And God says: You can own a man, but you cannot bone a man.
@The Poonisher, this guy didn’t get the memo
@The Poonisher, he also says you cannot kill someone. unless they worked on Sunday, then you pelt that guy with rocks
@The Poonisher, you show your ignorance. Kidnapping, and being in possession of someone who is kidnapped was a crime punished by death in the bible.
Exodus 21:16 Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death
@phalcon , Your showing your typical creationist ignorance. Have you even read the bible? I doubt it.
Exodus 21: 20-21 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
Literally the same fvcking chapter you intellectually dishonest cunt. Jesus himself told slaves to OBEY their masters, not to free themselves or to go against them. No. To obey them.
Ephesians 6: 5-6 5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. "
Maybe next time actually read the source material mate.
@LaDarkProphet, slaves in biblical times were different from our modern idea of slavery though
@PacificaPelican, hey i just want to let you know that if your argument starts with "well this kind of slavery is different" then it's probably not a great argument
@Hoopscallion, no it is a great argument because you are comparing apples to oranges
@LaDarkProphet, Actually, the source material of Exodus 21 is not a list of instructions, but rather a list of punishments for violations that relate to the Hebrew system of "slavery" which, like Pelican said, is not like the slavery we commonly think about, it was a form of indentured servitude intended to give people who would otherwise be homeless or jailed for their debts in other societies a way to survive and work to meet their needs, which you can see from the first 3 verses of the chapter and the historical context of the whole text. The verses you quoted say that if a master beats and kills his servant, then the master is to be killed, if not then you dont kill the master, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong to beat your servant, the passage would imply that it is wrong, but not worth killing if the master hasn't killed a servant intentionally. The passage also goes on to say if the master causes any permanent damage to the servant they are freed (v. 26-27)
@Hoopscallion, the slavery we think of is involuntary servitude, the slavery in the Hebrew culture is more of a social welfare program that ensures that people who can't afford money to pay debts aren't killed and dont end up homeless and begging. And the Bible says these slaves are to be treated fairly (Collosians 4:1) because they aren't property, they are contracted workers, and after 6 years of work, they are freed no questions asked (Exodus 21:2)
@PacificaPelican, Thats the dumbest b.s ive ever heard in my god damn life.
@Commander Dingus, Citation needed for all of that absolute b.s. Because it literally says you can beat your SLAVES, legally, just so long as you dont main them or kill them. Where in the bible does it use the word indentured servant? Fvcking no where. Your being intellectually dishonest and trying to weasel the narrative to make it seem like your fair tale isnt full of barbarism. Well it wont work on me sunny. Ive read the damn book. Its horrendous.
I can already see your little hamster ball going ham, "Well it uses the modern word slavery but the actual Hebrew translation means..." blah blah fvcking blah more useless meaningless creationist apologetics. The same kind that tries to tell people that Genisis is literal, like your Kent Hovind. Smh.
Does your average layman read the bible in Hebrew? Fvck no! Its read in English and therefore the Hebrew argument is retarded and only ever used by cunting apologists trying to backpedal. It really shows how intellectually dishonest you are.
@LaDarkProphet, if you've ever taken a history class you would know there were many different kinds of slaves. Not all of them were due to conquests like we see with the Egyptian slaves or the slavery in the US. A lot of slaves were slaves by choice to pay off a debt or something and there were laws in place of that outlined the treatment of slaves.
@Hoopscallion, Dont bother with these cunting hypocrites mate. They are so ignorant, arrogant, and intellectually dishonest as to make any argument with them a futile effort. Fvcking, their fairy tale sky daddy could come down and slap them in the genitals with the truth and they would still irrationally think they were right despite any and all evidence to the contrary.
Is it a wonder that some of the m dumbest demographics on this planet are predominantly religious? Anti- Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, science deniers etc. etc.
There is a reason why there is a STRONG correlation between intelligence and education and a lack of faith while the dumber or less educated you are the higher likelyhood you are to be religious. I find that statistical fact fascinating.
@PacificaPelican, Wow. Someone did fail history class. And it sure as hell wasnt me. And btw i dont know if you are aware but in the U.S, historically speaking, it wasnt uncommon to treat an indentured servant worse then your slaves! But i digress.
Funny, the bible has been changed and translated so many times you would think it would be fairly simple and easy to change slaves to indentured servant. The fact that it is not, has not and never will tells me just how intellectually dishonest you really are.
@LaDarkProphet, I did cite the key verses within that chapter that support what I was saying, the first 3 verses specifically say that slaves aren't property to be owned forever, but are to work for a time and be released, that sounds like indentured servitude to me. Just because the Bible doesn't use the exact wording you demand of it doesn't change the concept that it is talking about. In the end the Bible isn't really about all of the laws anyway, it's about the fact that humans will never be good on their own, but God loves us despite the atrocities, like slavery, that we commit, and in the end God loves us all the same despite our failures. Galatians 3:28 says it doesn't matter who you are, everyone receives God's love equally.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
@LaDarkProphet, again, you're completely wrong. I don't think you care about the truth though because you seem like a very bitter and arrogant person. Anyways I'm done here ✌️
@PacificaPelican, you are supporting a practice that is absolutely abhorrent. Name aside, the practice of owning another human being as property and passing them off as inheritance to your heirs is both supported by the bible and entirely unethical.
