Does God condone slavery TODAY?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Does God condone slavery TODAY?

Post #1

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Does God condone slavery TODAY?

I have encountered nothing in the Bible indicating that God condemns or even discourages the practice of slavery. Even “don't return escaped slaves� or “don't beat them to death: accept the practice of slavery.

In today's world slavery exists. Most enlightened / educated / informed people seem to oppose the practice. However, God does not seem to have anything to say on the matter.

Has God changed his mind? If so, how has that been made known?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

JLB32168

Post #101

Post by JLB32168 »

Blastcat wrote:Not KNOWING the difference between freedom and slavery, while attempting to show us the difference.
I explained that I know the difference between the two in previous posts so this silly comment is juvenile.
Blastcat wrote:Thanks for clarifying, and I will stop accusing you of it.
And yet you did it in the first line of your post. I’ve really no reason to converse w/someone who understands perfectly what I’m saying but chooses to misrepresent it anyway. I read no further than the word “difference.�

I certainly won’t read posts that are voluminous in length and which most likely say the same thing seventeen different ways.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9489
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 121 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Post #102

Post by Bust Nak »

JLB32168 wrote: Okay – so if someone else’s opinion is different and s/he has no problem taking freedoms away from people, is s/he wrong for doing so or is s/he just wrong, IYO?
What is the difference between "s/he is wrong for doing so" and "s/he is just wrong"
I can’t prove that slavery is wrong and indeed if no absolute standard exists then slavery is morally neutral.
Why would you think that? How are you jumping from the premise "no absolute standard exists" to the conclusion "slavery is morally neutral?"

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Post #103

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 101 by JLB32168]




[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Not knowing the difference between freedom and slavery, while attempting to show us the difference.
Part Five: Repeating the Repeating the Repeating [/center]

Blastcat wrote:Thanks for clarifying, and I will stop accusing you of it.
JLB32168 wrote:
And yet you did it in the first line of your post.
If you notice, I changed the offending word "accept" to "know". I don't think you know the difference, and you do nothing for me to change that impression.

I now accuse you of not KNOWING the difference, and have stopped accusing you of not accepting the difference. Those are two different things.

JLB32168 wrote:
I certainly won’t read posts that are voluminous in length and which most likely say the same thing seventeen different ways.
You are not a slave to my long, long repetitive repetitive posts posts.
You are free free.

You are free
And not a slave.
And free.

And who says says that I repeat repeat myself myself 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 times times?

____________

Questions:

  • 1. Why do you not bother answering questions?
    2. In debates, it's very important to have clear definitions before we start discussing the concepts. Could you kindly re-iterate the difference between slavery and freedom so that I can stop accusing you of not really knowing the difference?
____________



:)

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8960
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 55 times
Contact:

Post #104

Post by OnceConvinced »

Hawkins wrote:
Why do you have to lie over and again?


:warning: Moderator Warning


You have already received one warning for accusing another member of being a liar. Please desist.

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.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World of Fantasy

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #105

Post by bluethread »

Clownboat wrote:
bluethread wrote:
Clownboat wrote:
JLB32168 wrote:
You should perhaps go back and read some more of the posts since you seem to be ill-informed on what they say.
Do I really have to re-read the entire thread to figure out what you meant when you typed (not quoted mind you) asking if submission is slavery?
No, you don't. Let me help. JLB was responding to Blastcat's stating that my reference to being Torah submissive makes it a slave theology.
Thanks.

What confuses me, as you can see in post 80 is that I asked him: "can you see how submission and slavery are different concepts?"
From that he responded with: "Children submit to their parents (when reasonable.) Are children slaves? "

Why do you think he asked me if children were slaves?
I have yet to hear anyone here argue such a point in this thread, thus it seems he is confused or at least trying to muddy the waters. No?
I think it was a little friendly fire. I don't think that he realized that you were arguing against what blastcat was doing.

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8960
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 55 times
Contact:

Post #106

Post by OnceConvinced »

JLB32168 wrote: I explained that I know the difference between the two in previous posts so this silly comment is juvenile.


