understand complex abstract notions like morality, law, salvation, can’t understand God’s requirements for salvation and can’t do morally reprehensible, illegal acts.


Thirdly,

Non-moral agents are not guilty, wicked. Therefore punishing non-moral agents is illogical.

You have still avoided the question:

Q: Why punish infants?
Q: Why not show mercy or compassion on infants? Why was God so adamant about not showing mercy and compassion on infants? Where is the super justice, mercy, wisdom?:-s

"15 So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. "

“See, I(God) will stir up against them the Medes, …they will have no mercy on infants,
nor will they look with compassion on children.�

"This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: … Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.’ “

“21 Prepare a place to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors;�

"The LORD says,… I will slaughter their beloved children.�

"the LORD say to the other men,… kill everyone whose forehead is not marked.Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. “

“struck them with the edge of the sword, the city, men and beasts and all that they found.�

“He left none remaining, but devoted to destruction all that breathed, just as the Lord God of Israel commanded." “

[Bust Nak]

Let me address the issue from your prospective. Since morality is subjective, so is any justification or opposition of slavery. All one can do then is to verify whether or not slavery is consistent with one's subjective view of morality.

Right, are you are subjectivist? If so, is slavery consistent with your subjective view of morality? If not, is slavery is consistent with your vision of objective morality? From the sound of your previous post, slavery is consistent when applied selectively?

Fair is subject and therefore is merely a statement of philosphical consistency. There are many race based philosphies, but the one presented in HaTorah is not one of them. In is initially hereditary, but citizenship is vailable to all who are willing to attach themselves to the Covenant.

So does convert or be a slave forever sound fair to you?

I don't think I said that it is impossible for a deity to arrange the world according to one's personal preferences. One could make he argument that aranging the world according to everyone's preferences is a bit of a stretch. However, the real question is wh would deity do that?

Never mind that for now, I want you to confirm that it is possible first. It's not clear if you think it is or not by "a bit of a stretch." If it isn't possible then it is moot whether a deity would do it or not when it couldn't.

On what basis is benevolence morally perfect?

Omnibebevolence is morally perfect. Benevolence is merely more moral than less
benevolence. As for the basis for that claim, would you call a malevolent being moral?

[dianaiad]

What do you mean by worship? What is it that you think I do with regard to Adonai, that you do not do with regard to your parents?
Are you saying that your parents do not allow spiders to kill flies, do not plan for the extermination of infestations, and do not kill insects themselves?

Common dear sir why are you boring me, huh?

......snip......


Moderator Warning


This is personal, and uncivil, and uncalled for. Address the content of the post, not the writer of it.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

Let me address the issue from your prospective. Since morality is subjective, so is any justification or opposition of slavery. All one can do then is to verify whether or not slavery is consistent with one's subjective view of morality.

Right, are you are subjectivist? If so, is slavery consistent with your subjective view of morality? If not, is slavery is consistent with your vision of objective morality? From the sound of your previous post, slavery is consistent when applied selectively?

Fair is subject and therefore is merely a statement of philosphical consistency. There are many race based philosphies, but the one presented in HaTorah is not one of them. In is initially hereditary, but citizenship is vailable to all who are willing to attach themselves to the Covenant.

So does convert or be a slave forever sound fair to you?

Excellent point! This is consistent with Christian theology's 'morality' of force: "Believe the way I believe or go to Hell."

This again demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of Christian morality which is ultimately based on 'might makes right' rather than treating others they way they want to be treated. Jesus had it right, but the theology of Paul and the OT has it wrong. Continuing to defend slavery because 'The Bible Tells Me So' demonstrates the ultimate bankruptcy of the moral message of the Bible.

[bluethread]

Let me address the issue from your prospective. Since morality is subjective, so is any justification or opposition of slavery. All one can do then is to verify whether or not slavery is consistent with one's subjective view of morality.

Right, are you are subjectivist? If so, is slavery consistent with your subjective view of morality? If not, is slavery is consistent with your vision of objective morality? From the sound of your previous post, slavery is consistent when applied selectively?

I do not consider it an absolute good. I see it as a free market solution to the problems of enforcing the rule of law and resolution of debt. That is why it is not commanded, but accommodated. What do you consider to be the best way to deal with enforcing the rule of law and resolution of debt?

Fair is subject and therefore is merely a statement of philosphical consistency. There are many race based philosphies, but the one presented in HaTorah is not one of them. In is initially hereditary, but citizenship is vailable to all who are willing to attach themselves to the Covenant.

So does convert or be a slave forever sound fair to you?

One can also leave. Do you think that people living in these United States be required to agree to accept the Constitution of these United States?

I don't think I said that it is impossible for a deity to arrange the world according to one's personal preferences. One could make he argument that aranging the world according to everyone's preferences is a bit of a stretch. However, the real question is wh would deity do that?

Never mind that for now, I want you to confirm that it is possible first. It's not clear if you think it is or not by "a bit of a stretch." If it isn't possible then it is moot whether a deity would do it or not when it couldn't.

I would think that it would possible for a deity to arrange things according to you personal preferences, but why should a deity do that?

On what basis is benevolence morally perfect?

Omnibenevolence is morally perfect. Benevolence is merely more moral than less
benevolence. As for the basis for that claim, would you call a malevolent being moral?

As you like to point out, that is subjective. Omnibenevolence would not be morally perfect, but behavior that is favorable to everyone, regardless of one's morality. Whether a malevalent being can be moral or not would depend on wht one considers moral. Tha said, let me reitterate that one can be benevolent and malevolent at the same time.

Sorry, for all of the typos last time. I get in a hurry some times.