Slavery in the bible discussion thread

[Sparhafoc]

It's more like the word unicorn... today means mythical horse.... in an old dictionary it means rhino... guess what people think the word unicorn means in bible ... a mythical horse..... when clearly the author meant rhino

Le sigh

No, Bernie.

Shut the flap trap and listen before making a total asshat out of yourself on the internet.

There is ONLY ONE relevant definition of slavery, Bernie, and that is the OWNERSHIP of a HUMAN BEING.

If you are not preprared to accept that definition, then I refuse to accept that you are arguing about slavery.

So slavery... guess what it means...? What ownership means.... it means vile things.

But slavery is not written as vile.

The word has been hijacked

Bollocks.

It doesn't make the blindest bit of difference if it was bond slavery, or corvee labor, or droit de fucking seigneur, Bernie. If you think you can argue that ANY human being has the right to OWN another human being then find your balls and state so.

 

[Sparhafoc]

So this supposed Christian declares that his wife is no different than his bicycle.

He owns her.

He could sell her.

He could transfer her as property.

He could trade her.

He could give her as a gift.

He could profit exclusively from her labor.

He could offer her as a commodity against damages.

She could be won in a bet.

She will be inherited upon her owner's death.

A will is made in order to formalize who next owns her.



Oh well, Bernie. If she does become enslaved by someone, I guess you can just buy a new one, eh? :roll:

And that's how people view ownership... and that is complete misrepresentation of bible.

Sad

Donald Fucking Trump, sad very very very very uh very sad. :roll:

But yeah, so here goes the typical Creationist method where every single word needs to be redefined to meet the argument, every assertion they make must be taken as gospel, every claim they make has to be given free pass... because Creationism is crackpot fundamentalist bullshit which can't hope to even compete with mainstream Christianity, let alone anything else.

No, bollocks to that. If you can't respond to my arguments with anything useful then you've shown how valuable your position is.

 

[Visaki]

Why is slavery wrong? Simple; it is unjustified limitation of another persons rights and freedoms. Fortunately most of the western world realized this in the 19th century in the latest, though some parts of the world not until the middle of the 20th. Bernhard has yet to civilize to that point it seems.

What's next? Defending genocide like William Lane Craig does? I mean if a Nazi would defend the actions of the 3rd Reich, including slavery and genocide, this way we'd laugh at his idiocy and immorality and wouldn't see the point in actually arguing with him. I see no reason why we should treat a slavery defending Christian any other way.

 

[Rumraket]

I do own my common law wife....

No you don't.

 

[Rumraket]

I'm done with this guy. I don't speak to people who are okay with slavery. They are slime and their opinions are of no worth to me.

 

[IBSpify]

I do argue it's ok to own fellow people when certain conditions are met.

In other words when an individual says " yes I am a willing slave"

A) the person is willing
B) the owner can improve the quality of life

Why would you only be willing to help someone if they gave you ownership over them?

Are you incapable of working out something that didn't involve a person becoming property?

The conditions are the same for an employer/employee relationship.

A)willing worker
B) improve quality of life via pay.

that is not the same, as an employee I have entered into a contract that exchanges my services for monetary compensation. Also should the employment situation not be to my liking I am able to leave, I have autonomy over my situation.

If I were property I would forfeit that autonomy and would be unable to leave should the situation change that is not to my liking.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Bernhard, would you wish to be a slave?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

So...recap ☺...

Slavery is wrong because it's wrong to own somebody.

Argument brought up on thread ...

I also get "grab your balls and admit slavery is ownership"

Point of order

You were given 5 reasons why slavery is wrong.

Right ownership. I do argue it's ok to own fellow people when certain conditions are met.

No one cares what you argue - go outside into the streets of the Netherlands, attempt to own people in the way you are talking about, and see how the police respond.

That's what we care about.

In other words when an individual says " yes I am a willing slave"

A) the person is willing
B) the owner can improve the quality of life

A person can say anything they like - they are usually protected from being punished for speech.

But you do not get to act on their words as if their words circumvented law. If you do, you will go to prison.

Disgustingly, your argument is exactly how pedophiles behave. They convince kids to agree to things that they don't understand they're agreeing to, then the pedo pretends that because the kid agreed, they're the ones who would be in trouble.

Your specious crap is dismissed. Try owning someone and see what happens to you.

To be blunt, given your complete lack of moral behavior since you joined this forum, I expect that what would happen to you would be desirable for your society, and probably even your wife.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The conditions are the same for an employer/employee relationship.

A)willing worker
B) improve quality of life via pay.

Employee - can leave employment any time
Employee - can have breaks
Employee - can expect remuneration based on a contracted agreement


No matter what bollocks Bernie's talking, this isn't true of slavery - the type of slavery he's pretending is the slavery in the Bible is a kind of bond slavery, which people can sell themselves into.

Firstly, even in that form of slavery, human beings are still owned, and are not equivalent to employees. They are bought and sold, and are obliged to fulfill their contracts. The existence of such a contract is indicative of a morally lesser society, not one favoured by the divine creator of the entire fucking universe.