:warning: Moderator Warning


Such comments are uncivil and inflammatory. In fact your entire post is really just a rant against another member. You have been warned time and time again about such comments. Please try to be more civil if you do not wish a final warning given to you.


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.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World of Fantasy

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Post #107

Post by Zzyzx »

.
JLB32168 wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: The two terms are NOT synonymous. Attempting to make them so is fallacious.
I never said that “freedom� and “slavery� were synonymous. That was a mischaracterization of my argument which asked what the difference was aside from the fact that one is owned and the other is not. That should have been obvious when I said, “One can leave and one cannot,� which you cited.

BTW, the starkest difference between the two is that one is bound to an owner while one isn’t. That isn’t appreciably different from “one can leave and one cannot.�
Slave is defined as:

A civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Slavery

a person held in servitude as the chattel of another; Someone who is legally owned by another person and is forced to work for that person without pay http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slave

a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/slave

One who is owned as the property of someone else, especially in involuntary servitude. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slave

Slavery is a legal or economic system in which principles of property law are applied to humans allowing them to be classified as property,[1] to be owned, bought and sold accordingly, and they cannot withdraw unilaterally from the arrangement. While a person is enslaved, the owner is entitled to the productivity of the slave's labour, without any remuneration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

JLB32168 wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: Under Hebrew law could the OWNER do anything about a slave escaping / leaving? Were owners permitted to beat slaves – provided they did not die within two days?
Hebrew law isn’t specific as to what the owner may do – other than s/he can beat their slaves. It is specific to the case that slaves can flee their owners and no one may, under penalty of death, retrieve or otherwise harass the runaway. It would appear that the slave only remained a slave inasmuch as s/he desired to be one.
Does Hebrew law prevent an owner from beating a slave that attempts to leave? Does it prevent an owner from keeping a slave's family hostage to prevent slaves from leaving?
JLB32168 wrote: There was a rite involved for the slave who wished to remain. His ear was pierced by the owner to the lintel of the doorway.
That sounds like a pleasant ritual that shows love
JLB32168 wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: I am content with readers deciding for themselves whether objection to slavery is 'morally better' than accepting owning slaves.
In other words, you don’t wish to explain why your opinion of what’s morally better is actually morally better than someone who disagrees and thinks that slavery is acceptable. That’s telling.
I have / make no claim that my morality is superior to others'. Instead, I cite worldwide government banning of slavery as indication that worldwide moral and legal codes regard the practice as unacceptable.

Apparently those engaged in illegal slavery / child slavery / sex slavery AND some defenders of religion disagree – and deem slavery desirable FOR OTHERS. Perhaps they follow the rule 'Do unto others however you wish'
JLB32168 wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: Yes, you are attempting to defend tales of a deity condoning slavery by questioning whether slavery is wrong.
I’m defending slavery?
It appears so
JLB32168 wrote: Why does slavery need defending
Apparently some who revere ancient texts feel compelled / inclined to defend slavery practices of their religious forebearers and its being condoned by their favorite 'God'.
JLB32168 wrote: if it isn’t categorically/unconditionally wrong?
It seems inconsistent for anyone who values freedom to defend slavery of others. But, carry on showing readers a religious perspective.
JLB32168 wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: I think the issue demonstrates for all to consider if both the worshipers and their proposed deity are morally bankrupt.
One who qualifies moral statements with, “In my opinion . . .� as if he cannot absolutely say something is wrong, is hardly in any position to comment on the moral bankruptcy of another moral code if you ask me.
I realize that most of what is presented in these debates is opinion – and I do not hesitate to acknowledge that in my statements. I do NOT claim absolute knowledge.

However, I present ideas for readers to consider / evaluate / compare to what is presented by Bible defenders / Theists / Religionists. If readers consider slavery unacceptable and they observe someone attempting to justify the practice they may well decide that my suggestion that the religion is morally bankrupt is accurate.