It’s not indentured servitude if you buy them from someone else and then keep them forever.
You are arguing in favour of an immoral thing. You are the bad guy here.
@Commander Dingus, Ha! More intellectual dishonesty, backpedaling, and apologetics! You really are Kent Hovinds spitting image lol! I showed YOU the verses that says thats a load of b.s but you wave those away as if they dont exist. Well if you can do it then so will I.
And funny that verse seems to go against the idea about gays, heretics, witches, adulterers, non- believers and a whole host of other undesirables. Wow, according to that b.s verse i guess hell doesnt exist and everyone gets to to heaven!
I eagerly await your next response of more apologetic backpedaling. (Btw good job ignoring the part about Jesus telling slaves to be obedient. I could post more verses of you like ;) Really see how intellectually dishonest you are.)
@I Are Lebo, Hey hey lebo hows it going? Creationists are at it again mate.
@PacificaPelican, Whats the matter? Cant back up your ridiculous claims with evidence, like any rational person can, and instead are going to just pretend that your lack of evidence means your right?
Yea the most typical Creationist tactic if i ever saw one ^-^
@I Are Lebo, I never said I was for slavery. I was correcting that other guy who was spreading misinformation about historic events because for someone so condescending he sure was ignorant
@LaDarkProphet, it’s always so hard to tell whether people like this are trolling or being serious. Sometimes I’m not sure THEY know which they are.
@LaDarkProphet, I may be a hypocrite, because I'm just as flawed as any other person, and I don't know everything. Maybe I'm wrong! I'm not a Biblical scholar, I'm a biologist, and I know that I am far from perfect, but we all need some kind of purpose and meaning in life, and no comment thread I've ever found has made me more satisfied with life, only God has ever done that for me, and I hope that you find the kind of satisfaction that I have found with Christ someday as well.
@PacificaPelican, your correction was factually wrong. The bible supports the practice of owning other human beings as property. That is one of the most immoral things that one human can do to another.
@PacificaPelican, you said you were for indentured servitude. Indentured servitude is really fücking immoral. You said this while claiming that the bible doesn’t support slavery, which is spreading falsehoods. Also immoral.
@I Are Lebo, no, I did not say I supported indentured servitude or slavery. Nor did I say anything about the Bible. I get that you're trying to act like I'm the "bad guy" here but come on dude, with all this talk of morality putting words in someone's mouth isn't cool
@PacificaPelican, Only person here spreading lies and misinformation is you creationists. And when called out on your b.s you backpeda, apologize or run away. Every time. Without fail. You creationists have no back bone and no intellectual honesty.
@Commander Dingus, That is fine with me. It really is. But dont spread misinformation as truth. Not only does it hurt your cause but it also can lead people from the truth.
You said you were a biologist right? Well when people spread lies and misinformation about evolution to suit there needs, does it make you upset? Do you not try and correct that misinformation, or at the very least try and show others why said person is wrong?
Its no different here. And if you get fulfillment from the bible, and can ignore all the horrendous crap in it, then good for you. But dont lie about it. Dont let your faith blind you from the truth. Acknowledge the good and the bad. Dont try and make excuses for it. Accept that the bible, and christianity, is not for everyone and that there is indeed some really barbaric stuff in it. Dont try and hide it or lie for it. Just like a peer reviewed article, it needs to stand on its own merit ^-^
And i am perfectly satisfied with my life without religion.
@PacificaPelican, leviticus 25: 44-46. God directly condones slavery. "Indentured servitude", as you call it, only appied to Israelites. Everyone else was free game. Also, your "indentured servants" were mistreated. Read your own book. God is an evil dick.
@Commander Dingus, kids of "indentured servants" weren't allowed to be free. You may have found peace in your belief but know that your peace is found on a belief that promotes hate, slavery, murder, rape, stealing of people's land and home, and shaming people just for being born (being born a sinner; an imperfection in God's eyes). I'm surprised you support the bible as a biologist. I'm sure you think you are kind but the God you believe in is not.
@afro samurai2012, I have spent years investigating and digging into these questions and after years of studying the Bible. And hearing out arguments from both sides, I sincerely believe that the Bible does not promote any of those things, even though some people are willing to take parts of it out of context to try to make it bend to their will. I am a scientist and decided that I would investigate and draw my conclusions from the Bible by reading it and learning about it for what it is in its entirety, not just based on a few verses.
@LaDarkProphet, I dont think I am spreading misinformation, I am sharing what I believe the passage is saying. I have spent years investigating the Bible and digging into all of these accusations that you make against it, because I have doubted it before as well, but every time I take an honest and objective look at it I find that I end up trusting the Bible more. You can call me biased, because I might be, but you won't know until you really investigate it for yourself.
I do very much dislike the spread of misinformation about anything, and always try to speak up for truth whenever I can, which is the whole reason I commented in the first place, because from the entire time I have known God and every time I have doubted the Bible as promoting some kind of evil, I have always found that to be wrong.
