How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[alexxcJRO]

The entire point of skeptics bringing up slavery, genocide, rape, homosexuality, etc is charging God and the Old Testament is immoral. So it is on ethical grounds, not logical grounds that these are brought up.

Is all about logic. The concept of God presented in the Bible is contradictory.

The ultimate good, benevolent, wise, just, intelligent, knowledgeable, powerful being-GOD is
-punishing moral agents together with non-moral agents -> shows no care or empathy for the one that are objectively innocent: unborn babies, babies-infants, animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth;
-commands that gays should be killed; orders some humans to commit genocides against other humans;
-threatens humans with everlasting punishment and torment in other dimension: Hell;
-is jealous, petty, malevolent-evil, vindictive, unjust, unkind, homophobic and so on.

[otseng]

The entire point of skeptics bringing up slavery, genocide, rape, homosexuality, etc is charging God and the Old Testament is immoral. So it is on ethical grounds, not logical grounds that these are brought up.

Is all about logic. The concept of God presented in the Bible is contradictory.

The ultimate good, benevolent, wise, just, intelligent, knowledgeable, powerful being-GOD is
-punishing moral agents together with non-moral agents -> shows no care or empathy for the one that are objectively innocent: unborn babies, babies-infants, animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth;
-commands that gays should be killed; orders some humans to commit genocides against other humans;
-threatens humans with everlasting punishment and torment in other dimension: Hell;
-is jealous, petty, malevolent-evil, vindictive, unjust, unkind, homophobic and so on.

This is just repeating assertions without any justification.

[otseng]

Skeptics commonly bring up slavery to attack the morality of God and the Old Testament.

The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals.
Christopher Hitchens

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible

Slavery in the Bible is a killer for Bible validity which is why it comes up as often as Cosmic origins comes up as a supposed killer for atheism.

It's a valid topic and none the worse for having been raised before. It is indeed one of the Biggies

Regardless of who wrote these chattel slavery instructions, whether it was his dad, some random dude, or even Jesus himself, here are the "instructions" for humans, in which he apparently loved?

- May be enslaved for life as property
- May be beaten with virtual impunity
- May be breed and the offspring kept by the master

So as I stated, in my last response, you have 4 crappy choices:

1) Jesus agrees with his dad's instructions
2) Jesus does not agree with his dad's instructions
3) Jesus agrees with the random scribe's instructions
4) Jesus does not agree with this random scribe's instructions, and says nothing; not even a one-liner.

As I stated prior, they all suck, for YOU.

When skeptics talk about slavery, in actuality they are specifically referring to chattel slavery. So, we have the equivocation fallacy off the bat. Even dictionaries commit this fallacy.

1. the condition of being enslaved, held, or owned as human chattel or property; bondage.
2. a practice or institution that treats or recognizes some human beings as the legal property of others.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/slavery

the activity of legally owning other people who are forced to work for or obey you

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... sh/slavery

Slavery is the ownership of a person as property, especially in regards to their labor.
The word “slavery” has also been used to refer to a legal state of dependency to somebody else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

There is no consensus on the definition of slavery, but in general, it's "practices such as forced labour, debt bondage, forced marriage, and human trafficking."

Although modern slavery is not defined in law, it is used as an umbrella term covering practices such as forced labour, debt bondage, forced marriage, and human trafficking. Essentially, it refers to situations of exploitation that a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, deception, and/or abuse of power.

https://www.un.org/en/observances/slavery-abolition-day

Chattel slavery would be a subset of slavery. It is slavery where slaves are owned as property.

“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

“slavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/slavery-sociology

“The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner’s control, especially in involuntary servitude.”
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Chattel+slavery

“slavery in which a person is owned as a chattel.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... %20slavery

Why the equivocation between slavery and chattel slavery?

Because it cannot be stated slavery is morally wrong in the objective sense.

Objective morality is morality that would apply universally at all places at all times. Subjective morality would be morality that does not apply universally, but can differ according to places, times, and situations.

Why is slavery not objective, but subjective? Because there are instances of slavery where it is acceptable. Debt slavery is acceptable because the person has to pay off a debt that he got into. Since debt slavery is not morally wrong, then slavery is not objectively wrong and is subjective.

Is chattel slavery wrong in the objective sense? No. Even chattel slavery is subjective.

There is voluntary chattel slavery and involuntary chattel slavery. Christians are commanded to be slaves for Christ.

[Eph 6:6 NIV] 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

[1Pe 2:16 NIV] 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God's slaves.

[Col 3:23-24 NIV] 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.

Voluntary chattel slavery therefore is not morally wrong. Therefore chattel slavery is not objectively wrong, but subjective.

Under chattel slavery, there is also a difference between abusive chattel slavery and non-abusive chattel slavery. If there's no abuse and the master is a loving person, then how can it be considered morally wrong?

