Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 06:39:44 PM
I see "good" as the purpose of God, and "evil" as the violation of the purpose of God. In order to determine what is good or evil in a given situation is to evaluate the situation for what it is and then respond in a way which is parallel to God's purpose (objective evaluation). Subjective evaluations are not as helpful, in my view, because one's response is based on one's desires, which may be ok when picking an ice cream flavor, but not when on jury duty. Does this make sense, or do you need more clarity from me?
Please note, I do not believe that absolute moral judgements are synonomous with objective moral judgements, nor do I believe that absolute moral judgements are scriptural.
What is your stance on slavery? as the bible is quite clear that it is acceptable. In my opinion it is one of, if not the most immoral action a person can partake in.
Edit: not only is slavery acceptable in the bible but endorsed in the new and old testaments.
Biblical slavery is not synonomous with American slavery.
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".
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 08:37:31 PM
Biblical slavery is not synonomous with American slavery.
Both involved owning people.
Both involved beating people (legally).
Splitting hairs over a few small differences isn't going to make it sound any better.
Quote from: Whitney on August 18, 2011, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 08:37:31 PM
Biblical slavery is not synonomous with American slavery.
Both involved owning people.
Both involved beating people (legally).
Splitting hairs over a few small differences isn't going to make it sound any better.
I would not call fundamental differences "hair splitting".
Quote from: Black36 on August 19, 2011, 12:50:50 AM
Quote from: Whitney on August 18, 2011, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 08:37:31 PM
Biblical slavery is not synonomous with American slavery.
Both involved owning people.
Both involved beating people (legally).
Splitting hairs over a few small differences isn't going to make it sound any better.
I would not call fundamental differences "hair splitting".
Then what, in your opinion, are the fundimental differences?
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 06:39:44 PM
I see "good" as the purpose of God, and "evil" as the violation of the purpose of God. In order to determine what is good or evil in a given situation is to evaluate the situation for what it is and then respond in a way which is parallel to God's purpose (objective evaluation).
Why do you make god's purpose your purpose?
You can't possibly know what god's purpose is, and given that god is all powerfull (supposedly) then it would be reasonable to suggest that god is not constrained by a purpose.
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 08:37:31 PM
Biblical slavery is not synonomous with American slavery.
Please explain to me how it is any different from ownership of a human being in any point in history?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 20, 2011, 12:27:43 AM
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 08:37:31 PM
Biblical slavery is not synonomous with American slavery.
Please explain to me how it is any different from ownership of a human being in any point in history?
How is having the option to go free after 7 years synonomous with what you are alluding too?
Quote from: Tank on August 19, 2011, 06:59:56 AM
Quote from: Black36 on August 19, 2011, 12:50:50 AM
Quote from: Whitney on August 18, 2011, 10:34:08 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 08:37:31 PM
Biblical slavery is not synonomous with American slavery.
Both involved owning people.
Both involved beating people (legally).
Splitting hairs over a few small differences isn't going to make it sound any better.
I would not call fundamental differences "hair splitting".
Then what, in your opinion, are the fundimental differences?
Israelite slavery was not permanent, is one main difference. Voluntary choice to remain a slave after being offered freedom is another. American slavery did not have such options. Also, Israelite slaves were considered image bearers of God, American slaves were not.
Quote from: Black36 on August 20, 2011, 12:33:59 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 20, 2011, 12:27:43 AM
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 08:37:31 PM
Biblical slavery is not synonomous with American slavery.
Please explain to me how it is any different from ownership of a human being in any point in history?
How is having the option to go free after 7 years synonomous with what you are alluding too?
they are still being OWNED for
at least seven years??
Quote from: Black36 on August 20, 2011, 12:33:59 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 20, 2011, 12:27:43 AM
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 08:37:31 PM
Biblical slavery is not synonomous with American slavery.
Please explain to me how it is any different from ownership of a human being in any point in history?
How is having the option to go free after 7 years synonomous with what you are alluding too?
Yeah, so there, Hmmphf
After only 7 years they get the option of freedom, you see.
BIG difference.
Actually, it would be good if this slavery sub topic were split out, I was quite enjoying the origninal topic, this sub topic is not my cup of tea.
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.
Quote from: Black36 on August 20, 2011, 12:33:59 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 20, 2011, 12:27:43 AM
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 08:37:31 PM
Biblical slavery is not synonomous with American slavery.
Please explain to me how it is any different from ownership of a human being in any point in history?
How is having the option to go free after 7 years synonomous with what you are alluding too?
they are still being OWNED for
at least seven years??
I've read that evil bible section, Whitney. It totally made me sick!
Quote from: Whitney on August 20, 2011, 01:11:13 AM
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.
Quote from: Davin on August 18, 2011, 09:21:28 PM
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)?
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.
Quote from: Black36 on August 20, 2011, 01:50:41 AM
Quote from: Whitney on August 20, 2011, 01:11:13 AM
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.
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!
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.
Quote from: Tank on August 21, 2011, 12:45:00 PM
..and taking guidance from them is no longer valid.
HEAR!! HEAR!!
Quote from: Gawen on August 21, 2011, 02:22:02 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 21, 2011, 12:45:00 PM
..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.
Quote from: Black36 on August 20, 2011, 02:00:51 AMQuote from: Davin on August 18, 2011, 09:21:28 PMDo 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".
Quote from: Davin on August 22, 2011, 04:25:21 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 20, 2011, 02:00:51 AMQuote from: Davin on August 18, 2011, 09:21:28 PMDo 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.
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?
Quote from: Tank on August 21, 2011, 12:45:00 PM
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. ;D
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 01:56:16 AM
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?
^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not? It's pretty black and white that is. No matter what.
Quote from: Ihateyoumike on August 27, 2011, 02:18:57 AM
Quote from: Tank on August 21, 2011, 12:45:00 PM
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. ;D
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.
I think we do need to realise the constituion is as out of date as the bible.
We should remember it was written by men, who stole this country from its indegnious people. They were rascists biggots, and most likely supetstisious. I think ot does need to be updated, big time.
I never thought the constition to be fair or equal.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 05:15:18 AM
^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not? It's pretty black and white that is. No matter what.
One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 03:47:07 AM
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?