Secondly, most of the slavery in the Bible has precisely fuck all to do with this style of bond slavery, for example, the murdering of entire towns followed by the capture of pre-pubescent girls to be taken as sex slaves.

As such, the entirety of Bernie's argument here is equivocation, and he is doing exactly as predicted.


Unfortunately for Bernie and his attempt at proselytizing, he's revealed the shell game.

If God is, as Christians would have us belief, omniscient and omnipotent, and decided to write this Bible as a final guide to behavior and morality for his special creation, then God would have known that humans would eventually engage in slavery that ripped nations apart, caused vast suffering, and demeaned humanity for centuries.

Therefore, it would have been easy to write unequivocally 'thou shall not own another human being' and therefore actually fulfilled the role Christians would have us believe their Bible fulfills, but no such clarity exists in this supposed guide for all time.

Instead, we have a Bible that provides license to own the female children after butchering their families, we see rules about the treatment of slaves rather than the demand that all slaves be freed, and we see in the Bible, the chosen ones have an economy based on slavery as was standard for that period of the world, and sadly for many centuries to come.

It wasn't until Christianity lost its grip on Europe that slavery became illegal, that we grew up emotionally and realized that owning another human being makes us less and demolishes our arguments for fair treatment. The Bible was never at the forefront of this, it was instead always used by the slavers to justify their mistreatment of others.

And we know Bernie is well in with the alt-right movement in the US. The same movement that revolves around white supremacy and nationalism, hating blacks and Jews, and here Bernie is raising the specter of slavery in the very week when someone was murdered for standing up against these white zealots. Perthaps Bernie's forgotten his nation's history?

Even if Bernie isn't a white nationalist would-be slaver, the very fact that he feels it's a valid topic of conversation to introduce and engage in with strangers on the internet is indicative of a sick and twisted mind.

You won't succeed Bernie. Good people, regardless of their beliefs in gods, will stand in front of you no matter how many cars you drive into us.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I'm done with this guy. I don't speak to people who are okay with slavery. They are slime and their opinions are of no worth to me.

Sick, twisted, morally stunted.

In other words, a fundamentalist.

And consequently, a dangerous lunatic too.

 

[Sparhafoc]

How would you feel if your wife was the owned property of someone else? How about your mother? Your children?

Try and employ the empathy you believe god granted you.

It's very revealing that you have failed to answer this directly twice.


No doubt you think slavery is something that only happens to them funny coloured folks.

 

[leroy]

I am personally against prostitution, but I am pro regulation, this means that I personally think that prostitution should be legal and regulated rather than illegal and unregulated,

this doesn't imply that I am condoning prostitution, but given that we live in a fallen society and that prostitutes are going to exist anyway it would be better to simply regulate this activity and prevent at least some "evils" caused by prostitution (rape, pedofilia, violence, etc.)

Perhaps this is the way we should view slavery in the bible,


God is not condoning slavery but given that God was dealing with a fallen society, he decided to regulate this activity.

 

[MarsCydonia]

So...recap ☺...

Slavery is wrong because it's wrong to own somebody.

Argument brought up on thread ...

I also get "grab your balls and admit slavery is ownership"

Right ownership. I do argue it's ok to own fellow people when certain conditions are met.

In other words when an individual says " yes I am a willing slave"

A) the person is willing
B) the owner can improve the quality of life

The conditions are the same for an employer/employee relationship.

A)willing worker
B) improve quality of life via pay.

This is supposed to be a recap? Or an argument?

So, Bernard's "argument" is that slavery is morally ok when the "slave is willing" and he goes into a lot of no-details to justify this.

And here we have again this false equivalence that slavery-apologists often try to equate slavery with employment.

But why would someone be "willing to be a slave"? Something that I always bring up and IBSpify brought up above is is why would someone be owned as property, to not own their own freedom or labour, to be bought and sold, be beaten, etc?

So that the slave-master can "improve the quality of life"? In what way does a slave-owner improve quality of life, when we include when the slave is property who does not own their own freedom or labour, can be bought and sold, be beaten, etc. that employer who cannot do these things cannot?

Don't you need to justify that to claim owning people as property is good?

That's actual reasoning, not feelings as Bernard as a slavery-apologist went with there.


And as for the recap:
Bernard the slavery-apologist's feelings forgot that the bible also condones unwilling slaves.</B>

Yeah.... super revealing.

If my wife was somebody else's property she wouldn't be my wife.

Always about feelings... never about logic... the bible writes about those who are moved by feelings.....

"The heart is exceedingly wicked who can know it?" ...

And here you are asking feeling questions.

My argument is simple... Deal with it... or why bother commenting?

It's called league of reason... not league of feelings.

<B>
I'll agree that it is super revealing. It reveals that Bernard the slavery apologist still has no effing clue about the bible.

Because if Bernard the slavery apologist did, he would know that it is possible to have a wife who is someone else's property as the bible is explicitly clear about this.
The bible clearly explains that by hebrew law, if a slavemaster gives a wife to a slave, if the slave is to go free, the wife and their children are not to go free because they belong to the master.