Therefore, chattel slavery is subjective. Since chattel slavery is subjective, it is impossible to make any normative moral statements about it. Making a statement to either condone it or condemn it is not possible.

The skeptic's argument then moves from slavery to chattel slavery to abusive chattel slavery. But does the Bible make any explicit statement allowing for abusive chattel slavery?

The passages that are commonly brought up:

[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.

[Exo 21:20-21 KJV] 20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money.

Skeptics interpret these passages as God is allowing for masters to beat up their slaves up to the point of not dislodging a tooth, gouging an eye, or killing the slave. The point of these passages is not making a statement for slave owners on what's the allowable extent of beatings, but making a statement what should happen with a loss of tooth, eye, or life. These are case laws if one of these things happen, not case laws on how much beatings can be dealt.

Does God allow for abuse? No. And this is not limited to just chattel slavery, but to all kinds of slavery. God repeatedly told the Israelites to remember they were once slaves.

[Deu 15:15 KJV] 15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.

[Deu 16:12 KJV] 12 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt: and thou shalt observe and do these statutes.

[Deu 24:18 KJV] 18 But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

[Deu 24:22 KJV] 22 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

Rather than the Bible listing all the things people should not do (beat people with impunity, torture people, brutalize people, trick people into being sex slaves, etc), there is a single commandment given of what people should do.

[Lev 19:18 KJV] 18b thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.

[Jas 2:8 KJV] 8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

In effect, God commands people to treat others as they would want to be treated.

Since a master is not punished for beating a slave right before possibly dying, does that mean it's morally acceptable? No. It is in violation to the passages I referred to above. But since he's not punished, doesn't that mean it's OK to do it? No, because there are things that are also not morally acceptable and there's no legal punishment for it (being unfaithful to a spouse is one example). So morality does not necessarily entail punishment.

What about the "breeding" of slaves, would that be morally wrong?

Here's the passage:

[Exo 21:2-4 KJV] 2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.

The "breeding" of slaves would occur if a debt slave decides to marry a chattel slave and they have children. The child would belong to the master.

However, there's no indication anybody is forced to do anything, but people freely chose to marry and have children. If they choose to do these things, how can it be considered immoral?

In addition, it is accepted by scholars the laws in the Bible regarding slavery is on par with other slavery laws in the ANE. So, if the laws in the Bible are objectively immoral, then so are all the other laws in the ANE. But that doesn't make any sense. Rather, it means we are making our subjective moral judgments on all the laws in the ANE and the Bible regarding slavery.

So, there is nothing objectively immoral about slavery, or even chattel slavery, in the Bible. As for abuse, the Bible points to it as being immoral, whether it exists within slavery or outside of slavery.

[POI]

(U) Then why not simply answer my question by stating chattel slavery is subjective instead of saying it is irrelevant?

POI Because it is irrelevant to the point I have been repeatedly making. The Bible God's "nature", for which you then deem 'objective', has opted to weigh in on the topic of chattel slavery. The Bible God sanctions/permits/allows abusive chattel slavery, which then apparently makes such condition(s) 'objective' law, not 'subjective'. God sanctions/permits/allows abusive chattel slavery while also claiming to love humans. Most societies have now opted to abolish (any/all) chattel slavery practices, which does not conflict with the term 'love.' My argument addresses a logical position.

(U) I'm not arguing based on my opinions, but based on my rational argumentation that the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values is God.

POI Then you should be a-okay with abusive chattel slavery. But you are not, so you are objectively wrong.

(U) Irrelevant analogies.

POI I'm afraid they are quite relevant. One's wishes, desires, likes, dislikes, personal judgements, and/or opinions, all also apply when instructing the correct allowances for the over-arching topic of chattel slavery. But in your case, since God weighed in on it, it becomes objective.

(U) More appealing to the extremes.

POI You already granted my definition of chattel slavery, for which you did not believe even existed prior to me bringing it to your attention. Such a defitnion fits into the same category as the other aforementioned categories of "hostage-taker" and/or "dictator". Meaning, they all look to defy the term love, which is what the Bible-God claims to be...

(U) If you have no definition, then you're just going down the path of equivocation again.

POI I have repeatedly used the Bible-God's permitted example(s). "Non-abusive chattel slavery" consists of permitting the beating(s) of your chattel slave(s), and assuring they do not die from the permitted beating(s). But I doubt you and I agree with your maker here. But even if this IS true, how is this compatible with the term "love"?

Abusive chattel slavery consists of beating them to the point of death, and/or knocking out their eyes/teeth.

(U) What would be the objective test to determine if something is abusive?

POI Whatever your believed upon God's nature does not permit/allow/sanction, apparently. Also see my answer directly above.

(U) Is simply beating a slave abusive?

POI According to the objective law giver, no, not at all. It is all okay as long as they do not die or lose eyes/teeth. But then we have to question how such permission(s) is compatible with the term "love"?

Okay, my turn. What is God's definition of the term "love"?