Could you please define what you mean by objective, subjective, and absolute. You don't seem to be using them in the way philosophers use them nor how they are commonly defined.
objective means everyone agrees...for example, "the sky is blue" is an objective statement. Objective statements can be applied universally and are supported by evidence based facts.
subjective is when something is up for interpretation and there is no universal fact that can be used for validity...for example, "lavender makes wonderful tea" someone could be correct in agreeing or disagreeing because taste is purely subjective and up to the individual.
absolute is when something is always a certain way no matter way. For example....it is absolutely wrong to steal. However, objective morality need not be absolute because it could objectively allow for stealing being okay under set conditions.
What you said in what I quoted above does not make sense given how I just defined words such as objective. Do you mean to change the words you are using? If not, then can you point me to the dictionary where it shows that I"m using the words incorrectly?
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:35:41 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 05:15:18 AM
^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not? It's pretty black and white that is. No matter what.
One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.
You seem to have a fetish about the word objective. Black36 you are now my slave. I don't care what you think about being my slave, you have no choice in the matter. You will sell all your assets and forward the proceeds to me within 30 days. You will then come to the UK where you will kneel at my feet and do anything and everything I order for as long as I see fit that you do so. Do you like that idea? If not you are simply making a subjective evaluation of your position as my slave. ;D
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:35:41 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 05:15:18 AM
^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not? It's pretty black and white that is. No matter what.
One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.
So, in your opinion, slavery is NOT objectively wrong?
Sorry, but I don't see any good in owning people and being allowed to beat them under any circumstances.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 05:23:26 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:35:41 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 05:15:18 AM
^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not? It's pretty black and white that is. No matter what.
One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.
You seem to have a fetish about the word objective. Black36 you are now my slave. I don't care what you think about being my slave, you have no choice in the matter. You will sell all your assets and forward the proceeds to me within 30 days. You will then come to the UK where you will kneel at my feet and do anything and everything I order for as long as I see fit that you do so. Do you like that idea? If not you are simply making a subjective evaluation of your position as my slave. ;D
But if he was your slave wouldn't he be an object, and hence his opinions would be objective?
Or would they merely remain objectionable?
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 05:26:29 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:35:41 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 05:15:18 AM
^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not? It's pretty black and white that is. No matter what.
One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.
So, in your opinion, slavery is NOT objectively wrong?
Sorry, but I don't see any good in owning people and being allowed to beat them under any circumstances.
Oh I can see the personal good of having unpaid workers that did my every bidding. But after thinking about the issue and applying the golden rule I would realise that I would not like to be treated like a slave and thus would not attempt to own people. This would be based on my own judgement of the situation, not somebody elses.
I probably should have said ethical instead of good since good is an inherently subjective word.
I would be concerned about any moral system that claims to be objective yet still allows for slavery.
At least with a subjective understanding of morality one can see how people of a time may have justified their actions even if we now have a perspective that allows us to view it as wrong.
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 05:21:04 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 03:47:07 AM
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?
Could you please define what you mean by objective, subjective, and absolute. You don't seem to be using them in the way philosophers use them nor how they are commonly defined.
objective means everyone agrees...for example, "the sky is blue" is an objective statement. Objective statements can be applied universally and are supported by evidence based facts.
subjective is when something is up for interpretation and there is no universal fact that can be used for validity...for example, "lavender makes wonderful tea" someone could be correct in agreeing or disagreeing because taste is purely subjective and up to the individual.
absolute is when something is always a certain way no matter way. For example....it is absolutely wrong to steal. However, objective morality need not be absolute because it could objectively allow for stealing being okay under set conditions.
What you said in what I quoted above does not make sense given how I just defined words such as objective. Do you mean to change the words you are using? If not, then can you point me to the dictionary where it shows that I"m using the words incorrectly?
Subjective morality is based on the subject's preference. Objective morality is based on the circumstance. Absolute morality is always the case regardless of the circumstance. Biblical morality is objective. Is it wrong to lie? Yes, but there are times when a greater good is in play. Rahab lied about hiding the Israelite spies in Jericho. But, she was considered righteous in protecting them. David ate from the showbread at the tabernacle when on the run from Saul. Only a priest is supposed to eat from the showbread. Again, a greater good was in play, David's protection which would later lead to the Christ being born through David's lineage. Jesus allowed the disciples to pick heads of grain to eat during the Sabbath. Work was not to be done in the Sabbath, but a greater good was in play. There are many more examples of the Bible's objective moral rubric. Your example of the sky being blue is absolute, not objective. A color's wavelength, is a color's wavelength. The circumstance does not change it. If the group decided that the sky was pink, when it was actually blue, this would then be a subjective judgement of the sky's color.
What's the difference between a slave and a conscript in time of war?
We don't do the slave thing these days but sending the unwilling to their possible death seems OK.
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 05:26:29 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:35:41 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 05:15:18 AM
^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not? It's pretty black and white that is. No matter what.
One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.
So, in your opinion, slavery is NOT objectively wrong?
Sorry, but I don't see any good in owning people and being allowed to beat them under any circumstances.
Biblical slavery instituted by God for the Israelites had strict moral guidelines. American slavery did not. Regardless of how much one wants to call them synonomous, it does not make them synonomous.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 27, 2011, 06:07:30 PM
What's the difference between a slave and a conscript in time of war?
We don't do the slave thing these days but sending the unwilling to their possible death seems OK.
I don't follow what you're getting at here.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 27, 2011, 06:07:30 PM
What's the difference between a slave and a conscript in time of war?
We don't do the slave thing these days but sending the unwilling to their possible death seems OK.
A conscript is paid for their time, there is also a nominal end period to their conscription, death or the end of the war. In a democracy conscription is also carried out by an elected government, a government that the conscript may have had an oppertunity to vote for. This does raise the question of whether a person can be conscripted if they were under the age of majority when the government came into power. Although in time of war governments often become coalitions for the duration and thus theoretically represent the whole population and act for the benefit of the population as a whole. ;D
There was an episode of DS9 where a projection said it was better to surrender to the Dominion than fight as that would ultimately save billions of lives. Needless to say the Federation did not surrender and billions were not killed.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 06:17:05 PM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 27, 2011, 06:07:30 PM
What's the difference between a slave and a conscript in time of war?
We don't do the slave thing these days but sending the unwilling to their possible death seems OK.
A conscript is paid for their time, there is also a nominal end period to their conscription, death or the end of the war. In a democracy conscription is also carried out by an elected government, a government that the conscript may have had an oppertunity to vote for. This does raise the question of whether a person can be conscripted if they were under the age of majority when the government came into power. Although in time of war governments often become coalitions for the duration and thus theoretically represent the whole population and act for the benefit of the population as a whole. ;D
There was an episode of DS9 where a projection said it was better to surrender to the Dominion than fight as that would ultimately save billions of lives. Needless to say the Federation did not surrender and billions were not killed.
