Slavery in the bible discussion thread

[leroy]

The strangest thing about this is that dandan/leroy has already admitted that the Bible is not holy inspired by the deity he worships. Why he is trying to make excuses for it instead of just saying those parts are not inspired by his god is beyond me, but does speak volumes about his character[

My admission was that the idea that the bible is inspired is based on assumption that may or may not be true.


and I am also admitting that the problem of slavery is a problem that has not been solved


but that doesn't mean that I don't have the right to postulate hypothesis that would solve the problem

 

[MarsCydonia]

Have we gotten to the part where somebody claims that parents own their children, in the same way that one owns a chair or a table?

Not on this thread but we had "owned in the same way" as "employees" and "sport players" are owned.

the hypothesis that I am postulating to solve the problem of slavery is that when God was condemning slavery he was talking about volunteers that willingly decided to sell themselves to their masters because they had no other option.

First, Leroy should really stop being so effing lazy when it comes to using dictionaries.
Not only do condemn and condone mean two entirely different things, they mean opposing things.

Second, when the bible condones slavery, it talks about foreigners taken into slavery, children sold into slavery, children born into slavery. So it is quite clear that when the bibles condones slavery is isn't simply talking about "volunteer slavery". To think it does show a complete ignorance of the bible. Slavery-apologists should really refrain from defending the bible if they do not know what is in it.

Third, even if the bible did condone "volunteer slavery" and only "volunteer slavery", how does that solve the "problem of slavery"? "Sell themselve as slaves because there was no other option"? What forced the Israëlites to own other people as property? Why would that be their only option? They apparently could employ people without owning them so obviously Leroy's "had no other option" hypothetical is as bullshit as all his other hypothetical and assertions.

 

[leroy]

Second, when the bible condones slavery, it talks about foreigners taken into slavery, children sold into slavery, children born into slavery. So it is quite clear that when the bibles condones slavery is isn't simply talking about "volunteer slavery". To think it does show a complete ignorance of the bible. Slavery-apologists should really refrain from defending the bible if they do not know what is in it..

so what? why cant slaves be both foreign and volunteers?

about children, it seems to be more like right rather than an obligation, (masters should take care of the slave and his family)

yes I am admitting my ignorance on the topic,

Third, even if the bible did condone "volunteer slavery" and only "volunteer slavery", how does that solve the "problem of slavery"? "Sell themselve as slaves because there was no other option"? What forced the Israëlites to own other people as property? Why would that be their only option? They apparently could employ people without owning them so obviously Leroy's "had no other option" hypothetical is as bullshit as all his other hypothetical and assertions

I am pretty sure that Israelites did employ people, only those who where not hired by anybody and had no other option sold themselves as slaves.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The strangest thing about this is that dandan/leroy has already admitted that the Bible is not holy inspired by the deity he worships. Why he is trying to make excuses for it instead of just saying those parts are not inspired by his god is beyond me, but does speak volumes about his character.

Lone Defender of the Weighty Truth Syndrome!

Tis the cross they think they bear.

 

[Sparhafoc]

First, Leroy should really stop being so effing lazy when it comes to using dictionaries.
Not only do condemn and condone mean two entirely different things, they mean opposing things.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

He's such a fucking muppet.

Go back 10 pages and watch him argue that he's not condoning slavery and arguing about the meaning of the word 'condone' when he clearly doesn't know his arse from his elbow. That bloated, pus-ridden ego getting in the way again.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Second, when the bible condones slavery, it talks about foreigners taken into slavery, children sold into slavery, children born into slavery. So it is quite clear that when the bibles condones slavery is isn't simply talking about "volunteer slavery". To think it does show a complete ignorance of the bible. Slavery-apologists should really refrain from defending the bible if they do not know what is in it..

so what? why cant slaves be both foreign and volunteers?

Did Leroy missed the word "taken". Meaning that they were not volunteers?

about children, it seems to be more like right rather than an obligation, (masters should take care of the slave and his family)

I don't speak slavery-apologist gibberish, so you may want to actually make sense of your sentence.

yes I am admitting my ignorance on the topic,

Wasn't this blatantly obious to everyone? I think it is.

It is completely moronic to ask "why cant slaves be both foreign and volunteers?" rather than ask "What does the bible say on foreign slaves"?

It speaks volumes about the moral degeneration of slavery-apologist fanatism.

Third, even if the bible did condone "volunteer slavery" and only "volunteer slavery", how does that solve the "problem of slavery"? "Sell themselve as slaves because there was no other option"? What forced the Israëlites to own other people as property? Why would that be their only option? They apparently could employ people without owning them so obviously Leroy's "had no other option" hypothetical is as bullshit as all his other hypothetical and assertions

I am pretty sure that Israelites did employ people, only those who where not hired by anybody and had no other option sold themselves as slaves.[/quote]
So there was another option. Even if foreigners, women and childred were not forced into slavery and "volunteered" themselves, the Israëlites could offer them other options, they didn't have to own them as property.

