What Is God's Rationale?

[POI]

Apologists have argued for various forms of Biblical slavery. Apparently, God did not just abolish the topic of slavery entirely, but instead created a special list of can do's and cannot do's for this category. HOWEVER, where the topic of lying is concerned, we see no such list of special instructions? And yet, off the top of one's head, we can formulate all sorts of situationals, where lying may even be deemed the best thing to do in a given set of circumstances.

For debate:

In the Bible, why isn't the topic of <lying> granted with, at least, the same level of flexibility and/or lattitude as the topic of <slavery>?

[POI]

All I want to know is do you consider it to be acceptable under any circumstances for one human being to own another as property?

Under the proper circumstances, there are times when it is morally permissible for one to own slaves, as I’ve argued throughout the thread. Mind, it’s not an ideal situation- but certainly permissible and even preferable to various alternatives - such as death in war.

You STILL did not answer his question. He has asked you like 5 or 6 times now. Maybe if I instead ask this time?

Do you consider it to be acceptable, under any circumstances, for one human being to own another as property?

[Purple Knight]

In modernity we think of slavery usually like American/European slavery - racist, dehumanizing, and justified through hateful rhetoric. But how things are implemented makes a huge difference. In the old world, slavery was a means of unification with a conquered people. Slaves would often become family, members of the household.

It does make a difference and I completely agree with both your point about capitalistic debt-slavery, and I think your argument that God is simply not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, is a very strong one.

But Biblical slavery was racist and dehumanising, it was just against non-Hebrews instead of non-whites. Some of the reasons we hate slavery in modern day, are very much present in Biblical slavery. And indeed, the slavery that everyone considers to be most evil and racist, seems to have been modeled by whites reading the Bible and simply scratching out "Hebrew" in their mind and writing "white" instead.

I'm probably very extreme in my beliefs about white people. I think they are in fact, evil. Not by nurture. Not by culture. Inherently. (And I think this is a kinder and more understanding way to talk about them than faulting them individually. If you admit as modern theory does that every last white person is racist, then it's far kinder and more understanding to say, okay, maybe there's something inherent, than to label every last one of them unapologetically and voluntarily evil. If not one breaks away, then maybe they can't, and it's kinder to start from there.)

It is because of this that I urge anyone who shouts equality, be very careful about what they shout it about, since, under the banner of that equality, white people will do whatever they think you just gave them permission to do by scratching out "Hebrew" or "Black" or "Minority" or "Underprivileged" and writing "white" in their heads, because this is what they think equality means - they can do anything anyone else can do. If someone else can prefer their own, help their own, turn a blind eye to others, enslave others, so, they think, can they. And then you get real atrocities like American slavery.

[iam1me2023]

U It is in fact a strawman - post 55 is not a counter-example.

POI You are incorrect. It is a counter argument. I'll quote the response from post 55:

"A lie is a sin always as Aquinas taught. However, not all sin is equal, as John said, some sin is unto death (mortal sins) and some sin is not (venial sin). Aquinas also taught that there could be a time when a lie, although sin, is for a greater good, such as saving life. This is a venial sin that could be necessary."

And I already quoted sources to justify my position, many posts ago. And then so did you to argue a differing position. So who is right?

*Sigh* You are concerned with winning rather than having a real discussion and are unable to take any criticism. You have continued to fail to substantiate the premises of your argument. You finally suggested one person who might interpret the 9th commandment as you suggest - but you again failed to substantiate it with any references. You confuse Aquinas' broader philosophical argument that lies are always sinful for an interpretation of the 9th commandment, despite the fact that in the Summa where he addresses lies as sinful he doesn't discuss the 9th commandment at all. You are simply being intellectually dishonest at this point - and anything further is a waste of time so long as your goal is to win rather than to learn and have a real conversation on the matter.

