Slavery in the bible discussion thread

[leroy]

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.

unrelated question, but...

why do you think that the bible is inspired by God?

 

[Sparhafoc]

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.

An awful, heinous, and immoral position, TNTD - personally, I find it disappointing that this is the best position you can reason yourself into - I thought you possessed too much empathy and intelligence for this.

I am 100% positive that I have given in this thread a short but accurate explaination of the history and economics of the region...

Your certainty is very much misplaced. You've done no such thing, and all you're really doing is essentially stating that God was either powerless to effect moral changes in the populace in a book supposedly the solitary guide to humanity, or that God was content with the situation. These are the only ramifications of your position, even if you refuse to allow your reasoning to take you there.

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!

Fuck me, you're on a roll.

LEROY is a complete fucking cunt - the most odious and pathetic little man I've had the misfortune to encounter in all my years - who incessantly trolls the membership here, lying through his teeth about what people say, stonewalling any and all forms of honest engagement, and your absurd defense of him is truly depressing.

I clearly misjudged you - tribalism has reasserted itself and presumably always will. Where moral reasoning could occur, you instead knee-jerk back into defending your tribe.

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.

How about this TNTD - imagine you lost all your money tomorrow and were on the breadline... would you want to become a slave, or would you want the freedom and opportunity to fail or succeed according to your own direction?

Not one of you slavery condoning "Christians" has had the fucking gumption to employ even a modicum of fucking empathy - no wonder you can engage in such specious, self-serving bullshit - you lack the competence to be human when it comes to your fucking tribalistic bullshit.

If this is the best Christianity can muster, it's clearly unsuited for the modern world - as ass-backwards as the Muslim twats who think their god wants them to murder in his name. You're all fucking insane and a danger to all of us and to everything good about humanity.

 

[Sparhafoc]

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.

Absolute counter-factual bollocks.

No Christian is obliged to believe that every word is the divine diktat of the sky-papa. That's a delusion you've been suckered into and can't find a way out of even when - like now - you find yourself in a hole of your own making. The vast majority of Christians are perfectly capable of seeing the Bible as allegory, translated, edited, selected, amended and processed by very human minds.

Funnily, these same Christians also don't need to shy away from acknowledging the horrors and inhumanity included in the Bible - they don't need to bullshit to themselves and contort themselves into contrived shapes to evade the bullshit literalist position they've uncritically swallowed because they never were taught to believe like that.

Here's the truth - none of you are representative Christians - you, TNTD, don't even possess an ontology of the God that is in line with other Christians, so who the fuck do you think you are declaring what makes a valid Christian? :roll: By definition, it's you who's making up his religion as he goes along, just as you are with this contrived apologetics condoning slavery.

Hubris is at the base of all fundamentalism - the faith is misplaced from the content of the religious story, or faith in the god, instead becoming faith in one's own interpretation, in one's own ability. Funny how none of you seem to give a damn what Jesus said about hubris and humility, even though you are supposedly 'Christians'.

None of you Christians here have the first clue about how to do Christianity right, and you assuredly do not fucking represent Christianity any more than a zealot Muslim fanatic represents Islam.

 

[MarsCydonia]

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.

Did Leroy show this? He made an assertion that he did not back up. Because actually showing this, Leroy would have to read the bible and reading is actually is something Leroy desperately avoid if it isn't comments in this forum where he comes to troll.

Could I used this standard? "The bible condones the forced slavery of men, women and children". Done. By Leroy standard I have shown that the bible condones slavery.

But wait... I don't have to use Leroy-the-slavery-apologist's standardI because surprise! (to Leroy but not-anyone else). There has been multiple passages provided in the previous comments.

Leroy simply hasn't read either them or what the bible on the matter. So....

Leroy showing that the bible does not condone forced slavery? Fucking nothing.
The rest (excluding the fanatic slavery-apologists) showing the bible condones forced slavery? Multiple passages from the bible.

Oh and for the brainless (the single one of you), note that taken and kidnapped do not mean the same thing either, moron.

 

[MarsCydonia]

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.

Well, all the slavery-apologists have weighted in. And after all of their comments not a single one of have shown why slaves "had no other choice" or "could not be anything else".

Seriously, if the slavery-apologists could think, if the governemnt of wherever they lived abolished work laws and outlawed salaries so that the only way to have food and shetler was to sell themselves to a company, would this mean slavery is ok?

They apparently couldn't think and say "I'll work for you in exchange of a salary/food/shelter but I will not become your property"? They would simply accept that the only choice they have is to sell themselves as property and never again have their freedom?

Employers today manage to pay salaries in exchange for work, why couldn't the Israelites? Leroy-the-slavery-apologist admitted as much, so thenexttodie-the-slavery-apologist should come up with a reason they "had no choice but to own men, women and children as property".

