Bible Slavery v. American Slavery

[Black36]

Biblical slavery was not limited to self imposed indentured servitude:  http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Ex+21%3A7%2CNeh+5%3A5%2CEx+21%3A2-3

Jewish Children could be sold into slavery.  It is not clear if the 6 year rule applies in that case or not...and even if it did; that could leave some of them on the street without care or forced to have to choose a life of servitude just to survive if they were sold young.

Not to mention that when rival tribes were conquered their women and children could be taken as conquests of war....essentially making the women into sex slaves as they could be forced to marry their captives.
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

Some of the passages linked in the above also strongly hint that war slaves aren't under the same rules as other slaves.

Whitney, if you want to discuss any of the Bible passages, suggest one and we'll go from there. I don't want to be accused of hyjacking this thread.

[Black36]

Do you have a definition for your use of the word "objective" in the context of the term "objective good"? Or at the least what you mean by the term "objective good".

Sorry, I meant: do you live as though good is determined objectively (depending on the circumstance) or subjectively (determined by individual preference)?

[Whitney]

I split off the slavery discussion...looks like I may have accidentally caught part of the good discussion... if so, just repost in that thread because I don't think this forum software allows merging a single post into a thread.

[Whitney]

Biblical slavery was not limited to self imposed indentured servitude:  http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Ex+21%3A7%2CNeh+5%3A5%2CEx+21%3A2-3

Jewish Children could be sold into slavery.  It is not clear if the 6 year rule applies in that case or not...and even if it did; that could leave some of them on the street without care or forced to have to choose a life of servitude just to survive if they were sold young.

Not to mention that when rival tribes were conquered their women and children could be taken as conquests of war....essentially making the women into sex slaves as they could be forced to marry their captives.
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

Some of the passages linked in the above also strongly hint that war slaves aren't under the same rules as other slaves.

Whitney, if you want to discuss any of the Bible passages, suggest one and we'll go from there. I don't want to be accused of hyjacking this thread.

I'm not interested in picking apart those passages; they are merely there for cite the source of my comment.

If you feel the need to address them you can....the real issue being discussed is if biblical slavery is "good" or not.  It's pretty obvious to anyone that doesn't have a personal need to rationalize it that it is not good even if it might be not as bad as what was allowed during those times.

[Gawen]

I wonder if Mr Black would feel the same way if he were the slave. And how he would feel so wonderful and good when his 12 year daughter is sold to another slaver. Ain't Gawd Awwsome!

[Tank]

The ownership of one person by another is now considered wrong by the majority of people on earth. There may be subtle differences between biblical slavery and American commercial slavery. However the issue is the glaringly obvious gross similarity that does not excuse the behaviour of the Israelites or what is written in the Bible. We now know better than the people who wrote the Bible, and taking guidance from them is no longer valid.

[Gawen]

..and taking guidance from them is no longer valid.

HEAR!! HEAR!!

[Sweetdeath]

..and taking guidance from them is no longer valid.

HEAR!! HEAR!!

Yay, Tank!

Back then, even dogs had more rights. I am an animal lover who believes in their rights, but ol Sparky getting a warm bed and hot meals instead of me would suck.

[Davin]

Do you have a definition for your use of the word "objective" in the context of the term "objective good"? Or at the least what you mean by the term "objective good".

Sorry, I meant: do you live as though good is determined objectively (depending on the circumstance) or subjectively (determined by individual preference)?

Just making sure what the word "objective" means to your usage as it often gets confused in these kinds of discussions. I live as if there are both beneficial things regarding personal preferences and beneficial things depending on circumstances.

This "objective good" meaning "good dependending on the circumstance" is very odd to me, and even queerer coming from a theist. Good depending on circumstances removes absolutely good things (things that are always good), because they're only good depending on the circumstance. The terms not interchangeable (as you have tried to do), with your definitions. That is, unless you also have an obscure definition of "absolute" when used in the term "absolute morals".

[Black36]

Do you have a definition for your use of the word "objective" in the context of the term "objective good"? Or at the least what you mean by the term "objective good".