 

[leroy]

Did Leroy missed the word "taken". Meaning that they were not volunteers?

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: honestly do you think you are making a good point?

taken doesn't necessarily mean forced or kidnapped

I don't speak slavery-apologist gibberish, so you may want to actually make sense of your sentence.

if you grant that slaves where volunteers that where starving to dead and had no other option but to sell themselves in exchange for food and shelter, then obviously volunteers would only accept to be slaves if their family is laso taken by the master, otherwise they would starve to dead.

.

It is completely moronic to ask "why cant slaves be both foreign and volunteers?" rather than ask "What does the bible say on foreign slaves"?

well does the bible say that slaves where kidnapped or forced to become slaves? does God ever condone that kind of slavery?

So there was another option. Even if foreigners, women and childred were not forced into slavery and "volunteered" themselves, the Israëlites could offer them other options, they didn't have to own them as property.

yes and I am pretty sure that some did offered other options

 

[MarsCydonia]

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: honestly do you think you are making a good point?

taken doesn't necessarily mean forced or kidnapped

Oh look, Leroy is playing semantical games!

I don't care what Leroy thinks "taken" means and he shouldn't either. He should look at what the bible says and it does condone foreigners forced into slavery.

17 pages of comments in this thread of "Slavery in the bible discussion" and not only is he still as ignorant of what the bible says on the subject, he repeatedly did not take any opportunity to educate himself.

if you grant that slaves where volunteers that where starving to dead and had no other option but to sell themselves in exchange for food and shelter, then obviously volunteers would only accept to be slaves if their family is laso taken by the master, otherwise they would starve to dead.

And here we have the idiocy of they "had no other choice" when it is blatant the Israëlites did not have to own them as property.
So what options could the Isaëlites offer:
- Offer food and shelter as charity without owning the person as property
- Offer food and shelter as compensation for fair work, without owning the person as property
- Offer food and shelter in exchanging of buying and owning the person as property

So moron here would have to justify why "Israëlites just had to own them as property" when he himself moronically admit they didn't have to.

I've often donated canned goods to food-drives and never did I ask "When do I own my poor person"?

well does the bible say that slaves where kidnapped or forced to become slaves? does God ever condone that kind of slavery?

I'll make it quite clear for Leroy-the-slavery-apologist who seem to only understand "yes or no" answers:

If the bible is the word of god and the bible condones this kind of slavery, then god condones this kind of slavery.

yes and I am pretty sure that some did offered other options

[/quote]
Yet Leroy-the-slavery-apologist keeps on moronically talking about "no other choice".

 

[Sparhafoc]

Exodus 21:7

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.

But but but, of course she wanted to be sold as a slave because how else would she have a fulfilling life in her role as a woman? She's only there to make babies anyway, so bartering her off to become the property of another man is obviously the most moral possible treatment a divinely decreed society could aspire to.


Numbers 31:17-18

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

But but but, of course the poor orphaned girl would need the caring tenderness of the good men who rescued her from her evil family, including her evil little brothers, and all the other evil male children, disabled, elderly and all other neighbours... she would no doubt consider herself positively lucky to be taken by the man who killed her family to have her hymen broken by him as he fucks her. How lucky she is that those men have a direct command from the Creator of the Universe, no less, to give license to this action, or else she'd just be a poor little orphan. This is, of course, the highest possible moral state we could ever aspire to as mere human beings: God has decreed it, so it must be not just acceptable, but positively desirable.


Some scum stays at the bottom.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

No. Intellectually honest people admit that they are wrong. They do not keep defending something wrong with hypotheticals and fallacies. That is the tactic of one who knows they are wrong, but do not want to admit it.

sure and if you proof me wrong, I would reject that hypothesis

The fact that you are trying to defend something with hypotheticals shows that you were wrong and know it.

The strangest thing about this is that dandan/leroy has already admitted that the Bible is not holy inspired by the deity he worships. Why he is trying to make excuses for it instead of just saying those parts are not inspired by his god is beyond me, but does speak volumes about his character[

My admission was that the idea that the bible is inspired is based on assumption that may or may not be true.


and I am also admitting that the problem of slavery is a problem that has not been solved


but that doesn't mean that I don't have the right to postulate hypothesis that would solve the problem

Problem: the Bible condones slavery.

Solution: the assumption that the Bible is inspired by the god I worship is wrong.

Problem solved. Amazing how you will do this for Divine Hiddenness, yet cannot do it for slavery.

Did Leroy missed the word "taken". Meaning that they were not volunteers?

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: honestly do you think you are making a good point?

taken doesn't necessarily mean forced or kidnapped

:lol:

Words mean exactly what dandan/leroy wants them to mean. No more, no less.