(U) All it says is they are not to be punished. There is no statement such as "thou shall beat your slaves with impunity" or "thou shall not beat your slaves with impunity".

POI I have stated this many times now. God decided to weigh in on this topic. God permits/allows/sanctions such actions, rather than abolishing them. He is a-okay with them, rather than to just abolish them, like he instructs the abolition of cursing your parents. Cursing your parents merits death but, beating your slaves (just short of death) merits no punishment.

(U) Just because someone has property rights over something or someone does not give them rights to abuse.

POI Tell this to the God which permits as such.

(U) Obviously to get them to obey their masters.

POI That wasn't my question. Why did they beat them on the back side?

(U) And you haven't answered the question is simply beating a person abusive?

POI I already answered above. It only matters what your believed upon God thinks. And he thinks it's all okay, as long as you comply with his instructions to not kill them, and don't pop out their eyes/teeth.

(U) Of course. What about one that is missing a tooth?

POI I'm not sure you are getting my point yet. These laws appear human invented alone. Such laws favored the ones who were pro-slavery. Many of these slaves were either purchased, and/or considered possessions. and they needed them for cheap labor. Since they were considered mere property, the beatings likely increased when they were either no longer productive or could no longer work, (due to age, work injury, sickness, pregnancy, or other). Hence, the following passage:

26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

Notice, that even in this given instruction, the slavery owner is still not instructed to receive capital punishment. Only to let them go. Which makes no difference since the slave is no longer productive anyways. As I stated prior, the slave likely falls, in the ranking system or pecking order, somewhere between women and livestock.

(U) I know this will be a bit controversial, but as for my position on beatings, I also consider this to fall under subjective morality. So beating of slaves would be subjective and there can be no objective moral statement made on the beating of slaves.

POI But "God's nature" permits it, which makes it 'objectively' okay. So you are wrong.

(U) There is also no punishment stated for abusive behavior in any other form of slavery. Even further, there is no punishment stated for many forms of abusive behavior outside of slavery. So, with your logic, God is a-okay with many forms of abuse.

POI Using my logic, the Bible-God is a-okay with beating your chattel slave, as long as they do not die, or lose eyes/teeth. If we agree here, which also means the Bible-God is a-okay with abuse, then we can move on to what you also stated above. Otherwise, I have also already stated, many responses ago, that the God you believe in also provides instructions which are haphazard, if he claims to also love his creation. Since this is such a heavily debated topic, it is not a mundane one. God then offers haphazard instruction at "best", and offers permission for abuse at "worst". If his instruction is no "better" than the human invented laws, then what makes the Bible any 'better' than any competing ancient collection of 'God given' laws?

(U) Again, the purpose of the Exodus 21 passages is concerning the case situations of what should happen if a slave loses a tooth, eye, or life. It is not stating how much abuse can a chattel slave owner get away with.

POI Yet again, yes it does. All beatings, short of these outcomes, are instructed to not be punishable. Which means he is okay with them, but he is not okay with cursing your parents.

U No, conscious is not free and clear since it's in violation of other commandments as I've already discussed.

POI As I've already stated, if he did not weigh in on this topic, or merely expressed abolishment for it, then yes, we instead abide by the "golden rule." However, since the (free) and the (enslaved) appear to fall under differing rulesets, we must follow accordingly.

(U) Simply reiterating "God's okay with it" (probably for more than 5 times) does not make it true. So why should I agree with something that is false?

POI I've already demonstrated it.

(U) God is against abuse.

POI No. God is okay with it, if you are a chattel slave.

(U)I'm content letting the jury decide on the case.

POI

[otseng]

(U) I'm not arguing based on my opinions, but based on my rational argumentation that the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values is God.

POI Then you should be a-okay with abusive chattel slavery. But you are not, so you are objectively wrong.

As I've stated, I'm against abuse of any kind. And the Bible does not support abuse either.

(U) Irrelevant analogies.

POI I'm afraid they are quite relevant. One's wishes, desires, likes, dislikes, personal judgements, and/or opinions, all also apply when instructing the correct allowances for the over-arching topic of chattel slavery.

You did not address how they are relevant to the is-ought problem. Sure, people have wishes, desires, likes, etc, but there is no oughtness of why they should be universally accepted.

(U) More appealing to the extremes.

POI You already granted my definition of chattel slavery, for which you did not believe even existed prior to me bringing it to your attention. Such a defitnion fits into the same category as the other aforementioned categories of "hostage-taker" and/or "dictator". Meaning, they all look to defy the term love, which is what the Bible-God claims to be...

Yes, I granted that is how you define chattel slavery. And I've pointed out it's equivocation since your definition is a form of chattel slavery. And just like you've gone to the extreme with chattel slavery (abusive chattel slavery), you've gone to the extreme with beatings (beatings with impunity), and people with authority (dictators, hostage-takers).

