Slavery in the bible discussion thread

[leroy]

and yes you are granting objective morality in this thread,

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

:facepalm: :facepalm:

 

[leroy]

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.
.

I was just providing possible explanations for the problem of slavery, the athletes thing was just an analogy to make a specific point.


I don't affirm that nether if them are true, I am just postulating possibilities, and given that apparently you are not affirming that any f them is wrong ether, then I see no point in having a discussion,

 

[MarsCydonia]

I was just providing possible explanations for the problem of slavery, the athletes thing was just an analogy to make a specific point.

Leroy was provided nonsensical justifications for slavery, like his nonsensical athletes analogy, because Leroy-the-slavery-apologist has a problem with slavery.

But since the bible condones it, he has to solve the problem he has with it.

I don't affirm that nether if them are true, I am just postulating possibilities,

So an admission: Leroy was just trolling.

and given that apparently you are not affirming that any f them is wrong ether, then I see no point in having a discussion,

False, I affirm all of these attempts at justifying slavery to be bullshit.

But if Leroy is only trolling, then he should quit, shouldn't he.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-33/why-christians-supported-slavery.html

Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?
Key reasons advanced by southern church leaders

Biblical Reasons

• Abraham, the “father of faith,” and all the patriarchs held slaves without God’s disapproval (Gen. 21:9–10).

• Canaan, Ham’s son, was made a slave to his brothers (Gen. 9:24–27).

• The Ten Commandments mention slavery twice, showing God’s implicit acceptance of it (Ex. 20:10, 17).

• Slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, and yet Jesus never spoke against it.

• The apostle Paul specifically commanded slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5–8).

• Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master (Philem. 12).

Charitable and Evangelistic Reasons

• Slavery removes people from a culture that “worshipped the devil, practiced witchcraft, and sorcery” and other evils.

• Slavery brings heathens to a Christian land where they can hear the gospel. Christian masters provide religious instruction for their slaves.

• Under slavery, people are treated with kindness, as many northern visitors can attest.

• It is in slaveholders’ own interest to treat their slaves well.

• Slaves are treated more benevolently than are workers in oppressive northern factories.

Social Reasons

• Just as women are called to play a subordinate role (Eph. 5:22; 1 Tim. 2:11–15), so slaves are stationed by God in their place.

• Slavery is God’s means of protecting and providing for an inferior race (suffering the “curse of Ham” in Gen. 9:25 or even the punishment of Cain in Gen. 4:12).

• Abolition would lead to slave uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. Consider the mob’s “rule of terror” during the French Revolution.

Political Reasons

• Christians are to obey civil authorities, and those authorities permit and protect slavery.

• The church should concentrate on spiritual matters, not political ones.

• Those who support abolition are, in James H. Thornwell’s words, “atheists, socialists, communists [and] red republicans.”

 

[leroy]

[False, I affirm all of these attempts at justifying slavery to be bullshit.

But if Leroy is only trolling, then he should quit, shouldn't he.

but even though you affirm it, you wont carry your burden proof right?

 

[MarsCydonia]

but even though you affirm it, you wont carry your burden proof right?

Actually if Leroy doesn't affirm them as true but he's just throwing them out there (in other words: just trolling) why exactly do I have to prove them false? When Leroy doesn't have to prove them true?

 

[leroy]

but even though you affirm it, you wont carry your burden proof right?

Actually if Leroy doesn't affirm them as true but he's just throwing them out there (in other words: just trolling) why exactly do I have to prove them false? When Leroy doesn't have to prove them true?

because supposedly you are affirming that they are BS. That is why you have to prove it.


but if you retract form your affirmation then you don't need to prof anything.


you haven't answered,


if you are not affirming that slavery somehow disproves God, the bible, divine revelation etc. then what is your point ?

 

[MarsCydonia]

Actually if Leroy doesn't affirm them as true but he's just throwing them out there (in other words: just trolling) why exactly do I have to prove them false? When Leroy doesn't have to prove them true?

because supposedly you are affirming that they are BS. That is why you have to prove it.

Lay the trap, set the bait and watch Leroy run into into it. Could Leroy more obviously show that he does not understand the burden of proof?

Just for fun, imagine this conversation between a slavery-apologist and a decent human being, it should make it obvious to anyone but the Leroy-minded:
Slavery-apologist: "That this car isn't parked in the garage could be explained by the presence of a dragon in the garage"
Decent human being: "bullshit"
Slavery-apologist: "I was just providing a possible explanation for the car-not-parked-in-the-garage problem, I don't affirm it is true. And since you are not affirming that "dragon-in-the-garage" is wrong, then I see no point in having a discussion"
Decent human being: "False, I affirm this "dragon-in-the-garage" explanation is bullshit.
Slavery-apologist: "But even though you affirm it, you wont carry your burden proof right?"

So there you have it... Once again Leroy-the-slavery-apologist makes it explicit that he does not have to demonstrate his assertions are true, we have to demonstrate the assertions are false... But Leroy is apparently learning:

Actually if Leroy doesn't affirm them as true but he's just throwing them out there (in other words: just trolling)

Right, Leroy has stopped trolling with assertions he cannot demonstrate to be true, he is now simply trolling by throwing assertions out there.

Let's try: God condoned slavery in the bible to expose how people like Leroy are complete moral degenerates willing to throw away basic human decency in the name of their fanatism but... I don't affirm it is true.