I leave you with this - in hope that you can at least admit to yourself privately that you are wrong and can modify your position in the future. Here is a link to Thomas Aquinas' commentary on the Ten Commandments and a quote of what he says concerning the commandment to not bear false witness against a neighbor: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/librar ... ents--1452

The Lord has forbidden anyone to injure his neighbor by deed; now he forbids us to injure him by word. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."[1] This may occur in two ways, either in a court of justice or in ordinary conversation.

In the court of justice it may happen in three ways, according to the three persons who may violate this Commandment in court.[2] The first person is the plaintiff who makes a false accusation... The second person is the witness who testifies by lying ... The third person is the judge who sins by giving an unjust sentence...

In ordinary conversation one may violate this Commandment in five ways. The first is by detraction... Secondly, one may break this precept by listening to detractors willingly ... Thirdly, gossipers break this precept when they repeat whatever they hear ... Fourthly, those who speak honied words, the flatterers ...

Thus, though Aquinas considers all lies to be sinful - and subsequently brings that into his commentary on the matter - he understands that this commandment is concerned with telling lies about another, especially in a court of justice but also in ordinary conversation (slander/gossip/etc) and especially those lies which bring harm.

[iam1me2023]

It does make a difference and I completely agree with both your point about capitalistic debt-slavery, and I think your argument that God is simply not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, is a very strong one.

But Biblical slavery was racist and dehumanising, it was just against non-Hebrews instead of non-whites. Some of the reasons we hate slavery in modern day, are very much present in Biblical slavery. And indeed, the slavery that everyone considers to be most evil and racist, seems to have been modeled by whites reading the Bible and simply scratching out "Hebrew" in their mind and writing "white" instead.

I'm probably very extreme in my beliefs about white people. I think they are in fact, evil. Not by nurture. Not by culture. Inherently. (And I think this is a kinder and more understanding way to talk about them than faulting them individually. If you admit as modern theory does that every last white person is racist, then it's far kinder and more understanding to say, okay, maybe there's something inherent, than to label every last one of them unapologetically and voluntarily evil. If not one breaks away, then maybe they can't, and it's kinder to start from there.)

It is because of this that I urge anyone who shouts equality, be very careful about what they shout it about, since, under the banner of that equality, white people will do whatever they think you just gave them permission to do by scratching out "Hebrew" or "Black" or "Minority" or "Underprivileged" and writing "white" in their heads, because this is what they think equality means - they can do anything anyone else can do. If someone else can prefer their own, help their own, turn a blind eye to others, enslave others, so, they think, can they. And then you get real atrocities like American slavery.

We discussed this a bit in the other thread. Biblical slavery isn't racist; it doesn't teach that the Israelites are superior to other races/people nor that they are inferior. Nor does biblical slavery dehumanize - there is no denial of their humanity, and in fact it goes out of its way to give lots of protections to slaves and re-inforce their humanity. The Israelites are constantly reminded throughout the OT Laws that they were once foreigners and slaves in Egypt and so to treat others with the same love and respect that they would have wanted. There's no 3/4ths compromise in scripture.

Your views about white people, on the other hand: very racist, lolz.

[Purple Knight]

Your views about white people, on the other hand: very racist, lolz.

The thing that makes your definition of racism not very useful is how easy it is for me to get out of it. It's very clear that your definition should describe me, but I can just say, I don't think white people are inferior, I just think they're morally evil. Evil doesn't mean inferior or that you have no value as a human being; it just means you don't treat others with value as human beings.

And voila - I'm not racist by your definition.

[iam1me2023]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #75]

If white people are inherently evil while others races are not, then that would make them inferior. That is, unless you try to maintain that an inherently evil person is not inferior to others who are not inherently evil - in which case you might semantically get out of one problem but then you are left defending evil as not inferior to the good - which is absurd.

Also, it is simply false that all white people treat others as if they have no value as human beings - as you assert above.

So you are taking a racist position and “easily” defending it with a completely absurd and indefensible argument

[Purple Knight]

If white people are inherently evil while others races are not, then that would make them inferior. That is, unless you try to maintain that an inherently evil person is not inferior to others who are not inherently evil - in which case you might semantically get out of one problem but then you are left defending evil as not inferior to the good - which is absurd.