Abusive chattel slavery consists of beating them to the point of death, and/or knocking out their eyes/teeth.

I asked for a definition of "abusive", not what could be considered abusive chattel slavery. Even with your definition, if someone does not die or lose an eye or tooth, then it's not abusive.

(U) What would be the objective test to determine if something is abusive?

POI Whatever your believed upon God's nature does not permit/allow/sanction, apparently.

Since you did not answer the question, I'll answer it. There is no objective test to determine if something crosses into abusive treatment. But we can set objective guidelines as to what would be abusive. And examples of that would be what you've brought up - death and knocking out their eyes/teeth. We can objectively assess these situations. However, anything below this would be subjective.

(U) Is simply beating a slave abusive?

POI According to the objective law giver, no, not at all. It is all okay as long as they do not die or lose eyes/teeth.

I'm not asking what God thinks, but what you think. The answer is simply beating a slave is not abusive.

Okay, my turn. What is God's definition of the term "love"?

[1Co 13:4-7 NASB20] 4 Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous; love does not brag, it is not arrogant. 5 It does not act disgracefully, it does not seek its own [benefit;] it is not provoked, does not keep an account of a wrong [suffered,] 6 it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 it keeps every confidence, it believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

(U) All it says is they are not to be punished. There is no statement such as "thou shall beat your slaves with impunity" or "thou shall not beat your slaves with impunity".

POI I have stated this many times now. God decided to weigh in on this topic. God permits/allows/sanctions such actions, rather than abolishing them. He is a-okay with them, rather than to just abolish them

Yes, you've stated that many times now, which is the fallacious argument from repetition.

(U) Just because someone has property rights over something or someone does not give them rights to abuse.

POI Tell this to the God which permits as such.

There is no need to tell God since God doesn't permit abuse.

(U) Obviously to get them to obey their masters.

POI That wasn't my question. Why did they beat them on the back side?

I see no relevance to where they beat them.

(U) And you haven't answered the question is simply beating a person abusive?

POI I already answered above. It only matters what your believed upon God thinks. And he thinks it's all okay, as long as you comply with his instructions to not kill them, and don't pop out their eyes/teeth.

It's not answering the question, but more avoidance of answering the question. No, simply beating a person is not abusive. And you know this as well since what you've brought up is beatings with impunity, not simply beatings. You stated, "So basically, since the slave is your property, beatings with impunity are acceptable. Just don't kill them."

However, you've also equivocated with this since you've also stated, "Beatings would be abusive, by objective definition."

A blind chattel slave is not worth much on the open market, I reckon

(U) Of course. What about one that is missing a tooth?

POI I'm not sure you are getting my point yet. These laws appear human invented alone. Such laws favored the ones who were pro-slavery. Many of these slaves were either purchased, and/or considered possessions. and they needed them for cheap labor. Since they were considered mere property, the beatings likely increased when they were either no longer productive or could no longer work, (due to age, work injury, sickness, pregnancy, or other). Hence, the following passage:

26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

In this entire thread, I've stated the Bible was written by people. So, yes these slave laws could've been human invented. And even if they were human invented, it supports that the Exodus 21 case laws were to address productivity issues, not an instruction on how much abuse can a chattel slave owner get away with.

Notice, that even in this given instruction, the slavery owner is still not instructed to receive capital punishment. Only to let them go. Which makes no difference since the slave is no longer productive anyways.

I don't think losing a tooth would impact the productivity of a slave. I have several missing teeth and it has not impacted my productivity.

As I stated prior, the slave likely falls, in the ranking system or pecking order, somewhere between women and livestock.

Yes, that's true. But it bears no relevance to either chattel slavery being immoral or illogical.

(U) I know this will be a bit controversial, but as for my position on beatings, I also consider this to fall under subjective morality. So beating of slaves would be subjective and there can be no objective moral statement made on the beating of slaves.

POI But "God's nature" permits it, which makes it 'objectively' okay. So you are wrong.

I've given my summary argument why your argument fails in slavery summary argument.

And since you do not challenge the assertion beatings fall under subjective morality, then the position remains uncontested.

POI Using my logic, the Bible-God is a-okay with beating your chattel slave, as long as they do not die, or lose eyes/teeth. If we agree here, which also means the Bible-God is a-okay with abuse, then we can move on to what you also stated above.

No, your logic fails as I've summarized above.

Otherwise, I have also already stated, many responses ago, that the God you believe in also provides instructions which are haphazard, if he claims to also love his creation.

What is haphazard is the accusations by skeptics by misinterpreting the Bible, asking questions and demanding answers yet failing to answer questions posed, and the usage of numerous logical fallacies. Skeptics just haphazardly throw arguments on the wall hoping one would stick, but none do.

If his instruction is no "better" than the human invented laws, then what makes the Bible any 'better' than any competing ancient collection of 'God given' laws?