Thanks
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 06:13:40 PM
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 05:26:29 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:35:41 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 05:15:18 AM
^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not? It's pretty black and white that is. No matter what.
One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.
So, in your opinion, slavery is NOT objectively wrong?
Sorry, but I don't see any good in owning people and being allowed to beat them under any circumstances.
Biblical slavery instituted by God for the Israelites had strict moral guidelines. American slavery did not. Regardless of how much one wants to call them synonomous, it does not make them synonomous.
However much you want to try to make there appear to be a significant difference there isn't. The situation is basically one person owning another who does not want to be owned, whatever flowery bits of irrelevent niceness you want to add to the issue. Unless of course you would be willing to become a slave, if not for me but for an orthodox Israeli Jew. Would you become a slave under the Biblical rules?
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:56:24 PMSubjective morality is based on the subject's preference. Objective morality is based on the circumstance. Absolute morality is always the case regardless of the circumstance. Biblical morality is objective. Is it wrong to lie? Yes, but there are times when a greater good is in play.
I think I kinda agree with your definition of subjective, your objective seems kinda subjective and your absolute seems akin to my definition of objective.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 06:22:08 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 06:13:40 PM
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 05:26:29 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:35:41 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 05:15:18 AM
^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not? It's pretty black and white that is. No matter what.
One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.
So, in your opinion, slavery is NOT objectively wrong?
Sorry, but I don't see any good in owning people and being allowed to beat them under any circumstances.
Biblical slavery instituted by God for the Israelites had strict moral guidelines. American slavery did not. Regardless of how much one wants to call them synonomous, it does not make them synonomous.
However much you want to try to make there appear to be a significant difference there isn't. The situation is basically one person owning another who does not want to be owned, whatever flowery bits of irrelevent niceness you want to add to the issue. Unless of course you would be willing to become a slave, if not for me but for an orthodox Israeli Jew. Would you become a slave under the Biblical rules?
But, Israelite slaves had the immediate or eventual option to remain a slave... voluntarily. Your ownership implications are just not correct. And to answer your question, yes, there are circumstances where Israelite Biblical slavery would be an attractive option in my view.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 27, 2011, 06:38:51 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:56:24 PMSubjective morality is based on the subject's preference. Objective morality is based on the circumstance. Absolute morality is always the case regardless of the circumstance. Biblical morality is objective. Is it wrong to lie? Yes, but there are times when a greater good is in play.
I think I kinda agree with your definition of subjective, your objective seems kinda subjective and your absolute seems akin to my definition of objective.
People often mistake absolute morals as objective morals. They are distinct.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 06:46:42 PM
People often mistake absolute morals as objective morals. They are distinct.
[/quote]
Ye, whatever.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 06:44:53 PM
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 06:22:08 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 06:13:40 PM
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 05:26:29 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 04:35:41 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 05:15:18 AM
^What?
How does this apply to whether slavery is wrong or not? It's pretty black and white that is. No matter what.
One should look at slavery objectively in each historical case, rather than in one subjective broad stroke.
So, in your opinion, slavery is NOT objectively wrong?
Sorry, but I don't see any good in owning people and being allowed to beat them under any circumstances.
Biblical slavery instituted by God for the Israelites had strict moral guidelines. American slavery did not. Regardless of how much one wants to call them synonomous, it does not make them synonomous.
However much you want to try to make there appear to be a significant difference there isn't. The situation is basically one person owning another who does not want to be owned, whatever flowery bits of irrelevent niceness you want to add to the issue. Unless of course you would be willing to become a slave, if not for me but for an orthodox Israeli Jew. Would you become a slave under the Biblical rules?
But, Israelite slaves had the immediate or eventual option to remain a slave... voluntarily. Your ownership implications are just not correct. And to answer your question, yes, there are circumstances where Israelite Biblical slavery would be an attractive option in my view.
Could they opt out of their slavery at any point they wanted to?
I doubt anyone would or ever has been a willing slave.
And if you think it is okay to own another humanbeing in any way, shape, or form, I truly reccomend you seek immediate help.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 10:02:01 PM
I doubt anyone would or ever has been a willing slave.
And if you think it is okay to own another humanbeing in any way, shape, or form, I truly reccomend you seek immediate help.
Oh I don't think that's 100% true, but they did have a safe word ;D
I wish we could ask a slave what they thought. Then they could look to their owners for the answer they are to give. Because you know I somehow imagine some slave saying " well you know it all depends on subjective or objective definitions of (HELP ME) right and wrong etc etc."
Yeah I imagine it that way.
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:26:40 PM
I wish we could ask a slave what they thought. Then they could look to their owners for the answer they are to give. Because you know I somehow imagine some slave saying " well you know it all depends on subjective or objective definitions of (HELP ME) right and wrong etc etc."
Yeah I imagine it that way.
Or:
I can either choose to be a slave or choose to die a horrible death in the free world with no means to house, feed and protect myself and my family. But it's a choice.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 10:30:42 PM
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:26:40 PM
I wish we could ask a slave what they thought. Then they could look to their owners for the answer they are to give. Because you know I somehow imagine some slave saying " well you know it all depends on subjective or objective definitions of (HELP ME) right and wrong etc etc."
Yeah I imagine it that way.
Or:
I can either choose to be a slave or choose to die a horrible death in the free world with no means to house, feed and protect myself and my family. But it's a choice.
I would agree that there have been some slaves who at some times have been better of than non-slaves. But that is more indicative of the appalling society/culture that they were slaves in.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 10:30:42 PM
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:26:40 PM
I wish we could ask a slave what they thought. Then they could look to their owners for the answer they are to give. Because you know I somehow imagine some slave saying " well you know it all depends on subjective or objective definitions of (HELP ME) right and wrong etc etc."
Yeah I imagine it that way.
Or:
I can either choose to be a slave or choose to die a horrible death in the free world with no means to house, feed and protect myself and my family. But it's a choice.
I don't recall those shackles being something of a chosen accessory. Are you out of your mind? Yeah, I'm seriously asking that too. Seems the ridiculous stuff we need to say to not just say you know, I might be wrong about this particular subject. So instead I'll just grasp for anything that will keep me from saying that.
At this point you are not your own property. Hell your family is not YOUR family. Your wife probably having sired the Massa' 5th illegitimate son. Seriously no slaves is having this contemplation. Those songs they were singing out in the cotton fields weren't coded songs of cooperation and loyalty. It was coded songs of HOW TO GET THE HELL AWAY FROM THESE CRACKAS. Come on.