I believe that truth is something that we all need to search for, like researching a scientific problem, we need to do the research and draw our conclusions, and mine is that God is love.
@PacificaPelican, “slaves in biblical times were different from our modern idea of slavery” -untrue, and irrelevant. It’s still immoral to own people as property.
“You are comparing apples to oranges” -owning people as property compared to owning people as property is a straight comparison.
“A lot of slaves were slaves by choice to pay off a debt” -irrelevant and still immoral.
You’re making needless excuses for an immoral practice. That sounds to me like support.
@Commander Dingus, Take care to note that the victor is the writer of history. Catholicism and christianity have dominated religion for centuries, and you are reading their account of events. If you are trying to be honest and objective with the bible, you should take into account the historical pretenses and biases that absolutely dominated that ancient era. Remember, the writers of the bible were people too with their own agendas.
@Commander Dingus, when God in the bible explicitly says “you can buy people, keep them as property, and pass them on to your children as inheritance”, then it is YOU taking things out of context when you deny that the bible supports such things.
You are arguing very dishonestly.
@airguitarpro, It's true that records and writings can be changed over time, which is why it is important to look back at the original texts and contextualize it all within Hebrew culture and language, but at the same time we see people who demeand that the original context and culture be ignored in favor of what it seems to mean to us reading it thousands of years after it was written.
@I Are Lebo, Exodus 21:1-2 seems to say differently
""Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing."
@Commander Dingus, yeah, and what does the bible have to say about non Hebrew slaves?
This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about when I say you’re dishonestly arguing.
@I Are Lebo, Any slave (Hebrew or not) that leaves their master aren't to be returned, but are to be freed. They only remain a slave if they stay, and sure the master might threaten them to stay, but that's already condemned by the laws in Exodus 21
Deuteronomy 23: 15-16
""You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him."
@Commander Dingus, Leviticus 25:44-46 You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
@Commander Dingus, you cherry pick what serves your point and ignore anything that contradicts it. You are not an honest person, and you are defending immorality.
@I Are Lebo, I am not saying slavery is right, or that the Israelites were right for practicing it, but I am saying that the Bible is about more than just how slavery was regulated for the Israelites thousands of years ago. The laws are explicitly stated to be void now anyway, Jesus made that clear when he says that the only two commandments that matter are to love God, and to love others as you would love yourself.
@Commander Dingus, that’s complete horseshït, and yet more dishonesty on your part.
Matthew 5:17 “Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill.”
Ephesians 6:5 “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.”
Every time you spread a falsehood about this, I’m going to call you to task on it. I sincerely hope you aren’t this dishonest when it comes to other aspects of your life.
@Commander Dingus, there is nowhere, not one single passage in either the old or new testaments that denounced the practice of owning human beings as property. Stop lying.
@I Are Lebo, There is a lot of complexity as to what fulfillment of the law means and how and why that matters for us now, and why we now aren't supposed to live under old testament laws, but I would ask that you search for it yourself.
Nothing anyone can say in a comment thread can be more convincing than finding it yourself
@I Are Lebo, The Biblical stance is that there is really nobody that is not a slave to something, whether people, selfish desires, pride, or anything else. The choice that we have is to be a slave to God, who actually cares about us, or be a slave to men or to our own desires which dont care for us at all.
@Commander Dingus, more horseshït and dishonesty. The entire point of this discussion is that the bible explicitly endorses the practice of owning other people as property and never denounces the practice. Now you are trying to change the topic because you have no argument against this.
I have searched for it myself, I have found it for myself, and I have posted my results here. Your dishonest tactics change nothing. The slavers in America were following the bible just as much as the slavers of the first century in the Middle East.
@LaDarkProphet, (DISCLAIMER: I do not wish slavery upon anyone, I do not wish to own slaves or anything regarding that matter.) Would you be able to explain to me why slavery is immoral? All the way down to its roots - aside from saying "it just is". The reason why I ask this is because it is fairly easy to attack someone else's philosophies but is much much harder to accurately defend your own and so I am curious.
@I Are Lebo, same to you if you want^
@I Are Lebo, it is apples to oranges regardless of how much you try to mischaracterize what I said. Slavery by choice and slavery by force are absolutely different beasts regardless of the morality that is at play
@bobs and vegene, slavery is immoral because it unpersons people. It’s bad for the individual, it’s bad for society. A society that practices slavery does not prioritize human wellbeing, and that leads to atrocity.
This is pretty self explanatory in my eyes. You would not wish to be enslaved to the will of another, so how can it be justified to do so to someone else?
@PacificaPelican, and you are the only one who is bringing up slavery by choice. The bible advocates slavery against the will of the slave.
You are dishonestly trying to claim that the bible only advocates indentured servitude, which you are wrong about. Biblical slavery is slavery. No contract is signed. No end point is preset for the internment. The permanent enslavement of non Hebrews is allowed by the bible, as is the permanent enslavement of Hebrew females, and males too if you follow a loophole.
It’s apples to apples.
@I Are Lebo, what if someone was okay with being a slave though? What if they enjoyed it, in the sense that they knew they could not trust themselves to lead. And there is not necessarily a correlation between atrocity and slavery. For instance, for the first 18 years of my life I was (essentially) a slave to my parents and yet my parents never did anything atrocious to me and my wellbeing was prioritized.