I grant the case laws in the Bible are on par with ANE laws. Though there exist some better laws in the Bible, it's not relevant since I'm not arguing how superior the laws in the Bible are compared to other ancient laws. I'm arguing we can trust the Bible and it is reliable.

(U) Again, the purpose of the Exodus 21 passages is concerning the case situations of what should happen if a slave loses a tooth, eye, or life. It is not stating how much abuse can a chattel slave owner get away with.

POI Yet again, yes it does.

I'll let readers assess.

U No, conscious is not free and clear since it's in violation of other commandments as I've already discussed.

POI As I've already stated, if he did not weigh in on this topic, or merely expressed abolishment for it, then yes, we instead abide by the "golden rule." However, since the (free) and the (enslaved) appear to fall under differing rulesets, we must follow accordingly.

Since there is no explicit command one way or the other on beatings and there is an explicit command to treat others as you would like to be treated, then what people should follow is the explicit command and not the distortion of case laws that it was not even addressing.

(U)I'm content letting the jury decide on the case.

POI

Since I've already posted my summary argument on slavery, I will be addressing the next issue of morality - homosexuality.

[POI]

(U) Yes, I granted that is how you define chattel slavery. And I've pointed out it's equivocation since your definition is a form of chattel slavery. And just like you've gone to the extreme with chattel slavery (abusive chattel slavery), you've gone to the extreme with beatings (beatings with impunity), and people with authority (dictators, hostage-takers).

POI I reckon chattel slavery is no more or less 'extreme' than sub-categorizing <dictators and hostage takers> into ("good" ones) and ("bad" ones). Rather than to leave this category not very well categorized, just abolish the category entirely, like the Bible-God does for "cursing your parents". I can think of "justifiable/rational/reasonable" ways to warrant (cursing a parent), but God just says, 'don't do it at all."

(U) I asked for a definition of "abusive", not what could be considered abusive chattel slavery. Even with your definition, if someone does not die or lose an eye or tooth, then it's not abusive.

POI I'm paraphrasing the Bible-God's definition. If the beating does not kill them, or knock out their eye's/teeth, it's a-okay in his book. Why are you not a-okay in the same way? Or are you?

(U) Since you did not answer the question, I'll answer it. There is no objective test to determine if something crosses into abusive treatment. But we can set objective guidelines as to what would be abusive. And examples of that would be what you've brought up - death and knocking out their eyes/teeth. We can objectively assess these situations. However, anything below this would be subjective.

POI I did answer. Now I'll respond to your alternative response, which does not address my given answer. Yes, there is apparently an objective test. If the chattel slave master's beating(s) does not kill them, or pop out their eye's/teeth, it's a-okay. Why? Because the chattel slave is the master's property, and God instructs no punishment accordingly because of this reason.

(U) I'm not asking what God thinks, but what you think. The answer is simply beating a slave is not abusive.

POI Yet again, the only opinion which matters is God's opinion. Why does your opinion not align with God's, or does it?

(U) [1Co 13:4-7 NASB20] 4 Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous; love does not brag, it is not arrogant. 5 It does not act disgracefully, it does not seek its own [benefit;] it is not provoked, does not keep an account of a wrong [suffered,] 6 it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 it keeps every confidence, it believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

POI With the above given definition, is 'kindness' compatible with beating a slave just short of death without punishment?

(U) All it says is they are not to be punished. There is no statement such as "thou shall beat your slaves with impunity" or "thou shall not beat your slaves with impunity".

(U) There is no need to tell God since God doesn't permit abuse.

POI Then beating chattel slaves, as long as they do not die, is NOT "abusive". Otherwise, God would order punishment, since he does not like abuse.

***************************************

(U) Obviously to get them to obey their masters.

POI That wasn't my question. Why did they beat them on the back side?

***************************************

(U) I see no relevance to where they beat them.

POI As you would say, it's (obvious) why they were beaten from the back side. Because beating them on the front might knock out their eye's/teeth. God instructs that such conditions warrant the chattel slave's release. They likely only broke these laws when the slave was no longer deemed useful, since the slave was their deemed working property. And when they broke these laws, the slave was to go free, which was already okay with the slave owner, because they were no longer going to be productive anyways -- (due to age, work injury, other).

(U) It's not answering the question, but more avoidance of answering the question. No, simply beating a person is not abusive. And you know this as well since what you've brought up is beatings with impunity, not simply beatings.

POI I can make the exact same argument for "cursing my parents". (i.e.):

- Cases/exceptions can be made to own chattel slaves.
- Cases/exceptions can be made to curse your parents.

And yet, God instead simply deems fit to just label this act an all-out no-no, (no matter what). Why not just abolish chattel slavery in the same way?

(U) In this entire thread, I've stated the Bible was written by people. So, yes these slave laws could've been human invented. And even if they were human invented, it supports that the Exodus 21 case laws were to address productivity issues, not an instruction on how much abuse can a chattel slave owner get away with.