Quote from: Tank on August 27, 2011, 10:03:40 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 10:02:01 PM
I doubt anyone would or ever has been a willing slave.
And if you think it is okay to own another humanbeing in any way, shape, or form, I truly reccomend you seek immediate help.
Oh I don't think that's 100% true, but they did have a safe word ;D
Well~~ ;) I don't mind that at all.
LOL@Medusa. xD
If anyone that actually cares if they are using words correctly would like to read about the difference between objective and subjective they can do so quickly here:
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/
It does matter when discussing moral issues but I don't see any real discussion occurring other than among those who agree so whatever...
And for Black36....i don't care if biblical slaves were treated a bit nicer than American slaves or if they had a chance to go free. That doesn't make it ethical. Arguing that something is less bad still means it is bad.
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:34:49 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 10:30:42 PM
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:26:40 PM
I wish we could ask a slave what they thought. Then they could look to their owners for the answer they are to give. Because you know I somehow imagine some slave saying " well you know it all depends on subjective or objective definitions of (HELP ME) right and wrong etc etc."
Yeah I imagine it that way.
Or:
I can either choose to be a slave or choose to die a horrible death in the free world with no means to house, feed and protect myself and my family. But it's a choice.
I don't recall those shackles being something of a chosen accessory. Are you out of your mind? Yeah, I'm seriously asking that too. Seems the ridiculous stuff we need to say to not just say you know, I might be wrong about this particular subject. So instead I'll just grasp for anything that will keep me from saying that.
At this point you are not your own property. Hell your family is not YOUR family. Your wife probably having sired the Massa' 5th illegitimate son. Seriously no slaves is having this contemplation. Those songs they were singing out in the cotton fields weren't coded songs of cooperation and loyalty. It was coded songs of HOW TO GET THE HELL AWAY FROM THESE CRACKAS. Come on.
I can just imagine an older, invalid or sick slave who wouldn't be able to work freely to support themselves choosing the shackles over whatever they would have to face as a free person. The main question, however, is if the choice of their master overrides their own to remain a slave. ;D
I'm pretty sure alot of those old invalid slaves who couldn't work...disappeared into the night. Never to be heard of again.
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:53:41 PM
I'm pretty sure alot of those old invalid slaves who couldn't work...disappeared into the night. Never to be heard of again.
And being voluntary slaves who chose to remain slaves, I'm sure they did exactly as their masters told them to do and went into whatever deep dark pit of no return voluntarily.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 10:57:52 PM
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:53:41 PM
I'm pretty sure alot of those old invalid slaves who couldn't work...disappeared into the night. Never to be heard of again.
And being voluntary slaves who chose to remain slaves, I'm sure they did exactly as their masters told them to do and went into whatever deep dark pit of no return voluntarily.
Do you think they voluntarily got on those slave ships leaving their home land in Africa? I don't recall there being like some Slave Boat with the Love Boat music playing in the background. Because I guess you would choose to leave your homeland and go into a ship's belly and lie there. crammed like sardines. Half dying on the trip over. Yeah sign me up. You are delusional.
It seems Black36 has vanished into said pit...
I'd rather be a sexy cafe maid anyway.
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 11:02:42 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 10:57:52 PM
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:53:41 PM
I'm pretty sure alot of those old invalid slaves who couldn't work...disappeared into the night. Never to be heard of again.
And being voluntary slaves who chose to remain slaves, I'm sure they did exactly as their masters told them to do and went into whatever deep dark pit of no return voluntarily.
Do you think they voluntarily got on those slave ships leaving their home land in Africa? I don't recall there being like some Slave Boat with the Love Boat music playing in the background. Because I guess you would choose to leave your homeland and go into a ship's belly and lie there. crammed like sardines. Half dying on the trip over. Yeah sign me up. You are delusional.
Africa ??? I was talking about the Biblical salves, who Black36 said were voluntary slaves after 7 years of being owned.
I guess this means I can become a good Poe.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 11:09:55 PM
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 11:02:42 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 10:57:52 PM
Quote from: Medusa on August 27, 2011, 10:53:41 PM
I'm pretty sure alot of those old invalid slaves who couldn't work...disappeared into the night. Never to be heard of again.
And being voluntary slaves who chose to remain slaves, I'm sure they did exactly as their masters told them to do and went into whatever deep dark pit of no return voluntarily.
Do you think they voluntarily got on those slave ships leaving their home land in Africa? I don't recall there being like some Slave Boat with the Love Boat music playing in the background. Because I guess you would choose to leave your homeland and go into a ship's belly and lie there. crammed like sardines. Half dying on the trip over. Yeah sign me up. You are delusional.
Africa ??? I was talking about the Biblical salves, who Black36 said were voluntary slaves after 7 years of being owned.
I guess this means I can become a good Poe.
Ahh. Well then. I guess it's aok to be a slave. What was I thinking about ,you know, being a free person and all. My bad. Being owned with a bed in a golden cage is being owned with a bed in a stable. YOU ARE OWNED.
Meep... Calm down, Medusa.
Black36 is the guy who thinks its ok to be a slave, not Silver..
So doing some light browsing on the subject of biblical slaves. I decided to go to a site that was from Christians. Because going to an anti Christian site might give me biased information. So out of their very own mouths I give you this:
http://carm.org/slavery
QuoteSlavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. While many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.
So you know..if you are going to like abuse your children..here's how to go about it and make it legal. Um. No. This 'reason' given is a pile of hogwash and turd soup. But it's not my reasons why slavery was allowed. It's the Bible's reason. Apparently when bad shit happens, we don't condemn it, we just give it some rules to make it look like it's ok. Of course these aren't the rules of the slaves. Of course not. Because you know, they aren't real people. They are in fact property of the master. Just like his mules.
I was trying to have a go at showing how being a voluntary slave can be rather absurd (I don't think slavery is okay myself). Choosing to be something which by definition has dimished choices is ridiculous.
Edit: I'm just not that good at satire and sarcasm, though one doesn't need to be a sophisticated satirist to be a good Poe (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 27, 2011, 11:28:01 PM
I was trying to have a go at showing how being a voluntary slave can be rather absurd (I don't think slavery is okay myself). Choosing to be something which by definition has dimished choices is ridiculous.
Edit: I'm just not that good at satire and sarcasm, though one doesn't need to be a sophisticated satirist to be a good Poe (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law)
I realize that now. Which is why I went to go try to find some info on the correct slavery. I still call bs. But not to you. To the other guy who has failed to return here.