@I Are Lebo, and say it does not glorify the individual, why is that a bad thing? And in what ways would it be bad for the society (if it does not lead to atrocity and the destruction of wellbeing)?
@bobs and vegene, BDSM is a thing. Asking “what if the slave wants to be a slave” is as retarded a question as “perhaps the rape victim wanted to be fücked?”
I never said anything about glorifying the individual, and I don’t even get the point you’re trying to make.
The stats are very clear. No country actively practicing slavery ranks very high at all when it comes to economic success or quality of life. There’s good reasons for that. I strongly recommend you educate yourself further on this topic.
Being a dependent is not equivalent to being a slave. CPS exists. If your parents were abusing or neglecting you, they can (and should) be held accountable. Children are not slaves to their parents.
@I Are Lebo, the slave and rape thing don't compare. Slavery by definition is "someone who is legal property of another and is forced to obey them" (the only issue here is the forced) one may not wish to be enslaved but could understand the premise (since you didn't like the child comparison, one becomes a slave when imprisoned for murder or w.e) - and in that scenario, well being is prioritized and atrocity is not in abundance. Government laws put in place to regulate owner behavior does not make a slave less of a slave.
You also did mention individuality when saying "it unpersons people" and "it's bad for individual". And the point I'm trying to make is that not glorifying the individual is not inherently a bad thing as it could put more focus on the group (which is also not inherently a good thing) so unpersoning a person isn't technically immoral unless you can come up with definitive reason as to why.
@LaDarkProphet, LOL I can just see you saying to the people who downvoted you “why are you booing me?? I’m right!”
@Commander Dingus, Then you are intellectually dishonest and i sincerely hope you never get a teaching position. If your this dishonest with yourself about this then what else do you arrogantly fool yourself into believing? You are like a flat earther. They to claim ta have studied all the evidence before reaching their conclusion. Richard Dawkins, a well known biologist and someone who has actually objectively studied the bible seems to have arrived at a much different conclusion. Wonder why that is? You admit you "might" be bias but never seem to be bothered by that.
Again, i hope your never in the position to teach children. For i fear you will tell them the same lies you tell yourself. A scientist should be objective and rational. Faith, by definition, is irrational and not based on facts or reason. And the fact you can read something as horrendous as Judges 19 and come away as something to hoist as good and moral is sickening beyond reproach.
@Commander Dingus, Wow look at how your backpedaling! And you dare call yourself a scientist? Is that what a scientist does when given new information? Backpedal and try to change the argument entirely? How intellectually dishonest can you get? I cant believe i read that with my own eyes. The blatant hypocrisy!
You say, "O no the bible never condoned slavery!" When you are irrevocably proven wrong, beyond all doubt, you fvcking backpedal and say, "O well even if that were true Jesus fixed all that so it doesnt count!" Despite Jesus himself telling SLAVES to be obedient! Your a cunting dishonest, conniving, hypocritical apologist. No better then Kent Hovind. Absolutely disgusting you dare call yourself a "scientist".
@bobs and vegene, now say a prisoner (who is a slave to the state by definition) commits a horrendous act, the worst act imaginable for the sake of this argument, (maybe he rapes, tortures, kills, eats, then has sex with remains of a young inmate who's only there for a year, bleh damn idk something horrible) and the prison/state has deemed the punishment for this as a beating so as to show that a man should not do any of that and to deter others from doing so and to make sure the man does not want to do such a thing ever again. The state would be liable if the man dies from the beatings or is permanently maimed (which in most people opinions is somewhat kind a person that has performed that act) - in response to the beatings Bible quote you pulled up earlier. Perhaps it is to regulate that type of thing and not to regulate some gross action like beating a slave just for the sake of beating a slave (like is commonly thought).
@Murphlins, Lol what a naive little child. I dont give a fvck is i was the only person on the planet to not believe in religion. I would still shout from the rooftops how absurd, archaic, asinine and barbaric religion is. Im not here to win a popularity contest your arrogant cunt. Im here to inform people with the truth and not half ased apologetics and naive ignorance! Boo me all you like! Downvote me into oblivion. I do not care about how popular i am. Remember, it was once considered unpopular to say that the earth was not the center of the universe but the sun was. Galileo was even imprisoned for his beliefs because they went against the popular idea at the time! And gues who history sided with? Take your naive childish ignorance elsewhere.
@I Are Lebo, sorry I accidentally responded to my own post so please scroll up to find the one I'm talking about lol
@LaDarkProphet, I’m on your side just FYI - I was raised strict southern baptist and left the religion. I was just referencing a funny meme that fits your verse quotes.. cause I thought it would be funny.. which is why we’re here.. also you may want to tone it down a tad
@bobs and vegene, What the fvck did i just read? Are you retarded by chance? Cause thats the only explanation i can come up with for how ridiculous your statements are.