POI Then I have to ask... Wouldn't the Bibe-God just express the abolition of all chattel slavery, like he apparently did for cursing one's parent? How are we to know which laws came from anyone other than humans ALONE?

(U) I don't think losing a tooth would impact the productivity of a slave. I have several missing teeth and it has not impacted my productivity.

POI You continue to evade the point. The laws read to benefit only the slave master. Since these slaves were purchased for labor, and deemed property, the instructions allow for them to do what they were already going to do to them anyways, unless these slave owners did not like money. Killing them would be like shooting themselves in the foot. Hurting them severely, while they were still deemed productive, would also be shooting themselves in the foot. Whipping them on the back side, keeps them in line. An 'instruction' was put into place to make it okay to do so, without punishment. A chattel slave can still work the fields with lashes on his/her back.

(U) Yes, that's true. But it bears no relevance to either chattel slavery being immoral or illogical.

POI Then I guess "God's nature", which is objective truth, is to deem some humans, who happen to be chattel slaves, as somewhere in between livestock and kept women.

(U) I'm arguing we can trust the Bible and it is reliable.

POI This would make it okay to beat chattel slaves, as long as they do not die.

**********************

Conclusion:

Abusive chattel slavery = killing them or knocking out their eye's/teeth.
Non-abuse chattel slavery = Anything else. But since the slave is their labor, they likely just stuck to what works, which is lashes to the backside. This way, they could still work the fields.

Why? The chattel slave is their property. You can also breed them and keep their offspring as well. Freebie new chattel slaves. Not much different than raising livestock for new free cattle.

Chattel slaves are not to the same level of property as a spoon or a chair though.... They are instead deemed somewhere in between livestock and kept women. This is why killing them may still merit capital punishment.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes .We have to be reasonable out of not making false steps, quite apart from wanting to do it right anyway.

We know what the whole argument is, or should be, because I saw it from the 80's when it first went online. Bible critics thought they had it by saying 'The Bible is not inerrant'. Thus it is not written nor preserved by God. They went on to list contradictions like what hats Samuel was wearing (quip, meaning trivial points - some poster with a poker rammed where it should not be protested "The Bible says nothing about Samuel wearing a hat!"). Sure, that means God is not micromanaging his Book nor does he (if he could) stop His Word being messed up. Magically, he could do that, and wouldn't that be evidence that God was real " But of course God cannot provide conclusive evidence that he is real, even though Christian apologists keep pointing to evidence (usually false) that God is undeniable, or that nullifies Faith.

But ok, Bible apologists can say that the Bible, give or take excusable errors, is reliable. And of course hint that God is somehow Behind what looks like the work of men, just as He is claimed to be behind the work of Nature.

So it comes down to whether we can credit it as valid testimony, let pass understandable errors. This is where I saw immediately that minor differences could be waved away. What was needed to really question Bible veracity were 'Biggies'. Science and indeed History Biggies are at best dismissed as metaphor. But my retort is that 'Metaphorically true, means not true at all'.

If it didn't happen, it is no evidence for a god. It doesn't matter, and never did that the Believer used that to cling to Faith. Converting them was never the point, it was showing there is no valid case for Bible reliability. And the believers never, ever, understand this, as they think all it is about is them hanging onto Faith, or some shred of it.

But at worst, the Bible is just Wrong, it is not telling the truth. For the doubter and questioner, it is the Case, and the Biggies are the ones that make the case. The biggest biggies are all in the NT (as the OT can at need be thrown out by Christianity) The Biggest of Biggies is the Nativity. touchstone fail. Next are the resurrections, which are nearly as bad. Third, No transfiguration in John. There are many, many more, and pretty big ones , too, and they utterly destroy the credibility of the Bible, NT and Old - for anyone whose mind is not already closed to reason.

[otseng]

POI I'm paraphrasing the Bible-God's definition. If the beating does not kill them, or knock out their eye's/teeth, it's a-okay in his book. Why are you not a-okay in the same way? Or are you?

Again, repeating your claim over and over is a fallacious argument. Pretty much this is the only argumentation you've offered is by simply reiterating the claim. And I've given full treatment of your claim in the Slavery summary argument.

(U) Since you did not answer the question, I'll answer it. There is no objective test to determine if something crosses into abusive treatment. But we can set objective guidelines as to what would be abusive. And examples of that would be what you've brought up - death and knocking out their eyes/teeth. We can objectively assess these situations. However, anything below this would be subjective.

POI I did answer.

No, you did not address my question. I'll let readers assess it:

(U) What would be the objective test to determine if something is abusive?

POI Whatever your believed upon God's nature does not permit/allow/sanction, apparently.

Now I'll respond to your alternative response, which does not address my given answer. Yes, there is apparently an objective test. If the chattel slave master's beating(s) does not kill them, or pop out their eye's/teeth, it's a-okay. Why? Because the chattel slave is the master's property, and God instructs no punishment accordingly because of this reason.

