Slavery in the bible discussion thread

[Sparhafoc]

Sparhafoc....if you are not atheist what are you then?

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

do you honestly think that Sparhafoc will provide a clear and direct answer?

Well, given my track record for giving clear and direct answers, yes no doubt I will.

Of course, such an answer requires a clear and direct question first.

'What are you?' is hardly a clear and direct question.

 

[Sparhafoc]

In the bible where the man left his wife and children.. we are talking about the canaanite women.

God does not condone the marrying of believer with unbeliever. So the marriage was illegitimate

The fact that it was the slaves choice to leave and this leave his wife and children......shows you the slave was allowed to leave in the first place

Nauseating.

You are scraping right through the morality barrel, Bernie.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Anyway key point to remember is slavery of today.... is not the same as the slavery of the bible.

The key point to remember is that Bernie is making up bullshit he can't support.

Slavery in the Bible was much worse than it is today, not only was slavery positively acceptable according to the Bible, but prepubescent girls could be taken as spoils of war, after their families were murdered in front of them, and dished out among the conquering murderers.

All of this done apparently by God's command.


Wriggle some more, you slavery apologist scum.

 

[Sparhafoc]

why is it that you always what to impose your own personal favorite definitions of terms?

Errrr.... ironic, LEROY.

That's what you do.

Quick reality check.

Between LEROY and Sparhafoc, who's native language is English?

Oh wait, yes it's me.

As such, you do not get to dictate the meaning of words in my fucking language. Get over yourself already.

I disagree, at least sometimes it is better to regulate bad stuff than forbidding it. And I am pretty sure you can think of multiple real life examples.

Then you are morally stunted and wrong.

1) Regulating includes banning

2) There is NO exception to the rule that it is ALWAYS better to ban slavery than to 'regulate' it.

If you do not agree with 2, then you are CONDONING SLAVERY BY FUCKING DEFINITION.

Remember? My fucking language - I am using the word exactly as other people whose native language is English use this word. If you have a different meaning, nobody cares because your native language is not English - get the fuck over yourself already.

con·done
kənˈdōn/
verb
verb: condone; 3rd person present: condones; past tense: condoned; past participle: condoned; gerund or present participle: condoning

accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.

Ergo, if you provide an argument that says there are times where it's preferable to have slavery than not, you are fucking condoning slavery.

So shut the fuck up already you gibbering loon.

I have said multiple times in this forum that there are parts of the bible that I personally don't like, and I wouldn't claim with certainty that the whole bible is divine and inspired.

You said the first sentence once, and you've never said the last sentence in any post I've seen you write.

The thing is - if you believe this sentence, then your behavior here becomes even less clear.

I am used to fundamentalist idiots who want to declare that every word in the Bible supersedes everything else, and they ALL behave like you - but I've never seen a single one of them engage in nuance. In my experience, those Christians capable of engaging in nuance were honest, polite individuals who most assuredly were not Creationists in the anti-scientific sense.

I think you're even more confused than you could be aware of.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I disagree, at least sometimes it is better to regulate bad stuff than forbidding it. And I am pretty sure you can think of multiple real life examples.

I can think of multiple real world examples, but they are all examples of things which should not be banned to begin with.

Also your argument falls apart when you consider that the Christian god had no problems banning other things (such as the making of false idols) and then having everybody killed when they broke said ban.

Yep.

Replace the silly jealous stuff about false idols and insert:

Thou shalt not own another human being (oh and don't rape women or fiddle with kiddies either).

The Bible would instantly gain a chunk of credibility if that were the case.

Again, shell game. According to Christian beliefs, the Bible must be a book for all times. But clearly, if the Bible and the writers of the Bible failed to see the horrors and misery of organized slavery, then they either didn't know what would happened, or knew and were less morally competent than we are today.

Easily explicable if one posits that the Bible was written by Iron Age/Classical human beings.

Much harder to explain if one assumes that the eternal, all knowing, all powerful creator of everything wrote it.

The shell game continues.

 

[Sparhafoc]

No it hasn't Dragon glas.

I find it useless. The argument has nothing to do with my wishes.

Really... my wishes.

League of wishes now.

Already explained to you that this forum is not comprised of Vulcans.