@LaDarkProphet, ok then... leave this convo to Lebo and I pls
@Murphlins, O well i apologize for reacting so negatively to your negative comment. I was not aware of the joke and so read it upfront and honestly as it stood. Which given the context, i think i responded appropriately. And no i will not tone it down. Religion has more blood on its hands then anyother single cause in human history. And is the number one reason responsible for why to this day so many people are oppressed. Have you heard of the Untouchables of India? The child marriage practices of Islamic Theocracies? The religious genocides in Africa? Religion is the number one thing holding humanity back and the sooner humans outgrow barbaric fairy tales the better off we will all be.
@bobs and vegene, Dont think i will. Considering you think its fair to compare slavery from antiquity to modern day prison, makes me conclude that you indeed are either retarded, naive or dishonest. Either way your arguments are redundant and asinine.
Slavery is the involuntarily SUBJUGATION of one person to abother. Prison is the involuntary CONFINEMENT of a person who has committed a crime against society. Trying to force the two as similar is indeed retarded. If your going to spout b.s on the internet dont cry when people point it out. Lebo is far to kind to people. Im not. Im a cunt and have no problem pointing out people as stupid when they say stupid shiit.
@LaDarkProphet, so subjugation means: to bring under domination or control, especially by conquest. Prisoners are taken forcibly and are completely under control of the state. They are forced to labor acts such as laundry and cleaning. They are also confined within a space sure, but are definitely slaves in literal terms. No one wants to be a slave (except freaks, so I won't retract that statement but I'll nullify it) but it's not inherently a bad thing to enact, like in the case of imprisoning a law breaker. Look up penal labor if you doubt me. "Inmates are not protected by the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude"
@bobs and vegene, Again you are conflating the two. A prisoner breaks the law. A slave is often born into servitude and or is removed from the initial "conquest" most slaves of a conquered people were not the soilders or rulers. They were the civilians/natives who are subjugated. So again, completely different scenario. And i guess your not aware but this isnt the 1960's anymore. Many states in u.s pay prisoners for their labor. Sure they its cheap labor but they are still paid which means they are not slaves. How fvcking asinine can you get? I cant believe you are seriously trying to convince people that slavery isnt bad or immoral. Smh. Guess your ok with slavery. Guess that means your ok with parents selling their child to be slaves in Asia and the middle east. O well. Thats your opinion i guess.
@LaDarkProphet, they are paid by the "the grace of the state", meaning they do not have to be paid. Paying a slave doesn't make a slave less of a slave. And ik, I really don't like arguing this subject because a world without slavery is a better world than one with slavery. Ideally there would be no slaves because no one would commit crime worthy of subjugation. And I don't even think God wants people to own slaves because he prohibits the Israelites from doing so to one another but since the others are not followers of God then they can be subject to it because they have committed worthy crimes and will never know God so they're already dead (he's omnipotent and to someone subject to time is a rough concept), I would then assume that the children of those born subjugated would then never find God either (which is even rougher). Even the Israelites themselves have constantly been subjugated by God due to their own sins. It's a brutally heavy subject.
@bobs and vegene, putting the measure of the group above the individual leads to atrocity, and there are many excellent examples of this throughout early 20th Century history. Unpersoning someone justifies doing all sorts of awful things to them, and is bad both from a collectivist and individualist perspective.
Unpersoning someone is ALWAYS immoral. It’s taking the stance that this particular human is less than a human and so deserves less than basic human rights.
The slave/rape comparison was to point out the ludicrousness of your statement, not to try to argue that slavery and rape are the same thing. They are similar in that they are instances of one person forcing their will onto another.
@LaDarkProphet, so long story short: slavery (in itself) is neither moral nor immoral. The circumstances on which it is founded determine whether it is immoral or moral and once it is enacted, treatment will also determine it's morality.
@bobs and vegene, a convicted felon is not by definition a slave. That’s a nonsensical statement. The fact that privatized prisons try to treat convicts as slave labour doesn’t make the definitional. Also with convicts the labour is voluntary. They can refuse to do it.
Corporal punishment is both immoral and has a terrible success rate, so the comparison between state sanctioned slavery and individual slave ownership is an invalid argument. They’re both immoral, and for the same reasons .
You don’t regulate things that are illegal. Slavery shouldn’t be regulated, it should be outlawed.
@bobs and vegene, Its a brutally asinine subject. We no longer live in the dark ages when thunder was considered the wrath if the divine. Slavery is unacceptable in any form in the 21st century. Period.
Prison is not slavery. Your going to have people who are a danger to themselves or others and therefore need to be separated from society. You must have some form of punishment in place so that the strong do not overrun the weak without any consequences. Slavery is abhorrent and immoral no matter how you try to sugar coat it or conflate it. Saying otherwise is retarded and asinine. Slavery is immoral. Period. The fact that you actually typed out that slavery is not immoral proves to me your a cunting retard.
@bobs and vegene, if God allows the oppression and subjugation of people who he didn’t choose to be ‘His people’, then God is Evil.
@I Are Lebo, Can you believe this cunt? He literally typed out, "Slavery is not, by itself, immoral." How cunting retarded can you be? I cant... Lebo how can people this stupid function as a human being? Seriously! It boggles my mind that people like this exist in the 21st century. Just as bad as a flat earther! Another group of genetic dead ends. Smh. I have no faith in humanity anymore. I sincerely hope a comet or asteroid wipes us out. Give the sad old Earth a clean slate.