This is not addressing it either, but again reiterating your claim.

(U) I'm not asking what God thinks, but what you think. The answer is simply beating a slave is not abusive.

POI Yet again, the only opinion which matters is God's opinion. Why does your opinion not align with God's, or does it?

More question avoidance.

(U) [1Co 13:4-7 NASB20] 4 Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous; love does not brag, it is not arrogant. 5 It does not act disgracefully, it does not seek its own [benefit;] it is not provoked, does not keep an account of a wrong [suffered,] 6 it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 it keeps every confidence, it believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

POI With the above given definition, is 'kindness' compatible with beating a slave just short of death without punishment?

That's the reason I asked you what is the objective test to determine if one is abusive? We agree dislodging a tooth or eye or causing test would be an objective way to determine this. Anything below this would be subjective. So how can any normative command be made on something subjective?

(U) All it says is they are not to be punished. There is no statement such as "thou shall beat your slaves with impunity" or "thou shall not beat your slaves with impunity".

(U) There is no need to tell God since God doesn't permit abuse.

POI Then beating chattel slaves, as long as they do not die, is NOT "abusive". Otherwise, God would order punishment, since he does not like abuse.

As I've mentioned before, just because something can be considered immoral does not necessarily mean there should be legal punishment.

POI As you would say, it's (obvious) why they were beaten from the back side. Because beating them on the front might knock out their eye's/teeth.

Again, I see no relevance.

(U) It's not answering the question, but more avoidance of answering the question. No, simply beating a person is not abusive. And you know this as well since what you've brought up is beatings with impunity, not simply beatings.

POI I can make the exact same argument for "cursing my parents". (i.e.)

This is a red herring. Nobody is talking about cursing parents.

Do you claim simply beating a person should be considered abusive? Or does it need to be beatings with impunity that is abusive?

Why not just abolish chattel slavery in the same way?

As I've extensively argued, chattel slavery is subjective. There is no need to abolish something that is subjective.

(U) In this entire thread, I've stated the Bible was written by people. So, yes these slave laws could've been human invented. And even if they were human invented, it supports that the Exodus 21 case laws were to address productivity issues, not an instruction on how much abuse can a chattel slave owner get away with.

POI Then I have to ask... Wouldn't the Bibe-God just express the abolition of all chattel slavery, like he apparently did for cursing one's parent?

Ironically, if the Bible did abolish chattel slavery, it would show the Bible is illogical since it would then make a normative statement on something that is subjective.

How are we to know which laws came from anyone other than humans ALONE?

For the purpose of this thread, we can consider the entire Bible to come from humans alone. In this thread, I have not claimed any of the Bible comes directly from God.

(U) I don't think losing a tooth would impact the productivity of a slave. I have several missing teeth and it has not impacted my productivity.

POI You continue to evade the point.

How is it evading the point if you're the one that brought up loss of productivity?

The laws read to benefit only the slave master.

How it is beneficial to the master if the slave goes free or if the master is punished? Rather, the laws seem to protect the slave rather than to "benefit" the master.

Since these slaves were purchased for labor, and deemed property, the instructions allow for them to do what they were already going to do to them anyways, unless these slave owners did not like money. Killing them would be like shooting themselves in the foot. Hurting them severely, while they were still deemed productive, would also be shooting themselves in the foot. Whipping them on the back side, keeps them in line.

No instructions are required for any of these.

An 'instruction' was put into place to make it okay to do so, without punishment. A chattel slave can still work the fields with lashes on his/her back.

Sure, beatings can take place without punishment to the master. Are you claiming beatings are objectively abusive?

(U) I'm arguing we can trust the Bible and it is reliable.

POI This would make it okay to beat chattel slaves, as long as they do not die.

Never claimed that. What I have claimed is abuse would be immoral.

[otseng]

The Biggest of Biggies is the Nativity. touchstone fail. Next are the resurrections, which are nearly as bad. Third, No transfiguration in John. There are many, many more, and pretty big ones , too, and they utterly destroy the credibility of the Bible, NT and Old - for anyone whose mind is not already closed to reason.

The biggest of all is the nativity? More like the least of all since it's not in any doctrinal statement. However, I agree the resurrection is big, if not the biggest of all, since it's in all doctrinal statements. Transfiguration is also not in any doctrinal statement.

Christians should all agree this is what is most important:

[1Co 15:3-4 ESV] 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

[POI]

(U) Again, repeating your claim over and over is a fallacious argument. Pretty much this is the only argumentation you've offered is by simply reiterating the claim. And I've given full treatment of your claim in the Slavery summary argument.

POI Yet again, are you or are you not okay with commanded impunity for beating slaves?

(U) No, you did not address my question. I'll let readers assess it:

POI I did answer it. Yes, there is apparently an objective test. If the chattel slave master's beating(s) does not kill them, or pop out their eye's/teeth, it's a-okay. Why? Because the chattel slave is the master's property, and God instructs no punishment accordingly because of this reason.