*waits in corner reading Satan's Daily
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 10:44:55 PM
If anyone that actually cares if they are using words correctly would like to read about the difference between objective and subjective they can do so quickly here:
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/
It does matter when discussing moral issues but I don't see any real discussion occurring other than among those who agree so whatever...
And for Black36....i don't care if biblical slaves were treated a bit nicer than American slaves or if they had a chance to go free. That doesn't make it ethical. Arguing that something is less bad still means it is bad.
Are you appealing to an ultimate objective ethic, or just your own subjective one?
Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 08:37:31 PM
Biblical slavery is not synonomous with American slavery.
Can you list for us exactly what the differences are. As in a clear and concise list. Not some run around with semantics on words. That's boring. Let's get in to the meat and potatoes about this subject. We've spent too much time on word play. F that shit and get to it man.
What the crap?
God allows famine, murder and slavery because of sin?
That is so fucked up, it's insane. Wow, christians really need to read the whole bible instead of cherry picking it. Loving god my ass.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 11:53:18 PM
What the crap?
God allows famine, murder and slavery because of sin?
That is so fucked up, it's insane. Wow, christians really need to read the whole bible instead of cherry picking it. Loving god my ass.
The bible we know of today was cherry picked to include a mix of Pagan and Christian ideas during the Nicean council. It's been cherry picked from the word edit.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 11:50:31 PM
Quote from: Whitney on August 27, 2011, 10:44:55 PM
If anyone that actually cares if they are using words correctly would like to read about the difference between objective and subjective they can do so quickly here:
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/
It does matter when discussing moral issues but I don't see any real discussion occurring other than among those who agree so whatever...
And for Black36....i don't care if biblical slaves were treated a bit nicer than American slaves or if they had a chance to go free. That doesn't make it ethical. Arguing that something is less bad still means it is bad.
Are you appealing to an ultimate objective ethic, or just your own subjective one?
For the sake of discussion and to not complicate things, let's assume that the golden rule "Do as you will, but harm none" "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" etc is an objective moral system.
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 06:46:42 PM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 27, 2011, 06:38:51 PM
Quote from: Black36 on August 27, 2011, 05:56:24 PMSubjective morality is based on the subject's preference. Objective morality is based on the circumstance. Absolute morality is always the case regardless of the circumstance. Biblical morality is objective. Is it wrong to lie? Yes, but there are times when a greater good is in play.
I think I kinda agree with your definition of subjective, your objective seems kinda subjective and your absolute seems akin to my definition of objective.
People often mistake absolute morals as objective morals. They are distinct.
I think you are using semantics to try to invent a god-oriented definition morality that is "logic-proof" against us atheists.
But really, you are just taking the actual definition of objective and trying to split it and make part of it "special" and impervious to "attack" because it's "God ordained".
You might as well keep saying "the slavery in the bible was okay because 'God said so' and not in the U.S. because he didn't" because that's pretty much exactly what you mean.
And you're right, if your argument is "because God said so", no, there really isn't a counter that we can use against that. ::)
I'm still trying to figure out the differences between bible time slavery and civil war time slavery. ???
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 11:53:18 PM
What the crap?
God allows famine, murder and slavery because of sin?
That is so fucked up, it's insane.
Why? On what grounds is God obliged to stop such? Your grounds?
Quote from: Medusa on August 28, 2011, 12:27:16 AM
I'm still trying to figure out the differences between bible time slavery and civil war time slavery. ???
Well then, you need to read scripture.
Quote from: Medusa on August 28, 2011, 12:27:16 AM
I'm still trying to figure out the differences between bible time slavery and civil war time slavery. ???
The only diff is biblically owners couldn't beat their slaves to death, had to use a certain size of stick for beating, and citicen slaves were released after 7 years.
Ya...I don't think that is a very big difference either...especially considering that in war situations women were taken in as forced "wives"; today we'd call it sex slavery.
Quote from: Black36 on August 28, 2011, 12:33:07 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on August 27, 2011, 11:53:18 PM
What the crap?
God allows famine, murder and slavery because of sin?
That is so fucked up, it's insane.
Why? On what grounds is God obliged to stop such? Your grounds?
Yup. :D
because I said so. He is a meanie~
Quote from: Black36 on August 28, 2011, 12:34:55 AM
Quote from: Medusa on August 28, 2011, 12:27:16 AM
I'm still trying to figure out the differences between bible time slavery and civil war time slavery. ???
Well then, you need to read scripture.
If civil war slave owners had
said that they were divenely justified in owning slaves or if they had found some scriptural basis for legitimately owning people, would that make any difference?
Do you consider it to be wrong to own slaves nowadays?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2011, 01:53:30 AM
Quote from: Black36 on August 28, 2011, 12:34:55 AM
Quote from: Medusa on August 28, 2011, 12:27:16 AM
I'm still trying to figure out the differences between bible time slavery and civil war time slavery. ???
Well then, you need to read scripture.
If civil war slave owners had said that they were divenely justified in owning slaves or if they had found some scriptural basis for legitimately owning people, would that make any difference?
Do you consider it to be wrong to own slaves nowadays?
Civil war slave owners were not Biblical Israelites, so such an argument coming from them would complete bolonga.
Quote from: Black36 on August 28, 2011, 02:06:10 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2011, 01:53:30 AM
Quote from: Black36 on August 28, 2011, 12:34:55 AM
Quote from: Medusa on August 28, 2011, 12:27:16 AM
I'm still trying to figure out the differences between bible time slavery and civil war time slavery. ???
Well then, you need to read scripture.
If civil war slave owners had said that they were divenely justified in owning slaves or if they had found some scriptural basis for legitimately owning people, would that make any difference?
Do you consider it to be wrong to own slaves nowadays?
Civil war slave owners were not Biblical Israelites, so such an argument coming from them would complete bolonga.
And what do you think about slavery nowadays? is it acceptable?
If god told you that your family had to be enslaved because someone else (or they) had sinned, would you willingly accept it?
Quote from: Black36 on August 28, 2011, 12:34:55 AM
Quote from: Medusa on August 28, 2011, 12:27:16 AM
I'm still trying to figure out the differences between bible time slavery and civil war time slavery. ???
Well then, you need to read scripture.
I'm lazy. YOU said there was a difference. I would like to know what YOU think those differences are. Since it's YOUR assumption. So how about that list? Can you tell us the differences? Hey, you obviously read the scriptures so this should be a piece of cake for you.