@I Are Lebo, he allows it to be used on people who have committed a crime worthy of being subjugated, which at times was even the Israelites, His chosen people. A sword itself is not immoral but what man does with it will determine morality. No thing or object is immoral, only a man who makes a choice can be moral or immoral.
@bobs and vegene, your argument does not follow. Stabbing someone is immoral. The sword’s morality is irrelevant. Comparing a sword with slavery is either blatantly dishonest or just moronic.
@LaDarkProphet, I am waiting to see which filter gets us in the end
@bobs and vegene, your argument does not follow. Stabbing someone is immoral. The sword’s morality is irrelevant. Comparing a sword with slavery is either blatantly dishonest or just moronic.
Also your argument basically boils down to: God is racist.
@bobs and vegene, slavery is immoral. Arguing that slavery is amoral is immoral.
@I Are Lebo, is it immoral to stab someone who is attacking you with the intent to kill?
@bobs and vegene, self defence is not immoral.
Is it immoral to take another human being as property and subjugate them to your will?
@I Are Lebo, so stabbing someone is not immoral. And for the sake of the argument, I'd say that it is when they have the intent to kill or harm you or others or they intend to do the same with you if you don't. Honestly it'd be better and more humane than killing them. And again you'd be subject to remaining moral once your control is over them.
@bobs and vegene, please define morality for me.
@I Are Lebo, I have concluded that only man is immoral, no other animals or things are immoral by nature (that being something in it's most basic state, i.e sex is not immoral, but rape is immoral bc it is the act of imposing sex on another but sex itself is not immoral). Immorality or sin is the doubt or disbelief in God's word and God himself. Now exactly as to what that means, I'm not sure and am still working it out.
@I Are Lebo, blah damn, even the whole "no things are blatantly immoral" thing I bounce back and forth between
@I Are Lebo, how would you define it?
@bobs and vegene, that was logically incoherent. WHAT does it mean to be moral or immoral to you? Because I genuinely don’t think you understand morality.
Morality is a framework by which we can evaluate deeds and intents as it pertains to a subjective standard. The societal model uses well-being as that standard, as it is the most objectively evaluated. The religious model uses Divine Will as that standard, which is why that model is able to justify things like rape, genocide, slavery, and other atrocious behaviour.
@I Are Lebo, fine then it means going against the will of God, and it should be "evaluate deeds and intents as it pertains to an objective standard". But okay, now you define morality to me. WHAT does it mean to be moral or immoral to you?
@bobs and vegene, being moral is acting in such a way as to maximize well-being. Being immoral is act against someone else’s well-being.
Not everything has a morality, and somethings have muddled morality.
Torturing someone is objectively immoral. I don’t see how anyone can fail to recognize this while being a functioning member of society.
@I Are Lebo, but if a man is attacking me and I stab him or punch him, that is acting against that man's well being so would I be acting immorally?
@bobs and vegene, are you being serious or are you simply trying to be difficult?
It’s not immoral to protect yourself. However, if someone slaps you, and in response you stab them thirty seven times, you didn’t act morally, now did you? This stuff is not that complicated.
@I Are Lebo, I am both serious and being difficult like you have been this entire time. I am not talking about brutally killing the dude and you know that. What I am getting at is: like you think my morality has no legitimate foundation, neither does yours in my eyes. I can counter every point you raise just as you likely can mine. Mine simply has the foundation of God and yours does not. Both of us intend to do the most good that we can, but will always be at odds due foundational differences. However, what likely is not good is the hate you spread about Christianity, even if you intend to do good by doing it.
@bobs and vegene, you haven’t countered a single one of my points. All you have been doing is throwing out deflections. You argued that slavery is amoral with absolutely nothing to support the claim.
If the Christian texts support slavery (they do) then it is not a good thing to support those who are so dishonest that they would rather debate the morality of slavery than accept that their holy book is seriously flawed.
Are you willing to denounce the passages in the bible that support slavery, once and for all? Yes or no?
@I Are Lebo, *sigh* ears that cannot hear, don't. And eyes that cannot see, won't. --No, I do not deny nor denounce the words they say--
@bobs and vegene, do you denounce slavery?
@bobs and vegene, are you seriously that disgusting of a human being that you are unwilling to denounce the practice of slavery?
@I Are Lebo, a world without slavery is a better world. However, I do not denounce the use of a sword to subdue an enemy that intends to you and others harm, just as I do not denounce the use of slavery to subdue a person or people that intend to do you or others harm (for instance, Charles Manson and his family or on terrorists such as the Boston bomber). And, again, I do denounce the unprovoked use of both on an innocent person or people (like the unprovoked enslavement of of an innocent black people during the colonial era). Now if you still can not see not hear what it is I am saying then we are done here.
@bobs and vegene, why do you add such sophistry to your arguments? It detracts, quite strongly, from your points. It obscures them, even.
This is a very simple thing that I am saying. The Bible endorses the slave trade. It condones the practice of purchasing people to use as chattel. This is explicit in the writings of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, and is further supported by Ephesians.
All of the talk of indentured servitude versus slavery, or of consent to enslavement, or of ‘justified’ slavery seeks only to obscure this fact.