It is completely moronic to ask "why cant slaves be both foreign and volunteers?" rather than ask "What does the bible say on foreign slaves"?

well does the bible say that slaves where kidnapped or forced to become slaves? does God ever condone that kind of slavery?

:docpalm:

Glad to see you admit that you have never actually taken the time to read the Bible.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Words mean exactly what dandan/leroy wants them to mean. No more, no less.

It's like groundhog day where the Creationists need to learn empathy before they can break out of their loops.

So I presume the stunted one would be perfectly ok if someone 'took' his mother, daughter, or sister, because... you know... but but but it means something nice!

 

[leroy]

[ does God ever condone that kind of slavery?

I'll make it quite clear for Leroy-the-slavery-apologist who seem to only understand "yes or no" answers:

well can you prove it?

 

[leroy]

Words mean exactly what dandan/leroy wants them to mean. No more, no less.

It's like groundhog day where the Creationists need to learn empathy before they can break out of their loops.

So I presume the stunted one would be perfectly ok if someone 'took' his mother, daughter, or sister, because... you know... but but but it means something nice!

In this sentence
Real Madrid took Cristiano Ronaldo what do you understand?


all I am saying is that to take someone doesn't necessarily mean that you kidnaped him.

 

[MarsCydonia]

[ does God ever condone that kind of slavery?

I'll make it quite clear for Leroy-the-slavery-apologist who seem to only understand "yes or no" answers:

well can you prove it?

So basically, is Leroy is asking us to provide him bible quotes? Again? Because his brainless mind made him forget those already quoted in this thread?

What is the cause of this goldfish memory? Leroy's slavery-apologetics fanatism?

Leroy is not going to read either the bible or the past comments, is he...

 

[Sparhafoc]

So basically, is Leroy is asking us to provide him bible quotes? Again? Because his brainless mind made him forget those already quoted in this thread?

What is the cause of this goldfish memory? Leroy's slavery-apologetics fanatism?

Leroy is not going to read either the bible or the past comments, is he...

Creationism - when all you've got is a shell game all the way down.

 

[leroy]

[So basically, is Leroy is asking us to provide him bible quotes? Again? Because his brainless mind made him forget those already quoted in this thread?

...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: what a surprise, you are unable to back up your assertions.

the bible does condemn kidnaping slaves, this shows that by "take" the bible doesn't mean kidnap.

 

[MarsCydonia]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: what a surprise, you are unable to back up your assertions.

the bible does condemn kidnaping slaves, this shows that by "take" the bible doesn't mean kidnap.

What a surprise! Leroy didn't read the bible or past comments, just as I said.

And, double surprise! Leroy complains about "not backing up assertions" and then makes an assertion... without backing it up.

Because if Leroy did try to back it up, he would know what the bible condemns and what it condones.

 

[Sparhafoc]

What a surprise! Leroy didn't read the bible or past comments, just as I said.

And, double surprise! Leroy complains about "not backing up assertions" and then makes an assertion... without backing it up.

Because if Leroy did try to back it up, he would know what the bible condemns and what it condones.

Shell games and bullshit. That's all the twat's ever managed. Not worth a ha'penny jizz.



Look you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!

I'm invincible!

You're a loony!

 

[thenexttodie]

Problem: the Bible condones slavery.

Solution: the assumption that the Bible is inspired by the god I worship is wrong.

Problem solved. Amazing how you will do this for Divine Hiddenness, yet cannot do it for slavery.

Right. When you are talking to a Christian who does not believe in the Bible, you are talking to a person who is basically just making up his own religion as he goes along.

I actually believe the Bible is inspired by God and have tried to explain to you that during the time and place slavery is mostly talked about in the bible, was when and where many people could not be anything else. People actually wanted to be slaves then because there was no industry to employ them and extremely little opportunity for private venture.

I am 100% positive that I have given in this thread a short but accurate explaination of the history and economics of the region have a feeling you know that I am right about this HWIN. So in a way, your just pretending to be stupid so you can troll Leroy. Yay!

How about this HWIN.. Tell us what you think would have happened to slaves in this region if they were not allowed to be slaves anymore.

 

[leroy]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: what a surprise, you are unable to back up your assertions.

the bible does condemn kidnaping slaves, this shows that by "take" the bible doesn't mean kidnap.

What a surprise! Leroy didn't read the bible or past comments, just as I said.

And, double surprise! Leroy complains about "not backing up assertions" and then makes an assertion... without backing it up.

Because if Leroy did try to back it up, he would know what the bible condemns and what it condones.

again what you have to do is that "taken" means kidnapped in the context in which the term was used in the bible.


I already shown that the oposite is true, I already showed that taken was not meant to mean kidnapped by the authors of the bible.