Evil is not inferior to good and an evil person has an equal value of life as a good person. No part of the definition of inferior contains any reference to moral virtue, nor does any part of the definition of evil say outright that it is inferior to good. They are two completely different concepts and only overlap subjectively if someone has a subjective value judgment that good is better than evil. People can make strong cases that evil is better. It's entirely subjective.

The many people against the death penalty, even for vicious unjustifiable multiple murders, prove my point: The value of a life is not dependent on someone being a good person. Some people can think it is, and that evil people do not have value of life, or have less of it, but that is their subjective valuation which not everyone shares.

And I can't believe a Christian is telling me that an evil person is inferior to a good one. It is your religion that teaches that a person's value has nothing to do with how evil they are and that all have sinned and are equal in the eyes of God.

And I don't believe an evil person is inferior to a good one. It's been shown that sociopaths lack brain function in certain areas, and that explains their lack of empathy. If every last white person is racist as is often asserted (and I agree) then there's clearly something similar going on. I don't buy that every last member of some group has individually chosen, all on their own, to ignore their consciences. I don't buy the accepted standard that blames a culture of oppression and privilege for the way white people are, but then simultaneously charges them with responsibility for using free will to break away, while asserting that breaking away is actually impossible.

Also, it is simply false that all white people treat others as if they have no value as human beings - as you assert above.

If they do so, they do it out of selfishness. It used to be common knowledge that not just white people, but most people are inherently selfish. Some people argued there was no such thing as a truly selfless act. Yet now, when applied to the concept of whiteness, people are suddenly objecting to what used to be discussed as probable philosophical truth. Even by popular TV shows.



I am not quibbling about something to win, or just to quibble. I am trying to show you that your definition is too narrow, and in fact useless because the concept of superior/inferior is a subjective one too.

I agree that by the old convention, stating that white people are evil should be considered racist, and I want you to use the old convention if it suits you.

The problem is that the old definition is bad and nondescriptive of what the old convention considered racism to be. I think a better definition that might suit your purposes is treating people inequally or unfairly based on their race. And by saying white people are evil, I am treating them inequally. I'm judging them based on their race. Perhaps this has something to do with it, too?

[POI]

*Sigh* You are concerned with winning rather than having a real discussion and are unable to take any criticism. You have continued to fail to substantiate the premises of your argument.

*Double sign* This is because you hand-waved away post 31. Why should I accept your reference, while you ignore mine? We both gave references.

You finally suggested one person who might interpret the 9th commandment as you suggest - but you again failed to substantiate it with any references. You confuse Aquinas' broader philosophical argument that lies are always sinful for an interpretation of the 9th commandment, despite the fact that in the Summa where he addresses lies as sinful he doesn't discuss the 9th commandment at all. You are simply being intellectually dishonest at this point - and anything further is a waste of time so long as your goal is to win rather than to learn and have a real conversation on the matter.

LOL! Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, I quite enjoyed your take on 'slavery'. But yea, many people interpret the 9th Commandment as referring to all lies being bad, at lesser or greater degrees. Hence, the invention of the 'venial sin'. Are you not already aware of this?

I leave you with this - in hope that you can at least admit to yourself privately that you are wrong and can modify your position in the future. Here is a link to Thomas Aquinas' commentary on the Ten Commandments and a quote of what he says concerning the commandment to not bear false witness against a neighbor: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/librar ... ents--1452

There is no need. I'm still awaiting (more than ONE example) regarding lying being "okay'd" by God? I've asked several times, and you have yet to provide any. God seems to set more parameters in place for allowable slavery practices than he does for lying. Thus far, you have only provided one allowable exception for lying. Got any more?

The Lord has forbidden anyone to injure his neighbor by deed; now he forbids us to injure him by word. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."[1] This may occur in two ways, either in a court of justice or in ordinary conversation.

In the court of justice it may happen in three ways, according to the three persons who may violate this Commandment in court.[2] The first person is the plaintiff who makes a false accusation... The second person is the witness who testifies by lying ... The third person is the judge who sins by giving an unjust sentence...