Your reluctance to address this honestly is, to my eyes, a good piece of evidence of the dangers of indoctrination. When you would sooner consider slavery to be correct than go against your own scripture in any way, shape or form.
Your holy book promotes enslaving your fellow man and that makes it immoral.
@I Are Lebo, Say the Bible is just an outdated book and just a tool for justifying slavery, and nothing it says holds any kind of value.
Maybe the prevailing religions are just another power scheme capitalizing off of human ignorance, what do we look to or compare to in order to determine what is truly right and wrong?
If we discount divine revelation and supernatural mumbo jumbo, we need some kind of moral structure to replace it with.
So I guess my question is, in absence of any religions thought, what makes slavery, or the Bible, or anything moral or immoral?
@Commander Dingus, this is not an all-or-nothing equation. The Bible has plenty of positive messages and morals, and is the cornerstone of modern society.
However, the book was written and spread by Bronze Age goat herders, and if we cannot look at the entire collection of stories and morals with a critical perspective, then we’d be better off leaving it for historians and mythicists like we do the tales of Zeus and the Olympians.
I have zero objection to someone using the Bible as a tool to be a better person. I think that’s commendable, and there are countless people who do just that.
But that’s not what you and the others are doing. When you approach the bible having accepted it as the Word of God, then you blind yourself to its faults. And it’s faults are severe. There are many passages in the bible where it instructs or commands some very immoral things, and the mental gymnastics required to follow the apologetic arguments lead you to very irrational conclusions.
@Commander Dingus, as for what moral structure we use, I would recommend what most civilized countries already use. Secular Humanism. It’s an objective moral structure built around the subjective framework of well being.
Would you want to be a slave? To have your will supplanted by another and to be entitled to neither freedom, personal property, individual agency, or self actualization? Would it be beneficial or detrimental for you to be worked as a labourer for the rest of your life?
I’ve already explained why slavery is immoral, which is a ridiculous thing to need to be explained. Your god doesn’t consider it immoral, so why don’t you own a slave?
The bible is immoral because it preaches intolerance towards anyone it considers a ‘sexual deviant’ (gays, sex workers, promiscuous people, etc), it preaches an abandonment of critical thinking (“your place is to obey not question”), and it contains many many instances of sanctioned genocide, rape, slavery, murder, torture, theft, etc.
as a side note, I consider the Quran immoral for much of the same reasons.
@I Are Lebo, It seems to me when you say things like "Your holy text is immoral and you are a terrible person for not thinking so" seems a bit harsh if it really is such a valuable text and if using it as a moral guide for you life is really a good thing.
And like you said, it is important to remember who wrote the book and the culture that they live in, as well as how the moral landscape of our culture is different, but whenever the differences in the cultural perceptions and practices of slavery are brought up, you say that people are just trying to excuse slavery rather than put the text in the context of the people who wrote it, which seems contradictory to ask for cultural context, but also label anyone trying to contextualize the text as trying to support slavery.
Like I said earlier, and yousaidbjust now, there is a lot to the Bible, and understanding it only comes through understanding what the text says as well as the people who wrote it.
@Commander Dingus, I really dislike it when people put words in my mouth. I don’t think people who believe in the bible are terrible people for doing so. What I think is that people who put blind faith in something and then ignore or excuse its faults are willfully ignorant.
Can it be valuable? Yes. Is everything in it valuable? Fück no. Having a book of rules with some good rules in it doesn’t change anything if it also has rules involving literal human atrocities.
When people refuse to denounce or even just decry any part whatsoever of the bible, they are then forced into a position where they are arguing in favour of things like slavery. The context of the text is that slavery is acceptable and some races are worth less than others, so it’s okay to treat them as your property. That’s the context.
I’m not saying throw the baby out with the bath water, but you and the others are ignoring the gigantic metaphorical turd that’s floating there.
@I Are Lebo, I apologize if it seemed like I was putting workd in your mouth, what I was trying to say is that it seemed like your position was that the bible is immoral and therefore those who believe in it are by proxy.
@I Are Lebo, And just as you have issues with the Bible, I would say that there are problems with Secular Humanism when we try to draw objective lines out of subjective feelings and views of right and wrong.
An objective system can't be built on something subjective, since the foundations of what some think is right can be easily foggy in many of the specifics and can also lead to the justification of immoral behavior as the subjective basis shifts with the time and culture.
@Commander Dingus, you’re missing a key point. Morality is contextual.
Secular Humanism has absolutely nothing to do with people’s feelings. I’d recommend you do your research into what the system of secular humanism is and how it comes to objective determinations.
@I Are Lebo, Morality can't be both contextual and objective. If it is dependent on the context then it is subjective to the context and not objective.
I would like to know more about the specifics about it since maybe I don't have the clearest understanding of Secular Humanism, do you reccomend any good sources?
@Commander Dingus, morality is not objective. There are different situations in which the very same actions or attitudes can either be moral or immoral. I have seen no evidence supporting the concept of objective morality, including the religious stance, as God’s Will is still subjective, open to interpretation.
I would strongly suggest you listen to Matt Dillahunty. A google search of “Matt Dillahunty Secular Humanism” should give you what you need.