Why is Bernard the slavery apologist arguing about slavery in the bible if he has no idea about what the bible says on the topic?

 

[MarsCydonia]

God is not condoning slavery but given that God was dealing with a fallen society, he decided to regulate this activity.

Leroy, when someone does not understand what a word means, they usually look it up or refrain from using it.

How many more times does Leroy have to be told that?

Perhaps this is the way we should view slavery in the bible,

We'll let Leroy and the other slavery-apologists make up bullshit but the rest of us will view slavery in the bible as the slavery that is in the bible.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Yeah.... super revealing.

If my wife was somebody else's property she wouldn't be my wife.

Can you find any other ways to wriggle?

So, let's assume that, sadly, your wife gets kidnapped by Somali pirates.

Instead of asking for a reward, they enslave her.

So according to you, she's now not your wife? Aside from the moral reprehensibility of your statement, it's also factually not true. If you went and tried to marry another woman, you would be in court for polygamy.

Yep, reality isn't jiving well with your wibble, is it?

Always about feelings... never about logic... the bible writes about those who are moved by feelings.....

"The heart is exceedingly wicked who can know it?" ...

Fuck off.

And here you are asking feeling questions.

My argument is simple... Deal with it... or why bother commenting?

It's called league of reason... not league of feelings.

No one here is a Vulcan, Bernie - it is perfectly logical to feel things, it is perfectly reasonable to feel things.

Unfortunately, from your answers, you seem no more capable of feeling things than you are capable of reasoning them.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I am personally against prostitution, but I am pro regulation, this means that I personally think that prostitution should be legal and regulated rather than illegal and unregulated,

this doesn't imply that I am condoning prostitution, but given that we live in a fallen society and that prostitutes are going to exist anyway it would be better to simply regulate this activity and prevent at least some "evils" caused by prostitution (rape, pedofilia, violence, etc.)

Perhaps this is the way we should view slavery in the bible,


God is not condoning slavery but given that God was dealing with a fallen society, he decided to regulate this activity.

LEROY wants slavery regulated for the benefit of the slaves, after all, it's going to happen even if we don't regulate.... right?


Pro-tip LEROY, banning slavery IS regulation. According to your ignorant belief system, God could just as easily have performed this regulation in the alleged final and only guide to all human behavior and the font of all morality.

Thanks for not playing.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I'm done with this guy. I don't speak to people who are okay with slavery. They are slime and their opinions are of no worth to me.

Indeed.

And the slime pit just got a little fuller with LEROY jumping on the condoning slavery bandwagon.

Such good Christians we have here.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I do argue it's ok to own fellow people when certain conditions are met.

In other words when an individual says " yes I am a willing slave"

A) the person is willing
B) the owner can improve the quality of life

Go on then. Put your money where your mouth is and go and try to find such a person, then get the justice system of the Netherlands to accept it.

It'll get you off the streets at least, and I am sure you'll find a bunch of Jesus-freaks in prison you can play with.

 

[Sparhafoc]

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.

Good old Biblical slavery!

What? Those prepubescent girls were obviously willing slaves.

You know how horny girls get when you murder their families in front of them.

I bet they were literally begging to be slaves, eh Bernie.

We all know what Bernie's dreaming about tonight.

 

[Sparhafoc]

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


26 Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation:

27 And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation:

28 And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:

29 Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the Lord.

30 And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord.

31 And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses.

32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,

33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,

34 And threescore and one thousand asses,

35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

36 And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:

37 And the Lord'S tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.

38 And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the Lord'S tribute was threescore and twelve.

39 And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the Lord'S tribute was threescore and one.

40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the Lord'S tribute was thirty and two persons.

41 And Moses gave the tribute, which was the Lord'S heave offering, unto Eleazar the priest, as the Lord commanded Moses.

42 And of the children of Israel's half, which Moses divided from the men that warred,

43 (Now the half that pertained unto the congregation was three hundred thousand and thirty thousand and seven thousand and five hundred sheep,

44 And thirty and six thousand beeves,

45 And thirty thousand asses and five hundred,

46 And sixteen thousand persons

47 Even of the children of Israel's half, Moses took one portion of fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, which kept the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord; as the Lord commanded Moses.

Virgin girls, but the boys were slain - yes, little children, baby boys were slain according to the Bible on command by God.

And those virgin girls captured were considered to be booty, divided up just as with the animals and other treasures, doled out as spoils of war to the violent conquerors.

But you know... they must have been WILLING, right? Because that's what Bernie says - they must have been willing.

How similar this is to victim-blaming today, where a raped woman is blamed for having done something to encourage being a victim of rape or not done something to stave off being a victim of rape. The desired deduction there being that the woman must have been willing, even if secretly.

Funny how it's Christians making those arguments too. It appears that Bernie and LEROY think women are possessions which can be owned by men, and consequently have very little say in the matter of which of the murderers of their family gets to fuck them.

The similarity between the Abrahamic religions is much clearer than the distinction between them. Endless horrors thanks to one mind-virus.