In ordinary conversation one may violate this Commandment in five ways. The first is by detraction... Secondly, one may break this precept by listening to detractors willingly ... Thirdly, gossipers break this precept when they repeat whatever they hear ... Fourthly, those who speak honied words, the flatterers ...

Again, this is why there exists the 'fib', the 'white lie', etc... They are all LIES. However, we "justify" some of them. But how can we?

dictionary.com for "lying", gives the following results:

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth.

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression

This would include any attempt to divert the truth.

Thus, aside from the ONE example you have provided, please show me where else God sanctions lying, like he does with slavery?

Thus, though Aquinas considers all lies to be sinful - and subsequently brings that into his commentary on the matter - he understands that this commandment is concerned with telling lies about another, especially in a court of justice but also in ordinary conversation (slander/gossip/etc) and especially those lies which bring harm.

Seems you have now conceded to my side. All lies are bad --- some are just 'worse than others'. And yet, God seems to grant way more leeway for slavery than he does for lying.?.?.?.? Why is this?

This pretty much goes right back to the original debate question: Why isn't all slavery bad as well, to a lesser or higher degree?

[TRANSPONDER]

Aside from the failed apologetics for slavery in the Bible, apologists trying to make a case that morality fails without the Bible, seem to flounder, because the case is that human morality is a problem, both because it's hard to work out a fair system and hard to enforce it. It is done by the threat of punishment and the Christian apologist can make hay by pointing to all the ways that can fail. What they don't get is that the religious system is even worse because it is just the human system we all use but with privileges for the members of the Christian elite.

Of course they don't understand that and wouldn't believe it even they did, but the secularist and unbeliever knows it even if they don't fully understand it,

[Diogenes]

Biblical slavery isn't racist; it doesn't teach that the Israelites are superior to other races/people nor that they are inferior. Nor does biblical slavery dehumanize - there is no denial of their humanity, and in fact it goes out of its way to give lots of protections to slaves and re-inforce their humanity. The Israelites are constantly reminded throughout the OT Laws that they were once foreigners and slaves in Egypt and so to treat others with the same love and respect that they would have wanted. There's no 3/4ths compromise in scripture.

Your views about white people, on the other hand: very racist, lolz.

"Racist" is not the best word for the Old Testament's obvious tribal bias. The tribe of Hebrews is clearly the favored tribe of the Jewish Bible and this is scarcely odd because... it was written by Hebrews, members of the 'chosen' tribe. In this respect the tribe's self serving scripture is no different from other tribes. The Jews are no more evil for their attempt to justify slavery than the countless other tribes that practiced slavery.
The, naive to the point of ignorance, Judaeo-Christian apology is that somehow the Hebrews' enslavement of other humans was special and benign because they were clever enough to urge some restraint in their practice of slavery. This does not make the Jewish practice of inhumanity good; it simply makes it prudent, less likely to inspire rebellion.

"White people" are no more likely to be slavers than other "races." 'Race' is a social construct, not a scientific term. "Tribalism" is the better term for groups of homo sapiens to prize their group over others.
The central point that is the takeaway from the acceptance and promotion of slavery in the Bible is that the Bible was written by men not gods. Paul's failed effort to make the most recent sect of Judaism (Christianity) universal fails on this account. You cannot honestly jam the square peg of Christianity into the round hole of universalism.

I suppose a 'god' of the universe may exist, but it certainly is not the tribal god of Abraham and Mohamed.
* * *

Like slavery, lying appears to be something the god of Abraham approves or allows when it is perpetrated against a gentile, or to support/protect one of this god's favorites. Consider Abraham telling a very dangerous lie to Abimelech, telling the king Sarah is his sister, which almost gets Abimelech killed (Genesis 20); and when Jacob tricks Esau and deceives Isaac (Genesis 25 and 27) to get his blessing.

This tribal god of the Bible is not God and the commandments apparently do not always apply to the god's 'chosen ones.'