(U) it is on ethical grounds, not logical grounds that these are brought up.
POI I do not care what other "atheists" bring up here. I'm addressing the logic, or in this case, the lack-there-of...
(U) We also have to ask why you won't answer this question.
POI I already have. Your question is irrelevant.
(U) Since chattel slavery is subjective
POI All given
personal opinion(s) is/are subjective, by definition. My entire point was to demonstrate that if just because an asserted all-powerful creating supernatural force gives you your personal opinion, because it is their opinion, it somehow then becomes "objective"? Calling it God's nature, in lieu of God's opinion, changes nothing. I already explained why.
(U) Since you claim it doesn't matter what you morally think, then all charges from you relating to the morality of God or the Bible (and even outside the Bible) can be dismissed.
POI My personal opinions, just like yours, are all subjective. I'm not addressing my personal opinion. I'm addressing the lack in logic with your argument. I explained this, many responses ago, with 'economics' (rich vs poor), also tall vs short, also high vs low, also fat vs skinny, also tastes good vs tastes bad, also horrible vs great, etc etc etc etc...........
(U) Even if we look at your argument logically, it is also not viable.
POI As my daddy used to say, pretty much
any topic can be "
argued" (for or against)
(U) Yes, I stated that. Do you also accept it?
POI Sure, just like I accept someone who wants to argue there exists abusive and un-abusive hostage takers, or abusive and un-abusive dictators, etc etc etc.
(U) Nobody has presented a definition of "abusive" yet. What would be the objective test to determine if something is abusive? Is simply beating a slave abusive?
POI I reckon beating your chattel slave, just short of death, with instructed complete impunity, would qualify under the umbrella term of "abusive".
(U) The Bible says nothing explicitly about either sanctioning or condemning beatings with impunity.
POI Yes it does, right here. --> "
21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." God orders no punishment, as long as they recover. This is because the chattel slave master has
property rights over his chattel slave.
(U) The context of the passages is how to judge a situation if a slave loses an eye, tooth or life. The context is not about how much a slave owner can beat his slave.
POI The context is that the chattel slave is the master's property, but maybe not quite like a chair or a spoon. But instead likely somewhere in between livestock and women. There exists some restrictions. But beating them with instructed impunity is not one of them. And like I've stated twice now.... Why do you think many chattel slave owners beat their slaves from the back side? Since you never answered, I'll shed some common sense... Because the Bible instructs not to knock out eyes and teeth. Their eyes and teeth remain intact, if they just whip them from the back. Maybe also, since the chattel is their laborer or money, they need them to work more, and injuring them too badly (or making them blind by knocking out their eyes), would obstruct their future work productivity. A blind chattel slave is not worth much on the open market, I reckon
(U) Even if a master beats his slave with impunity and the slave does not die, it can still be considered to be immoral. All the text says is he shall not be punished. Not all immoral actions are punished.
POI Well, maybe you and I, in applying our own personal opinions, might think beating chattel slaves is "immoral", but not to the God you worship. Otherwise, he would likely have either not weighed in on this specific topic of "slavery"
at all - (for which we could then logically assume God is not okay with it, in favor instead of the implied golden rule), or, he would have ordered punishment accordingly. You know, like he did so if someone is/was found cursing their parents, or maybe with men having sex with other men. But since he specifically orders no punishment, while at the same time issuing capital punishment for many deemed "offenses", I guess the God you worship is a-okay with beating chattel slaves. Why? Because he decided to specifically weigh in on it. He states NO PUBISHMENT for doing so. Hence, the chattel slave master is free and clear. His conscious can be free and clear. God's okay with it, thus, so should the chattel slave owner.
So why aren't you? (~5th attempt at an answer).
(U) I reject abuse in general, not just in chattel slavery. Do you reject abuse? On what grounds do you reject abuse?
POI This is you deflecting, by asking me about my personal opinion again. As I've stated repeatedly, using YOUR logic, the only opinion which should matter to you, is God's. And yet, it seems you and him disagree. Maybe be a little more 'concerned' about that.
(U) Yes, but God also judges and punishes sin.
POI Here's where things logically fall apart. (Love and abusive chattel slavery) are not logically compatible. Unless you wish to change the working definition(s) of the given terms -- (love and/or abusive chattel slavery). God, in this case, orders no punishment for abusive chattel slavery. Thus, which term do you compromise or maybe re-define to taste, or maybe both?
(U) Sure, I can go with this.
POI Right, because logic would dictate such a position. (Love and abusive chattel slavery) are not compatible. I rest my case your honor.
(U) This conclusion has not been demonstrated yet.
POI Yes it has.
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."