That some defenders disagree is of no concern to me. I am accustomed to debating against all sorts of positions that I (and I trust readers) consider irrational.
JLB32168 wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: I maintain that there is no such thing as a 'moral absolute'.
So the morality of slavery is as variable as human opinion and indeed it mig
ht a good thing one hundred years from now – but the Christian religion is morally bankrupt.
Morality is a product of societies. What is considered moral varies greatly over time and place.

A century from now humans MAY be slaves to AI. However, I do not engage in speculating about such things occurring.
JLB32168 wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: It would seem as though a supposedly all-wise deity would understand that people owning other people is at least as 'wrong' as lying about one another, coveting, stealing.
You haven’t explained why it’s wrong but refuse to do so (except to appeal to popular opinion.) If there are no absolutes then how do you know it’s as wrong as coveting and stealing?
Yes, I leave it to readers to decide for themselves if they consider slavery to be as wrong as, or more wrong than, stealing and coveting. I trust that most readers would regard losing a child to sex slavery to be a greater wrong than losing a car to theft (or to have someone covet their car).
JLB32168 wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: Notice that 'I hold that� does NOT claim absolute but is clearly stated as a personal conclusion or opinion.
Okay – so it’s personal conclusion/opinion.
Exactly. No one has demonstrated that any moral issues are objective (independent of human minds) or universal (true in all times and places).
JLB32168 wrote: Why then do you presume to say it’s wrong for everyone else?
I don't.

However, I correctly note that the practice of slavery is deemed illegal worldwide – some indication that all world governments (save perhaps one) consider the practice wrong.

Others are entitled to express approval of slavery
JLB32168 wrote: Why do you judge someone who is all wise as being less than wise when he disagrees with you when you’ve just admitted that “slavery is wrong� is personal opinion and nothing more?
I do not acknowledge that an all-wise entity has ANY opinion. Stories regarding the opinions of 'God' are just that – STORIES. Thousands of people tell stories about the supposed thinking / opinions of their favorite gods – none of those stories can be shown to be anything more than imagination / fantasy / false claims.

In keeping with Genesis 32:22-32 I am willing to debate the supposed supernatural entity. Jacob seems to have done alright according to the tale since 'the man' (purported to be 'God') wasn't able to defeat him. Perhaps the same is true in debate.

'His' self-appointed representatives don't seem to be faring too well.
JLB32168 wrote: Your position is so self-contradictory that it’s fascinating to see you say one thing in one moment and then contradict it the next, and not seem to notice what you’ve done.
Opinion noted.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

JLB32168

Post #108

Post by JLB32168 »

Zzyzx wrote:A civil relationship in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another.
Yes – that is the definition of slavery.

We’re not talking about slavery as it is typically defined. We’re talking about Hebrew slavery – a form of slavery that was very atypical, namely, slaves who were beaten severely were manumitted w/o consent of their owner. Of course, that presupposes that a slave chose to remain knowing s/he might be beaten severely. Slaves might run. In those cases, kidnapping the slave to bring him/her back was a capital crime. Otherwise harassing a slave was also a capital crime. That means that the slave owner did not have absolute power over life, fortune, and liberty of the slave; therefore, your citations of multiple definitions of slavery are irrelevant.

Indeed the only slaves that would have existed among the Hebrews were those who chose to remain w/their owners since running/escaping was effective manumission. This doesn’t even consider the condition of other Hebrew slaves, who were automatically manumitted after a certain time period – also atypical for the Bronze Age and certainly in relation to slavery as it is commonly understood.
The number of contrasts between the forms of slavery you are describing, which is the type that was practiced in the American Southeast prior to the American Civil War (with the exception that an American slave owner might actually be prosecuted for murder of a slave) make any dictionary definition you’ve cited wholly unanalogous.

Your entire argument is fallacious because it’s founded on an equivocation, that is, we’re using two definitions of the word “slavery.� You’re building your entire argument upon the typical meaning of the word. That form of slavery does not comport with the form described by the deity you’re condemning and you’ve been made aware of this distinction several times; therefore, every argument you found upon that improper lexical definition of the word is equally fallacious. You either don’t know the material being discussed or you are deliberately excluding evidence that won’t advance your argument. Which is it?