(U) This is not addressing it either, but again reiterating your claim.

POI I answered it many times, in differing ways. Here is yet another complete answer to your question/statement... "God's nature" is objective, according to Otseng. "God's nature" is to command complete impunity for beating one's slave, provided they do not die or lose eyes/teeth. This is because the slave is their property.

(U) More question avoidance.

POI Nope. My opinion does not matter, if it does not align with "God's nature'. Does yours align with God's nature? Are you okay with chattel slave masters beating their slaves with impunity, as long as they do not die?

(U) That's the reason I asked you what is the objective test to determine if one is abusive? We agree dislodging a tooth or eye or causing test would be an objective way to determine this. Anything below this would be subjective. So how can any normative command be made on something subjective?

POI The Objective test is whatever aligns with 'God's nature'. And since God decided to weigh in on this controversial topic, he is a-okay with beating your slaves, just short of death. Why? Because of the implied and instructed property rights.

(U) As I've mentioned before, just because something can be considered immoral does not necessarily mean there should be legal punishment.

POI God has no problem issuing punishment for immoral things. Beating your slaves (just short of death), which are deemed the chattel slave master's property, is not one of them. Hence, it must not be immoral.

(U) Again, I see no relevance.

POI I see much relevance. Why do you think they were whipped on the back? Likely for two reasons:

1. To align with the Bible's instruction to lawfully be obligated to let them go if they break Ex 21:26-27
2. So they can continue working after the whipping to the back

(U) This is a red herring. Nobody is talking about cursing parents.

POI It's not a red herring at all. It is to raise a relevant point. One can raise objectives/exceptions to a 'lesser' sin of cursing one's parents. And yet, God states not to do it at. Why didn't God just abolish chattel slavery too?

(U) Do you claim simply beating a person should be considered abusive? Or does it need to be beatings with impunity that is abusive?

POI My opinion does not matter to God. His nature is somehow objective. And his nature is to command impunity for beating your slaves, just short of death.

(U) As I've extensively argued, chattel slavery is subjective. There is no need to abolish something that is subjective.

POI As I've extensively argued, no it is not subjective. It is objective. God thinks it is a-okay, as long as you do not kill your human property.

So, yet again, since the topic of chattel slavery can be argued, just like cursing your parents can be argued, and yet, God decided to abolish cursing your parents entirely, why not just abolish chattel slavery too? ...Makes no logical sense....

(U) Ironically, if the Bible did abolish <chattel slavery>, it would show the Bible is illogical since it would then make a normative statement on something that is subjective.

POI See how I can make the exact same argument, if the Bible writers decided to not abolish "cursing your parents"... (i.e.):

Ironically, if the Bible did abolish <cursing your parents>, it would show the Bible is illogical since it would then make a normative statement on something that is subjective.

The point being, both topics of <cursing parents and chattel slavery> can be argued to be justified in certain cases. But God opts to abolish the 'lesser' one, and grant the other?

(U) For the purpose of this thread, we can consider the entire Bible to come from humans alone. In this thread, I have not claimed any of the Bible comes directly from God.

POI Are you suggesting God may not agree with any acceptable chattel slavery at all?

(U) How is it evading the point if you're the one that brought up loss of productivity?

POI A blind slave, that also cannot eat solids and therefore has less strength, is a less productive slave. Now to the much larger point below.

(U) How it is beneficial to the master if the slave goes free or if the master is punished? Rather, the laws seem to protect the slave rather than to "benefit" the master.

POI No, it conforms with the master. As stated already, masters need their slaves for their labor. Whipping them into shape keeps them in line. The laws issued in the Bible do not prohibit them from lawfully whipping them, at will, and as needed, to keep them in shape. Case/point, if the slave states he is tired, whip it good. If the slave states he needs a day off, because he has been working 16-hour days for 10 days straight, whip it good. Etc...

Whip it good:



(U) Sure, beatings can take place without punishment to the master. Are you claiming beatings are objectively abusive?

POI If I did, I would disagree with "God's nature", unless he is not okay with it, and humans wrote these conditions to grant themselves immunity?

(U) Never claimed that. What I have claimed is abuse would be immoral.

POI Then whipping your chattel slaves, as long as they do not die, is not abuse.

*******************************

Conclusion:

Abusive chattel slavery = killing them or knocking out their eye's/teeth.

Non-abuse chattel slavery = Anything else. But since the slave is their labor, they likely just stuck to what works, which is lashes to the backside. This way, they could still work the fields.

Why? The chattel slave is their property. You can also breed them and keep their offspring as well. Freebie new chattel slaves. Not much different than raising livestock for new free cattle.

Chattel slaves are not to the same level of property as a spoon or a chair though.... They are instead deemed somewhere in between livestock and kept women. This is why killing them may still merit capital punishment.