I know all my info in my Satanic book. I wouldn't claim something from it then demand you go read it to figure it out.
Damn I've posted something in the wrong thread and the delete button is no more.
Long time prisoners can become institutionalised and fear the wide world, same with some slaves I suppose.
Quote from: Medusa on August 28, 2011, 03:18:53 AM
Quote from: Black36 on August 28, 2011, 12:34:55 AM
Quote from: Medusa on August 28, 2011, 12:27:16 AM
I'm still trying to figure out the differences between bible time slavery and civil war time slavery. ???
Well then, you need to read scripture.
I'm lazy. YOU said there was a difference. I would like to know what YOU think those differences are. Since it's YOUR assumption. So how about that list? Can you tell us the differences? Hey, you obviously read the scriptures so this should be a piece of cake for you.
I know all my info in my Satanic book. I wouldn't claim something from it then demand you go read it to figure it out.
^This.
Medusa is correct. So far you haven't provided us with a single decent response. Just honestly seems like trolling.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx
Do you consider it to be wrong to own slaves nowadays?
Quote from: xSilverPhinxAnd what do you think about slavery nowadays? is it acceptable?
I sure am glad to see others starting to realize the trollish nature of black36's postings here. Answering questions with typically off topic questions, and continually changing the subject when confronted with logic that he can't debate. It's been his M.O. Since he joined.
Hey black36,
xSilverPhinx up there keeps asking you the same question. It's a very good question that seems like it should be easy to answer. Hell, simple yes or no will suffice. Show the forum some respect, and maybe change some minds on your trollishness in the process, and answer the question.
I also agree, this poster has troll written all over him.
Quote from: Crow on August 18, 2011, 06:47:48 PM
What is your stance on slavery? as the bible is quite clear that it is acceptable. In my opinion it is one of, if not the most immoral action a person can partake in.
Edit: not only is slavery acceptable in the bible but endorsed in the new and old testaments.
I can understand your interpretation of Paul's account on slavery. Instructing slave's to be obedient to their masters and masters to treat slaves in fairness. It's clear Paul
acknowledges slavery as it was in his time, which is was a cultural norm. However, there is a difference between Paul "failing to condemn" and "accept".
But Christianity "endorsing" slavery? How many slaves did Jesus have?
Quote from: Cforcerunner on August 29, 2011, 12:24:09 AM
Quote from: Crow on August 18, 2011, 06:47:48 PM
What is your stance on slavery? as the bible is quite clear that it is acceptable. In my opinion it is one of, if not the most immoral action a person can partake in.
Edit: not only is slavery acceptable in the bible but endorsed in the new and old testaments.
I can understand your interpretation of Paul's account on slavery. Instructing slave's to be obedient to their masters and masters to treat slaves in fairness. It's clear Paul acknowledges slavery as it was in his time, which is was a cultural norm. However, there is a difference between Paul "failing to condemn" and "accept".
But Christianity "endorsing" slavery? How many slaves did Jesus have?
The highlighted element of your reply indicates that the actions of Jesus trump Christian dogma and doctrine. Is this your position?
Quote from: Black36 on August 28, 2011, 02:06:10 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 28, 2011, 01:53:30 AMIf civil war slave owners had said that they were divenely justified in owning slaves or if they had found some scriptural basis for legitimately owning people, would that make any difference?
Do you consider it to be wrong to own slaves nowadays?
Civil war slave owners were not Biblical Israelites, so such an argument coming from them would complete bolonga.
There are no Biblical Israelites on the planet. Shall we then dismiss all of the Old Testament as no longer applicable? That would be fine with me.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on August 29, 2011, 12:24:09 AM
Quote from: Crow on August 18, 2011, 06:47:48 PM
What is your stance on slavery? as the bible is quite clear that it is acceptable. In my opinion it is one of, if not the most immoral action a person can partake in.
Edit: not only is slavery acceptable in the bible but endorsed in the new and old testaments.
I can understand your interpretation of Paul's account on slavery. Instructing slave's to be obedient to their masters and masters to treat slaves in fairness. It's clear Paul acknowledges slavery as it was in his time, which is was a cultural norm. However, there is a difference between Paul "failing to condemn" and "accept".
But Christianity "endorsing" slavery? How many slaves did Jesus have?
Christianity is much more than the supposed word of Jesus (that's presuming he existed). If Christianity was actually based solely on the words and actions of the man then it would be a very different religion but with no way of knowing what the man was supposed to have said or done the main basis for the christian faith is the bible and that is much more than just the gospels.
On the note of how did Christianity endorse slavery that is quite obvious. To include passages that refer to the treatment of slaves that is an endorsement, it isn't objecting or remaining passive it's accepting the idea and also giving guidelines on the treatment of those slaves. The editors of the christian cannon had the opportunity to omit those words concerning slavery but decided to include them. Now think about this, if Christianity had opposed slavery do you think the Atlantic slave trade would have still taken place?
Quote from: Cforcerunner on August 29, 2011, 12:24:09 AM
However, there is a difference between Paul "failing to condemn" and "accept".
When we are talking about people who are looked to for moral guidance, isn't there a problem if they witness something that we would consider morally objectionable yet they didn't say anything to condemn the practice?
I don't really know enough to say, but hopefully somebody better versed in the bible can clarify: didn't Jesus himself say that he didn't want to replace the old testament and old Jewish laws but rather validate them?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2011, 06:57:53 PM
I don't really know enough to say, but hopefully somebody better versed in the bible can clarify: didn't Jesus himself say that he didn't want to replace the old testament and old Jewish laws but rather validate them?
here are a few translations of the verse you are thinking of - Matt 5:17:
New International Version (©1984)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
New Living Translation (©2007)
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
English Standard Version (©2001)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
source and even more translations http://bible.cc/matthew/5-17.htm
Quote from: Whitney on August 30, 2011, 02:05:00 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 29, 2011, 06:57:53 PM
I don't really know enough to say, but hopefully somebody better versed in the bible can clarify: didn't Jesus himself say that he didn't want to replace the old testament and old Jewish laws but rather validate them?
here are a few translations of the verse you are thinking of - Matt 5:17:
New International Version (©1984)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
New Living Translation (©2007)
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
English Standard Version (©2001)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
source and even more translations http://bible.cc/matthew/5-17.htm
That's what I was talking about ;D
Quote from: Tank on August 29, 2011, 09:54:49 AM
The highlighted element of your reply indicates that the actions of Jesus trump Christian dogma and doctrine. Is this your position?