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Post #109

Post by Zzyzx »

.
JLB32168 wrote: Your entire argument is fallacious because it’s founded on an equivocation, that is, we’re using two definitions of the word “slavery.�
These debates are conducted in the English language. Bibles in common use are written in the English language.

The English language has definitions for the word 'slave' -- that does not include 'leave whenever you like'.

If there are issues with the Bible's use of the term take it up with professional translators and editors.

If English versions of the Bible cannot be trusted to convey the intent of ancient writers, that is not MY problem. It is a condemnation of the original writers or translators -- and an indication that the Bibles people use cannot be trusted to mean what it says and say what it means (in the English language).

"What the Bible says is not what it means. It means what I say it means" is a common Apologist tactic to evade and excuse
JLB32168 wrote: You’re building your entire argument upon the typical meaning of the word.
Agreed. And, you are building your argument upon a non-standard definition of the word.
JLB32168 wrote: That form of slavery does not comport with the form described by the deity you’re condemning and you’ve been made aware of this distinction several times;
I do not accept someone's sanitized, glamorized, euphemistic re-interpretation of the word 'slave' in attempts to justify the practice of one person owning another person.
JLB32168 wrote: therefore, every argument you found upon that improper lexical definition of the word is equally fallacious.
Readers will decide for themselves whose arguments are fallacious.
JLB32168 wrote: You either don’t know the material being discussed or you are deliberately excluding evidence that won’t advance your argument. Which is it?
Neither. False dichotomy. My use of the term 'slave' is consistent with its use in English use and English literature.

If everyone is free to use words to mean whatever they wish, communication is impossible.

Kindly attempt to learn to debate ISSUES -- without personal remarks -- including those about the knowledge level of other debaters.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

JLB32168

Post #110

Post by JLB32168 »

Zzyzx wrote:These debates are conducted in the English language. Bibles in common use are written in the English language.
That changes nothing. Your definition of slavery doesn’t comport with the Hebrew practice of the institution.

The President of the United States and the President of Zimbabwe have the same title; however, their powers are markedly different – the latter being an effective dictatorship. If you were arguing the evils of presidential government and that the US needs to chuck it for some other form then you could not argue that point from the a position informed solely by presidential government as practiced in Zimbabwe.

That is exactly the same type of argument that you are using in your ridiculous comparisons of slavery as it is commonly defined with the Hebrew practice of the institution.
Zzyzx wrote:If English versions of the Bible cannot be trusted to convey the intent of ancient writers, that is not MY problem.
Okay, so we should conclude that you didn’t know that Hebrew slavery, which has been discussed over and over on this board, was the same type of slavery that comes to mind with most people. Your failure to know your source material is not my problem.
Zzyzx wrote:Agreed. And, you are building your argument upon a non-standard definition of the word.
Yes – that is exactly the point. The word is indeed slavery; however, it is not the kind of slavery usually associated with the word. That you don’t know this isn’t my fault.
Zzyzx wrote:I do not accept someone's sanitized, glamorized, euphemistic re-interpretation of the word 'slave' . . .
Right – you don’t care about the facts regarding Hebrew slavery. You’re going to maintain and defend an argument founded upon what you now know isn’t correct. You’re going to persist arguing a fallacy of equivocation and I guess you think this advances your point.
Zzyzx wrote:Readers will decide for themselves whose arguments are fallacious.
I agree. They can decide for themselves whose arguments your fallacy of equivocation will have a deleterious effect.
Zzyzx wrote:My use of the term 'slave' is consistent with its use in English use and English literature.
Right – your argument is founded upon an English conception of the word “slave� and not upon the Hebrew conception of the word. In other words, the dictionary's definition of the word takes precedence over the actual institution as described in the text up for debate.
Zzyzx wrote:Kindly attempt to learn to debate ISSUES -- without personal remarks -- including those about the knowledge level of other debaters.
I am debating the issue – that issue being how you’ve based your entire argument about a culture upon a dictionary’s definition of a word rather than basing it upon the actual cultural evidence. It is fascinating in its complete and utter absurdity.

Post Reply