(U) I'm granting this is how you are using chattel slavery. I'm not granting this is how I'm defining chattel slavery. Here's the definition of chattel slavery that I use.
POI Incorrect. You are now granting my given definition because you now realize this definition
does exists. You stated prior, that my given definition does not exist. The given definition is a broader definition than your given definition. This means that, under the term
chattel slavery, the chattel slave owner may do anything within my given broader and more detailed definition with impunity as well. I also laid out my case, using Biblical passages to support the claims, in the OP of my raised topic "
Slavery in the Bible", for which you have not refuted.
(U) I'm defining chattel slavery as:
"the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work without wages, as distinguished from other systems of forced, unpaid, or low-wage labor also considered to be slavery."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chattel-slavery
"A form of slavery where slaves are the legal property of an individual."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chattel_slavery
POI Yes, all of that too.
Chattel slavery encompasses a lot. And the God you believe in apparently allows for virtually all of it.
(U) Why limit it to just chattel slavery? Why not
any type of slavery? What about when slavery is not even involved? So, torture, brutalization, oppression, and rape are separate issues and is not exclusively limited to chattel slavery.
POI Under the umbrella of a deemed
chattel slave, it's all okay by the God you believe in. Why? Because the chattel slave is deemed lifetime property.
(U) More evasions of my questions. And I am dealing with it by revealing you are using equivocation. You are using a very specific view of chattel slavery which is contrary to other definitions. By conflating the two, you are equivocating.
POI Afraid not. Chattel slavery is a term you obviously do not like, so you wish to only argue the parts you feel you can 'defend' or justify. As I laid out in my thread, it encompasses more, using
the Bible to do so.
(U) What would you call slavery where a master owns another person and he treats him humanely?
POI A chattel slave owner. What would you also call a chattel slave owner who beats their slaved short of death, breeds them, and never lets them go free? I'll answer for you. A chattel slave owner as well. God does not have any problem with that, do you?
(U) Slave beatings would be a separate issue. It happens also to other slaves and not exclusively to chattel slaves.
POI It is not a separate issue. It's right smack dab in the middle of the same issue. In Ex. 21, God specifically instructs no punishment for the slave who is beaten without dying. The Bible states it's okay because the slave is the master's property.
(U) Yes.
POI Great, then it is '
might makes right."
(U) Yes, another evasion.
POI The '
evasion' is you skipping my direct analogy of your given
rationale. By replacing a single word phrase (chattel slavery with economics), and still using the exact same set of
points, you still have the exact same
rationale. I guess we cannot ground economics without an implied supernatural force either?
(U) Why only bring up a mafia boss and dictators? Is it only because of bringing up extreme forms of authority that it is the only way to make your case look better?
POI Chattel slavery, as defined and granted by the God you believe in, does not include "
extreme forms of authority"?
(U) Consequences of violating rules can happen in all situations when the rules from authorities are violated. This can happen in governments, in schools, on roads, at the workplace, filing taxes, in prisons, in clubs, and on this forum.
POI All under "God". Under your belief, God is the ultimate authority, and all other said systems are still under him. Thus, I guess many governments are now wrong, by completely abolishing slavery rather than to continue permitting slavery?
(U) How do you know God is making an opinion decision?
POI For the exact same reason you state I am making an opinion decision. Your entire argument is that God has a "nature." Well, so do humans then. You are merely replacing one 'moral agency' with another 'moral agency'. Case/point (paraphrased), '
we inherently know murder and rape are wrong, because it is in our given nature to believe so, and it is God who gives us this nature." You are not solving the problem you attempt to create, but instead just pushing the problem over. Thus, is stating 'chattel slavery is wrong' an opinion or not? Well, if God supplies us humans with his nature, because we realize the difference between objective right and wrong, then why did we eventually abolish chattel slavery in most parts of the world? Are we now on the side of 'evil'? God's nature instead tells us to permit/condone/allow chattel slavery.
(U) I wouldn't say this is a command either, but rather handling a case situation. If a slave dies, then they are to be punished. If they don't, then they are not to be punished.
POI It does not matter that you will not say it, but it is still objectively so. God commands impunity for slave beatings, as long as they do not die. The end. Deal with it. Do not instead merely whitewash it. Again, what version of "love" allows for such actions? Illogical.
(U) Wrong simplification. It's right because it's God's nature.
POI Then you are still arguing the exact same thing I stated. I explained above.
(U) Yes, you are making a moral judgment with your implication that chattel slavery is morally wrong. You've admitted you have no basis for making any objective judgment.
POI I'm not making a moral judgement. I'm instead stating the God you believe in does not follow his own logic, unless you have a differing version of the term "love", for which I have never read or heard about. <Chattel slavery and love> are not compatible with one another logically -- (by definition).
(U) So, your judgment is subjective and so has no more weight than a personal opinion. So the question stands, why should anybody accept your moral judgments about chattel slavery as being objective?
POI Explained again... I'm not making a moral judgement. I'm instead stating the God you believe in does not follow his own logic, unless you have a differing version of the term "love", for which I have never read or heard about. <Chattel slavery and love> are not compatible with one another logically -- (by definition).
(U) Your statement also reveals your equivocation by stating "granted form(s) of chattel slavery". Why did you have to add "forms"? Are you acknowledging "chattel slavery" and "forms of chattel slavery" are different?
POI Already answered.
(U) False attribution. Where have I said anything is objective regarding chattel slavery?
POI Yet again... God's nature/opinion/rulings are not objective? God states such practices are okay. Does this make chattel slavery objectively okay or not? Much of the globe now states it is not okay. Is most of the globe now objectively wrong?
(U) The only way it can be argued it could be morally wrong is by pointing out different "forms" of chattel slavery.
POI Then I guess it is "morally right" to beat slaves, (as long as they do not die, masters can breed them, and masters can keep them for life against their will).
(U) Did you even answer my question? No. And doubtful you'll ever answer this...
POI Yes
(U) If we resolve the issue of chattel slavery (according to the general definition that I've provided), then we can go on to debate the morality of your specific "forms" of chattel slavery.
POI I already laid out my case, long ago, here (
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=40608).
*************************
notable: Here is the verse(s) you listed:
Exo 21:26-27 KJV] 26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
This is exactly WHY Bible-God believing slave masters beat their slaves from the back side 
It's hard to knock out eyes and teeth this way. They are merely abiding by God's word.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