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!

I wish thenexttodie-the-slavery-apologist wasn't pretending to be a moral degenerate...

But that's what christianity does to someone.

 

[leroy]

[

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.

How about this TNTD - imagine you lost all your money tomorrow and were on the breadline... would you want to become a slave, or would you want the freedom and opportunity to fail or succeed according to your own direction?

Not one of you slavery condoning "Christians" has had the fucking gumption to employ even a modicum of fucking empathy - no wonder you can engage in such specious, self-serving bullshit - you lack the competence to be human when it comes to your fucking tribalistic bullshit.

If this is the best Christianity can muster, it's clearly unsuited for the modern world - as ass-backwards as the Muslim twats who think their god wants them to murder in his name. You're all fucking insane and a danger to all of us and to everything good about humanity.

No offence, but what is the point of quoting a question is you are not going to answer it?

How about this TNTD - imagine you lost all your money tomorrow and were on the breadline... would you want to become a slave, or would you want the freedom and opportunity to fail or succeed according to your own direction?

again, everybody had the opportunity to look for a job, open a business or ask parents for money and live as a free man. those who had none of these opportunities had the option (not the obligation) to sale themselves as slaves.

 

[leroy]

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.

Well, all the slavery-apologists have weighted in. And after all of their comments not a single one of have shown why slaves "had no other choice" or "could not be anything else".

Seriously, if the slavery-apologists could think, if the governemnt of wherever they lived abolished work laws and outlawed salaries so that the only way to have food and shetler was to sell themselves to a company, would this mean slavery is ok?

They apparently couldn't think and say "I'll work for you in exchange of a salary/food/shelter but I will not become your property"? They would simply accept that the only choice they have is to sell themselves as property and never again have their freedom?

Employers today manage to pay salaries in exchange for work, why couldn't the Israelites? Leroy-the-slavery-apologist admitted as much, so thenexttodie-the-slavery-apologist should come up with a reason they "had no choice but to own men, women and children as property".

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!

I wish thenexttodie-the-slavery-apologist wasn't pretending to be a moral degenerate...

But that's what christianity does to someone.

you are the one who is suppose to be making an argument against God or the bible aren't you?


if that is the case you are the one who has the burden proof and you are the one who has to show that there is a slaveless and viable economic model that could have worked in ancient Israel.

and then you have to show that this model is better according to Gods perfect plans.


you are correct I admit that these verses are hard to accept, and I personally don't like them, but that is just a personal opinion based on my emotional state, one can not conclude that therefore the bible is wrong, just because the bible is inconsistent with my personal opinion.

 

[leroy]

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.

Did Leroy show this? He made an assertion that he did not back up. Because actually showing this, Leroy would have to read the bible and reading is actually is something Leroy desperately avoid if it isn't comments in this forum where he comes to troll.

Could I used this standard? "The bible condones the forced slavery of men, women and children". Done. By Leroy standard I have shown that the bible condones slavery.

But wait... I don't have to use Leroy-the-slavery-apologist's standardI because surprise! (to Leroy but not-anyone else). There has been multiple passages provided in the previous comments.

Leroy simply hasn't read either them or what the bible on the matter. So....

Leroy showing that the bible does not condone forced slavery? Fucking nothing.
The rest (excluding the fanatic slavery-apologists) showing the bible condones forced slavery? Multiple passages from the bible.

Oh and for the brainless (the single one of you), note that taken and kidnapped do not mean the same thing either, moron.

the bible does condemn kidnapping and other forms of harsh slavery

Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16).

 

[Sparhafoc]

Seriously, if the slavery-apologists could think,...

So much for the oft-touted objective morality.

 

[leroy]

Seriously, if the slavery-apologists could think,...

So much for the oft-touted objective morality.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

all you are showing is that you don't understand the moral argument and once again you proved that you didn't read the article that supposedly you read in less than 12 minutes. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1


the claim of objective morality (moral argument) is independent from the bible.



and yes you are granting objective morality in this thread,

 

[MarsCydonia]

No offence, but what is the point of quoting a question is you are not going to answer it?

again, everybody had the opportunity to look for a job, open a business or ask parents for money and live as a free man. those who had none of these opportunities had the option (not the obligation) to sale themselves as slaves.

Again, for the morally-degenerated-slavery-apologists, this should be a blatant admission that slaves should have had choices from the Isarëlites.

This is what we keep asking: "what forced the Israëlites to own people as property?"
Well, from we have something coming up from Leroy-the-slavery-apologist.

you are the one who is suppose to be making an argument against God or the bible aren't you?

I'll make it clear for the Leroy-minded who can only understand "yes or no" answers:
No

if that is the case you are the one who has the burden proof and you are the one who has to show that there is a slaveless and viable economic model that could have worked in ancient Israel.