Sorry, I meant: do you live as though good is determined objectively (depending on the circumstance) or subjectively (determined by individual preference)?

Just making sure what the word "objective" means to your usage as it often gets confused in these kinds of discussions. I live as if there are both beneficial things regarding personal preferences and beneficial things depending on circumstances.

This "objective good" meaning "good dependending on the circumstance" is very odd to me, and even queerer coming from a theist. Good depending on circumstances removes absolutely good things (things that are always good), because they're only good depending on the circumstance. The terms not interchangeable (as you have tried to do), with your definitions. That is, unless you also have an obscure definition of "absolute" when used in the term "absolute morals".

I don't believe in absolute morality. I believe in objective morality.

[Whitney]

So you believe in a type of moral philosophy that is objective yet doesn't have any rules that can be applied across the board (aka not absolute)?  How does that work, how would one determine what is moral in a given situation without subjectivity creeping in?

[Ihateyoumike]

The ownership of one person by another is now considered wrong by the majority of people on earth. There may be subtle differences between biblical slavery and American commercial slavery. However the issue is the glaringly obvious gross similarity that does not excuse the behaviour of the Israelites or what is written in the Bible. We now know better than the people who wrote the Bible, and taking guidance from them is no longer valid.

I agree.

This makes me wonder, though, why we (Americans) still take guidance from the constitution and the declaration. We clearly now know better than them since they too owned slaves in that time period. Not to undermine the fact that they did also have some brilliant ideas in those documents that do still apply today. Are 200 years not far enough removed from the source material as opposed to 2000 years to realize that it may be better to allow ourselves to change our ways of thinking to progress, instead of interpreting what people long gone had to say? Or does it have to do with the fact that we know the founding fathers actually existed? And just to be clear, I'm not saying that the wisdom of the past is not a good basis for how we conduct ourselves now, but only that maybe it all should simply just remain the basis. I'm not sure how clear I've been able to make this thought to the reader, but I guess I'll find out. 

And yes Tank, I do realize that you are not included in my "we" up there. 

[Black36]

So you believe in a type of moral philosophy that is objective yet doesn't have any rules that can be applied across the board (aka not absolute)?  How does that work, how would one determine what is moral in a given situation without subjectivity creeping in?

Here's an example: Suppose you and I observe a person who pulls up to a house in a truck. The person then gets out of the truck and then goes into the garage, which is open. After a few moments the person comes out of the garage with a garden hose, tosses it in the back of the truck, and then drives away.

Question: Has this person done anything wrong?

Answer: It depends. Objective morality requires that we have some more information before judging whether something wrong has occurred. If the person was a stranger to the house, then a crime was committed. If the person was the owner of the house, then no crime was committed. Make sense?

[Sweetdeath]

^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not?  It's pretty black and white that is.  No matter what.

[Tank]

The ownership of one person by another is now considered wrong by the majority of people on earth. There may be subtle differences between biblical slavery and American commercial slavery. However the issue is the glaringly obvious gross similarity that does not excuse the behaviour of the Israelites or what is written in the Bible. We now know better than the people who wrote the Bible, and taking guidance from them is no longer valid.

I agree.

This makes me wonder, though, why we (Americans) still take guidance from the constitution and the declaration. We clearly now know better than them since they too owned slaves in that time period. Not to undermine the fact that they did also have some brilliant ideas in those documents that do still apply today. Are 200 years not far enough removed from the source material as opposed to 2000 years to realize that it may be better to allow ourselves to change our ways of thinking to progress, instead of interpreting what people long gone had to say? Or does it have to do with the fact that we know the founding fathers actually existed? And just to be clear, I'm not saying that the wisdom of the past is not a good basis for how we conduct ourselves now, but only that maybe it all should simply just remain the basis. I'm not sure how clear I've been able to make this thought to the reader, but I guess I'll find out. 

And yes Tank, I do realize that you are not included in my "we" up there. 

This is a very interesting thought, that the constitution will one day become out-of-date. I suppose that the difference between the Bible and the constitution is that there is no supposed supernatural element to the constitution, it is a document written by men. There is also a recognised method to amend the constitution which is not the case for the Bible, so it should remain current.