@I Are Lebo, I will definitely look him up!
I wouldn't agree with that, I think that there has to be something that is objectively moral and something that is objectively immoral at least, and everything else could lie between.
If anything can be moral or immoral depending on the situation, then we can't say that any evil thing is truly evil in and of itself, especially if we dont know the exact circumstances or situations, but I would wager that there are plenty of things that are objectively evil like genocide, racism, and plenty of atrocities.
@Commander Dingus, at the extremes, morality can be pretty objective. But there are still contextual outliers. For instance, what if the only way to prevent global catastrophe required you to torture a captured agent of the Enemy in order to force their compliance?
Is a necessary evil moral or immoral? Is it moral or immoral to refuse to do something immoral in order to safeguard innocents?
It’s not that anything can be moral or immoral, it’s that situations can alter what constitutes. Theft is immoral, but stealing food to keep your family alive during a crisis when there are no legitimate options to feed them is certainly the moral alternative to letting them starve.
When you think you have the answers to every situation, that’s when you are the most wrong. There’s no one-size-fits-all morality where you can always be sure you’re doing the right thing. Reality isn’t that simple.
Free wills a bitch (and so are you)
@TheHippie52, exactly! People will never understand this concept
"Fairy type nígga" is the running for greatest usernname
He’s got an erect point
If god is all knowing and perfect then why would he be present after implementation?
I seriously cannot see an argument for god being currently intervening.
@PoliticalOtters, when its something in their favor its gods grace,will, blessing etc. when its not its “god works in mysterious way” why would you know any of it lol
@Dexios S Divine, if everything that happens happens according to The Divine Plan, then praying for anything other than a morale boost is a futile endeavour. Praying for any intervention is to demand that God changes His Plan just for you.
What if he just thinks certain people are inferior?
@M0RT0S, then He is evil
@I Are Lebo, he'd be considered so by our terms but in the eyes of said creator perhaps not.
@M0RT0S, If He created them inferior in order to mistreat them, then He’s pretty clearly evil.
@I Are Lebo, well since this is a hypothetical the question could arise what he wasn't doing so out of malice but instead as a test for his creations in order to observe how they act.
@M0RT0S, He’s omnipotent, yes? This means any test He would set in motion would be redundant. He would already know what would happen. Causing needless suffering is pretty much the definition of evil.
It would be like playing Sims with sentient characters and torturing them for fun.
@I Are Lebo, true. That could raise the follow up question of if he knows all that is going to happen, then why might he have made humanity the way that it is with it's contempt and violence for one another? Also if humanity is made in god's image or as a part of himself does that mean that we too are evil?
@M0RT0S, this is where I find the argument devolves into pure sophistry. We have no hard evidence that God exists, so to talk about His nature or mentality is pure speculation.
Logically, none of it makes any sense. If God was both benevolent and all-powerful, there wouldn’t be needless suffering. There clearly is. If everything that happens is just chaos because of free will, then God must by definition be non intervening, or He must not be benevolent. Otherwise, He picks and chooses when and where to intervene, and that means that every child who suffers a slow and painful death does so either because God wanted them to suffer and die, or because God didn’t care enough about them to prevent it from happening to them.
Either way, that’s not a God who deserves worship or adulation.
@I Are Lebo, I know it's just sophistry but it's still somewhat fun to talk about.
@M0RT0S, I agree. It only gets aggravating for me when the other side is being dishonest and/or not listening. Thanks for not doing that.
@I Are Lebo, no problem
And yet, slavery abolitionists were largely Christian men and women fighting to free slaves....
@phalcon , And your point is what? That they wernt good Christians because they went against their sky daddy? Or are you trying to say that only Christians fought to end slavery? Cause let me tell you, thats a load of b.s because just about all slave owners, in the U.S, where Christian. And lets not forget what the good Christian boys and girls did to native populations. Sorry kid but just because a FEW christians did SOME good things doesnt mean it erases the ledger.
@phalcon , the slave owners were also largely Christian. Your argument is invalid.
""Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing."
That seems to say differently
@Commander Dingus, O dear. Spreading more misinformation and lies? Really going to try and say the same shiit that was refuted to you i this very same post by starting another thread? Are you fvcking kidding? Your b.s claims were proven wrong so you started another thread with the very same argument that was already debunked? Thats absolute blatant hypocrisy and dishonest. Thought it was like a sin or something to lie? Is intellectual dishonesty not a form of lying? Fvck me sideways the amount of mental gymnastics on display here are astounding. You should be ashamed of yourself.
@Commander Dingus, except for Hebrew women, which are yours for ever, or non Hebrew people, which are yours for ever. Or Hebrew men if you give them a wife and they want to stay with their wife and so they declare themselves to love their master and you pierce their ear with a shawl and then they’re yours forever.
Also, enslavement doesn’t become okay just because it’s temporary. How would you feel if your old university came to your door with guards and told you that because of your outstanding student debt, that you’re going to spend the next seven years as slave labour? I’m guessing not happy.
Slavery isn’t over. Ongoing and growing in some places, like China
I don’t think god liked slavery.
The bible, the most popular sifi book in history.