And wait...

but if you retract form your affirmation then you don't need to prof anything.

Thanks to the fact that the slavery-apologists assertions were empty assertions, they already have been demonstrated as bullshit.
- The slavery condoned in the bible is like employment
Rebuttals from Leroy-the-slavery-apologist to the the numerous comments showing how that is bullshit? 0
- The slavery condoned in the bible is like sports team owning players
Rebuttals from Leroy-the-slavery-apologist to the the numerous comments showing how that is bullshit? 0
- The slavery condoned in the bible was the only viable economic system
Rebuttals from Leroy-the-slavery-apologist to the the numerous comments showing how that is bullshit? Quelle surprise: 0

If only Leroy-the-slavery-apologist went back and read comments instead of trolling with empty assertions...

you haven't answered,

if you are not affirming that slavery somehow disproves God, the bible, divine revelation etc. then what is your point ?

I didn't answer? Wait, I am pretty sure I did. That's right:

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.

And yet...

If Leroy's none of the slavery-apologists "possible explanations" are meant to be taken as true, what is their point? Other than trolling.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

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

:lol:

You have a history of doing this, hypocrite.

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

:facepalm: :facepalm:

Am I wrong?

 

[leroy]

[If Leroy's none of the slavery-apologists "possible explanations" are meant to be taken as true, what is their point? Other than trolling.

I was not trolling, I honestly came to this thread with the preconcibe idea that atheists where making a positive case against God, the Bible, etc.

I erroneously thought that you where affirming that slavery proves that the bible is not divine, which is why I provided some possible scenarios that would make slavery reconcilable with the divinity of the bible.

but is was my mistake, you are not affirming anything, you are just manifesting your own personal opinion.

 

[leroy]

.

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

:facepalm: :facepalm:

Am I wrong?[/quote]


yes you are wrong,

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Am I wrong?

yes you are wrong,

How can I be wrong when:

leroy[/url]"]in the absence of a law giver all judgements would be subjective

That is divine command in a nutshell. In addition, divine command is not objective since the morals are based on the subjective whims of the law giver. Unless, the law giver is getting those from outside itself, but that would render the law giver redundant.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Law-givers all the way down.

 

[MarsCydonia]

I was not trolling, I honestly came to this thread with the preconcibe idea that atheists where making a positive case against God, the Bible, etc.

Could there be a better admission from Leroy-the-slavery-apologist that he came in this thread and read nothing before throwing his comments out there?
Particularly when the thread was started not by any atheist but by one of his fellow slavery apologist.

I erroneously thought that you where affirming that slavery proves that the bible is not divine, which is why I provided some possible scenarios that would make slavery reconcilable with the divinity of the bible.

Again an admission that since he was throwing "possible scenarios" which he was never willing to support, Leroy-the-slavery-apologist was simply trolling.

but is was my mistake, you are not affirming anything, you are just manifesting your own personal opinion.

And Leroy-the-slavery-apologis gets it wrong again. That the bible condones slavery is not an opinion, it is a fact.

Why would Leroy-the-slavery-apologis want to read the comments when he could simply troll? And troll, and troll, and troll.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Could there be a better admission from Leroy-the-slavery-apologist that he came in this thread and read nothing before throwing his comments out there?

Nah, it's just the usual tacit admission that none of his arguments are worth a wet wank, which is why he always needs others to take the affirmative position - he can't hope to support a single instance of any of his claims, and he's only here to yank chains anyway.

 

[leroy]

How can I be wrong when:

leroy[/url]"]in the absence of a law giver all judgements would be subjective

That is divine command in a nutshell. t.

yes that is divine command in a nutshell, so what? what is your point?

In addition, divine command is not objective since the morals are based on the subjective whims of the law giver. Unless, the law giver is getting those from outside itself, but that would render the law giver redundan

that simply proves that your definition of objetive is different from yours,

when I say that OMV are real I simply mean that there is a metric that exists independently of human opinion. If you dont like to use the term Objetive to describe that idea, feel free to use other words. Once again you are just playing semantics.

 

[leroy]

[q
And Leroy-the-slavery-apologis gets it wrong again. That the bible condones slavery is not an opinion, it is a fact.

sure, it is a fact, so what? you are not affirming that this fact disproves God, the bible, etc. So what is your point?

 

[MarsCydonia]

sure, it is a fact, so what? you are not affirming that this fact disproves God, the bible, etc. So what is your point?

So Leroy-the-slavery-apologist reads nothing but keeps on trolling.

What a sad slavery apologist.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

yes that is divine command in a nutshell, so what? what is your point?

In addition, divine command is not objective since the morals are based on the subjective whims of the law giver. Unless, the law giver is getting those from outside itself, but that would render the law giver redundan

that simply proves that your definition of objetive is different from yours,

when I say that OMV are real I simply mean that there is a metric that exists independently of human opinion. If you dont like to use the term Objetive to describe that idea, feel free to use other words. Once again you are just playing semantics.

How so?

Who decides what that is?

Regardless of who decides, it's subjective.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

A metric that exists independently of human opinion?

:lol:

Directions, signposts, maps and meters... all built into the fabric of the universe!

Can't support the faith-based god assertion? Throw more faith-based assertions at it until it becomes an impressive pile of faith-based assertions. Therefore, God. TAAADAAAAAAA!

Theists like this resident nonce need to have their wild assertions granted because they don't do thought, only faith.