It absolutely is ;D
Well, I believe good doctrine comes from Jesus/the gospels rather than tradition.
Quote from: Crow on August 29, 2011, 03:54:23 PM
Christianity is much more than the supposed word of Jesus (that's presuming he existed). If Christianity was actually based solely on the words and actions of the man then it would be a very different religion but with no way of knowing what the man was supposed to have said or done the main basis for the christian faith is the bible and that is much more than just the gospels.
Skeptics make a completely reasonable objection to many Christians who claim to be "selective" when it comes to what they believe in. But the same can also be said of what skeptics are skeptical of. One who has done the slightest bit of research on the historical Jesus, would know that such a figure is widely accepted within the field of 1st century historians.
Quote from: Crow on August 29, 2011, 03:54:23 PM
On the note of how did Christianity endorse slavery that is quite obvious. To include passages that refer to the treatment of slaves that is an endorsement, it isn't objecting or remaining passive it's accepting the idea and also giving guidelines on the treatment of those slaves. The editors of the christian cannon had the opportunity to omit those words concerning slavery but decided to include them. Now think about this, if Christianity had opposed slavery do you think the Atlantic slave trade would have still taken place?
I'll say this, it is unfortunate that American slave advocates selectively interpreted Paul's words for their own political agenda. That being said, it's clear that Paul is acknowledging slavery as it was during the 1st century, as being a normal social class within the roman empire. If Paul lived during the feudal era, and acknowledged the existence of peasants and how knights should treat them fairly. Would this mean Paul strongly advocates peasants being part of bottom society and subtly asserts the social advantages and necessity of peasantry?
When you put in historical context it makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is when theists say that god himself (the source of morality) endorsed slavery (if you go by what's written in the bible).
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 01, 2011, 10:23:57 PM
When you put in historical context it makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is when theists say that god himself (the source of morality) endorsed slavery (if you go by what's written in the bible).
God Himself, Why do you believe that? Which scriptures are you referring to?
Quote from: Cforcerunner on September 02, 2011, 02:39:23 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 01, 2011, 10:23:57 PM
When you put in historical context it makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is when theists say that god himself (the source of morality) endorsed slavery (if you go by what's written in the bible).
God Himself, Why do you believe that? Which scriptures are you referring to?
Here. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=25#44) From Lev 25:39 onwards.
Apparently the rule that said that the "slaves" that were allowed to go free after 7 years was only valid for Israelite slaves, as the other following passages show, and not for people of other nations.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 02, 2011, 07:05:19 AM
Quote from: Cforcerunner on September 02, 2011, 02:39:23 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 01, 2011, 10:23:57 PM
When you put in historical context it makes sense, but what doesn't make sense is when theists say that god himself (the source of morality) endorsed slavery (if you go by what's written in the bible).
God Himself, Why do you believe that? Which scriptures are you referring to?
Here. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Lev&c=25#44) From Lev 25:39 onwards.
Apparently the rule that said that the "slaves" that were allowed to go free after 7 years was only valid for Israelite slaves, as the other following passages show, and not for people of other nations.
First off, I HIGHLY recommend reading NASB translations over King James (Though this may of just been by default, I will mention it regardless).
But yes, this is from the Law of the Old Testament. This is a very good question, not for the Christian, but for the modern Jew. I have no idea why they have been slacking on their animal sacrifices lately and have ceased throwing stones at one another (I say this in a joking manner, but a serious question for any jewish folks on the forum).
Anyways I will briefly go beyond your question and answer what you and many are likely pondering...What does it mean when Jesus states his goal of not "abolishing, but fulfilling the law". There are many instances which He clearly contradicts Jewish ordinance (healing on the sabbath, pardoning an adulteress from being stone, associating himself with unclean commoners, ect.), So there are a few theological interpretations that you can take away from this. Jesus' teaching and understanding of the underlining meaning beyond the law superseded that of Jewish tradition, or Jewish tradition may of been appropriate/practical for it's time, and no longer became necessary once Jesus came onto the scene.
I wouldn't consider myself smart enough (until I save up enough dollars for seminary ;D) to really dig deeply into this. But I will give my two cents. I would say Jesus understood God's law more deeply than any other human (very obvious for one who is Christian). And one of the biggest revelation of Jesus (and Christianity) was his utter disapproval for a legalistic approach toward the law. He basically concluded that virtually everyone is guilty according to it's ridiculous standards (if you hate your brother, is it equivalent to murder, lusting equivalent to adultery, ect.). In addition, he taught that by only following the first two commandments, loving your God with all your heart/ loving your neighbor as yourself is all that is needed, and obedience to the rest of the law will follow suit.
In essence He is stating that morality lies in the big picture rather than the details. A condition of the heart, and not of individual actions/laundry list of good deeds.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on September 02, 2011, 08:25:58 AMBut yes, this is from the Law of the Old Testament. This is a very good question, not for the Christian, but for the modern Jew. I have no idea why they have been slacking on their animal sacrifices lately and have ceased throwing stones at one another (I say this in a joking manner, but a serious question for any jewish folks on the forum).
So, Leviticus is in effect for christians when the talk is about gay rights, but when its about slavery it's the jews problem. It's true, god works in mysterious ways, as evindent by the creatures he made in his own image....
Sorry, I'm in a highly sarcastic mood today, and I've been watching this go on for a while now. And I'm starting get tired of laughing at people who think there are different kinds of slavery that are defined if its mentioned and specified by religion or not....*headdesk* Slavery is slavery, no if's, but's or maybe's. And YHWH was obviosuly in favour of it. And his one of the three sides of the christian god, so there's no running away from it. Sorry.
History_geek is right, if Jesus disapproved of the OT's legalistic approach, then whatever scriptures supporting anti-gay rights should be thrown out the window as well and seen as the moral zeitgeist (which literally means 'spirit of the time' or something like that) of
their time. If people are going to cherry-pick, then at least be consistent (and those who don't would probably get thrown into jail :-X).
As for the Jews, it's another example of how the legalistic/historical record makes sense only in a historical context, but not as anything coming from a perfect source of objective morality.
But even so, it's written as if god himself condones slavery of people of other nations:
Quote39 'If a [a]countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. 40 He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. 41 He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. 42 For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 43 You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. 44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. [/b]46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your [c]countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
But I'm not going to get into whether these passages are valid from a Christian's POV, because I don't know nearly as much as I should. Truth is, the OT is also part of the book that Christian's call scripture and Christians are basing personal justifications for outdated notions on the OT.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 02, 2011, 05:32:40 PM
But I'm not going to get into whether these passages are valid from a Christian's POV, because I don't know nearly as much as I should. Truth is, the OT is also part of the book that Christian's call scripture and Christians are basing personal justifications for outdated notions on the OT.