There we have it, the shifting of burden of proof:
- I have to prove that Israëlites did not have to have slaves
- Leroy doesn't have to prove that Israëlites had no other choice but to own people as slaves.
So we have plenty of societies who manage to not own slaves. What does "owning slaves was the only possible option"?

But we go back to this, something I have touched in the previous comment: Here Leroy is tacitly endorsing slavery if "it's the only viable economic model" whatever "viable" means.

Which should means that those christian slavery-apologists of modern society should actually be fine with slavery as long as someone deems it a "viable" model, even the "forced slavery model".

As soon as someone declares capitalism "unviable", back to slavery these christians would go.

the bible does condemn kidnapping and other forms of harsh slavery

Leroy happens to be partially right but since he refuses to read the bible, he'll never know where he is wrong.

And now, another step of the usual slavery-apologist-dance, the distinction between "harsh slavery" and "soft slavery".

 

[MarsCydonia]

and yes you are granting objective morality in this thread,

Leroy's understanding of morality is as good as his understanding of pretty much everything else.

But I'll re-state it for those who missed it:
The only thing I am granting about morality in this thread is that christian slavery-apologists are moral degenerates.

 

[leroy]

leroy wrote:
you are the one who is suppose to be making an argument against God or the bible aren't you?

MarsCydonia
I'll make it clear for the Leroy-minded who can only understand "yes or no" answers:
No

Ok, so stop trolling, or do you have any other point apparat form trolling? I am not making any positive claim ether.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Ok, so stop trolling, or do you have any other point apparat form trolling? I am not making any positive claim ether.

:lol:

Is this an admission from Leroy's that he is trolling?

It is sad that slavery-apologist wouldn't understand this discussion but not at all surprising from Leroy-the-slavery-apologist.

 

[leroy]

Ok, so stop trolling, or do you have any other point apparat form trolling? I am not making any positive claim ether.

:lol:

Is this an admission from Leroy's that he is trolling?

It is sad that slavery-apologist wouldn't understand this discussion but not at all surprising from Leroy-the-slavery-apologist.

again, if you are not making an argument against God, the bible, divine revelation etc. what is your point of making those comments?


if your point is that there are parts of the bible that you personally don't like, I would agree with you .......so end of discussion,


if you have any other meaningful point, please let me know what point is that

 

[Sparhafoc]

There we have it, the shifting of burden of proof:

Proposed rename: The LEROY shuffle.

 

[Sparhafoc]

A: I haz assertion

B: I don't grant your assertion any validity or legitimacy

A: then the burden of proof is on you to take the affirmative and provide evidence.

B: Fuck off.

 

[leroy]

A: I haz assertion

B: I don't grant your assertion any validity or legitimacy

A: then the burden of proof is on you to take the affirmative and provide evidence.

B: Fuck off.

I am not making any assertion ether

you (plural for atheist in this forum) seem to be asserting that the verses that condone slavery are inconsistent with the atributes that God is suppose to have, but if you are not making such an affirmation I have no problem in apologizing for misinterpreting you.



so if none of us is making any assertion, what is suppose to be the point of this discussion ?

 

[MarsCydonia]

again, if you are not making an argument against God, the bible, divine revelation etc. what is your point of making those comments?

if your point is that there are part sof the bible that you personally don't like, I would agree with you .......so end of discussion,

if you have any other meaningful point, please let me know what point is that

How sad...

For those who do not insist their mind is brainless, the name of this thread is "Slavery in the bible discussion thread". It was started by one of the christian slavery-apologists who, like Leroy, likes to troll.

All the contributions the christian-slavery-apologist-trolls on this forum have been that this slavery condoned in the bible is acceptable.

We've had the following bullshit attempts so far:
- The slavery condoned in the bible is like employment
- The slavery condoned in the bible is like sports team owning players
- The slavery condoned in the bible was the only viable economic system
- Etc. but I we've see n one of the christian-slavery-apologist-trolls mention "harsh slavery", I've had experience in what usually comes next.

So, the christian-slavery-apologist-troll who started this thread's "point", as Leroy wants to put it, appears to have been to justify the slavery condoned in the bible by twisting it into something it isn't. Every christian-slavery-apologist-trolls jump in the thread to try it as well.

And apparently, to one of christian-slavery-apologist-trolls named Leroy, pointing out these attempts at justifying slavery as acceptable are bullshit is "trolling".

But I'll let the christian-slavery-apologist-trolls continue to whine. If they want to justify slavery as acceptable, they'll have do deal with the actual slavery condoned in the bible, not their made-up delusions.

That is the point moron, deal with the slavery that is condoned in the bible and not with the one you prefer to invent.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

and yes you are granting objective morality in this thread,

Says the person that is confusing objective morals for divine command.