Not sure where you are going with this, what do you mean by Christians using the OT for "personal justifications"?
I think OT is Old Testament.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on September 03, 2011, 12:34:38 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 02, 2011, 05:32:40 PM
But I'm not going to get into whether these passages are valid from a Christian's POV, because I don't know nearly as much as I should. Truth is, the OT is also part of the book that Christian's call scripture and Christians are basing personal justifications for outdated notions on the OT.
Not sure where you are going with this, what do you mean by Christians using the OT for "personal justifications"?
People basing hand-me-down opinions on the Old testament. Not everyone of course, I'm not putting the more conservative Christians in the same bunch as the more liberal ones, but if the verse that people use to discriminate against homosexuals for instance (though not taking the murder part literally) in in the legalistic Old testament, then people who do base their opinions on it should'nt be so quick to throw out all the rest by saying that it has more to do with pre-Christianity.
Edited to correct typo.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on September 01, 2011, 05:32:58 PM
Skeptics make a completely reasonable objection to many Christians who claim to be "selective" when it comes to what they believe in. But the same can also be said of what skeptics are skeptical of. One who has done the slightest bit of research on the historical Jesus, would know that such a figure is widely accepted within the field of 1st century historians.
What contemporary historians of Jesus mention his existence in the same light as the biblical portrait? None that have come across. A man called Jesus may have existed at the time but none of those historians match any of the accounts given within the bible and the ones that do make mention of Jesus are highly disputed with modern historians standing on either side of the fence. But to make the claim "One who has done the slightest bit of research on the historical Jesus, would know that such a figure is widely accepted within the field of 1st century historians." Is a load of bull as the mentions of a Jesus figure with the contemporary's of the time is very minimal compared to the amount of historians of the time that were commenting on the area. With the majority of those that do claim the existence come towards the end of the 1st century most likely after the supposed figure would have been dead.
Quote from: Cforcerunner on September 01, 2011, 05:32:58 PM
I'll say this, it is unfortunate that American slave advocates selectively interpreted Paul's words for their own political agenda. That being said, it's clear that Paul is acknowledging slavery as it was during the 1st century, as being a normal social class within the roman empire. If Paul lived during the feudal era, and acknowledged the existence of peasants and how knights should treat them fairly. Would this mean Paul strongly advocates peasants being part of bottom society and subtly asserts the social advantages and necessity of peasantry?
I never said that Paul strongly advocated slavery so no. However using the theoretical example you have used with what I actually wrote, then I would say yes that he supports the position of peasantry within society therefore endorsing this.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on September 03, 2011, 02:59:04 AM
People basing hand-me-down opinions on the Old testament. Not everyone of course, I'm not putting the more conservative Christians in the same bunch as the more liberal ones, but if the verse that people use to discriminate against homosexuals for instance (though not taking the murder part literally) in in the legalistic Old testament, then people who do base their opinions on it should'nt be so quick to throw out all the rest by saying that it has more to do with pre-Christianity.
Edited to correct typo.
Okay, I think I understand, and yes, fundamental extremist who do things such as throw stones and cast terrible judgement on homosexuals and embarrass Christians would not represent what Jesus taught.
Quote from: Crow on September 03, 2011, 04:20:26 PM
What contemporary historians of Jesus mention his existence in the same light as the biblical portrait? None that have come across. A man called Jesus may have existed at the time but none of those historians match any of the accounts given within the bible and the ones that do make mention of Jesus are highly disputed with modern historians standing on either side of the fence.
But to make the claim "One who has done the slightest bit of research on the historical Jesus, would know that such a figure is widely accepted within the field of 1st century historians." Is a load of bull as the mentions of a Jesus figure with the contemporary's of the time is very minimal compared to the amount of historians of the time that were commenting on the area. With the majority of those that do claim the existence come towards the end of the 1st century most likely after the supposed figure would have been dead
Who is telling you this? Among passages in Josephus, the earlier and more reliable sources for the historical Jesus are found in Paul's passages in 1st Corinthians and in the three synoptic gospels (which so happens to be found in the bible). There is a minority of historian scholars who claim Jesus was a myth, but as it stands, you seem unfamiliar with any of their arguments. But regardless, if you are arguing Jesus as a myth, you are
not reflecting the opinion of mainstream historical scholarship.
Quote from: Crow on September 03, 2011, 04:20:26 PM
I never said that Paul strongly advocated slavery so no. However using the theoretical example you have used with what I actually wrote, then I would say yes that he supports the position of peasantry within society therefore endorsing this.
So if Paul did not strongly advocate slavery, where does Christianity "...include passages that refer to the treatment of slaves, that is an endorsement"?
Quote from: Cforcerunner on September 03, 2011, 06:02:01 PM
Who is telling you this? Among passages in Josephus, the earlier and more reliable sources for the historical Jesus are found in Paul's passages in 1st Corinthians and in the three synoptic gospels (which so happens to be found in the bible). There is a minority of historian scholars who claim Jesus was a myth, but as it stands, you seem unfamiliar with any of their arguments. But regardless, if you are arguing Jesus as a myth, you are not reflecting the opinion of mainstream historical scholarship.
Sorry I will clarify my stance. I am saying that Jesus of Nazareth the sun of god was a myth, not that a man named Jesus around the time who was a Galilean teacher and the founder of a new religion was a myth. However those that do object to Jesus even being anything more than a disciple of John the Baptist make a very strong case, especially when the older forms of Christianity (well there not considered Christian by Christians) than the RCC that exist paint a very different picture of the events and am beginning to lean more towards their argument.
The synoptic gospels in the bible are far from reliable historical documentation, it is well known that scholars do not take all that is written in them to be historical fact and have a hierarchy to them that are more reliable than others. Also they are
not considered to be contemporary's of Jesus same goes for Paul, and as you claim to know so much you will know what the mainstream stance on Paul is.
I like how you assume to know my knowledge base over a few words that I can be bothered to write. ::)
Quote from: Cforcerunner on September 03, 2011, 06:02:01 PM
So if Paul did not strongly advocate slavery, where does Christianity "...include passages that refer to the treatment of slaves, that is an endorsement"?
"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;"
Ephesians 6:5 KJV"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort."
1 Timothy 6:1-2 KJV"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
Luke 12:47-48 KJV