Again, if you can't comprehend the horror, terror, and utter inhumanity of slavery - perhaps you should shut the fuck up and listen to those more competent at humanity than you.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Here's some evidence.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/four-differences-between-new-testament-servitude-and-new-world-slavery/

This has been lost

It's a link to some other mumblefucker mumblefucking.

It's just as wrong as you for the reasons given in this thread.

It's just as lacking in humanity and empathy as your arguments in this thread.

It's also just as wrong and full of shit as you have been in this thread.

It's not 'lost' Bernie - it's here as testament forever to the sick delusion you labour under.

 

[Sparhafoc]

And where was God all those years of organized slavery?

Even assuming God didn't care what the pagans like the Romans did - they're pagans worshiping false gods after all - but then there was an era of expressly Christian nations enslaving tens of thousands of human beings, using Christian scripture as justification for their enslavement.

Why didn't God step in there?

A single word from the heavens and every Christian would have changed their behavior.

So why does God do nothing to stop slavery? Neither in the Bible, nor in practice.

Either 1) God is fine with one human owning another human or 2) God, at least the one according to modern Christians, doesn't exist or 3) God does exist and is not ok with slavery, but is powerless to change it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Correction: tens of thousands is nowhere near accurate.

In reality, studies suggest 9-12 MILLION people were enslaved and taken to work in the Americas. Studies suggest more than 2 million enslaved human beings didn't even survive the journey - why? Because the good Christians didn't consider these people to be human beings worthy of moral treatment.

And God did not a jot, apparently omnisciently unaware that this would happen, and therefore omnipotently unable to ensure that 'his' Christian followers didn't engage in such vile behavior.

Given how Christians want God to take credit for everything, it's funny how they won't blame God for this abject failure.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

No it hasn't Dragon glas.

I don't understand what this statement has to do with my question. :?

I find it useless. The argument has nothing to do with my wishes.

Really... my wishes.

League of wishes now.

You're arguing that slavery in the bible is alright "because God".

This completely ignores the fact that the bible represents a justification for all sorts of atrocities by the Israelites against those they deemed to be their enemies.

It's written after-the-fact - not before - in keeping with the old adage, "History is written by the victors".

Your argument is still-born.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

The question wasn't clear enough....

Thanks sparafoc.

But Leroy was correct.

He claimed you would not provide a clear answer and you did not.

Are you claiming that I am not any of the above?

Or are you asking a more specific question that you failed to write?

Do feel free to get back to asking me what it is you want to ask me. I will probably even answer.

I can't assure you of it though - it depends on the question, the style in which the question's phrased, and whether I want to share that information with you.

Either which way, regardless of LEROY's and your Creationist hubris, I can assure you that I know a lot more about me than you do.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Even if you are correct and if I am therefore wrong, the fact of the matter is the article accurately depicts the bible ☺☺☺

So you and he say.

Unfortunately, you chaps don't represent Christianity - unless you're claiming to be popes or prophets.

Do let me know if you are claiming to be a pope or a prophet.

Incidentally, even then - not sure if you've noticed, but there are tens of thousands of Christian sects, and as far as I am aware, no one speak for all of them.

Are you claiming to be speaking for all of them?

Do let me know if you are claiming to speak for all 30,000 odd Christian sects.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Incidentally, Bernie - everyone's perfectly capable of noting how you've failed to address even 1% of the responses given here.

You know why that is?

Because your contention is bollocks.

You know why that is?

Because your knowledge of slavery, ownership and even Christianity was shown to be millimetres deep.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Sparhafoc....if you are not atheist what are you then?

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

do you honestly think that Sparhafoc will provide a clear and direct answer?

The silly thing about both of you is that I answered completely honestly.

Are you going to claim I am not any of the things I listed?

Who exactly do you think would believe you?

Do you think that even someone who had just arrived here and saw your post and my post and had no prior history or reason to lend credence to one side or another would, for a moment, think that you'd know me better than I know me?

As usual, you are completely incoherent.

You both keep declaring to me that I am an atheist. I wonder how you decide on that. You both keep on saying it even though every time I tell you I am not. LEROY's never even bothered to ask me before, so certain is he that LEROY is the fucking fulcrum of the universe.

To me, it's become like the word Americans used in the 50's - commie

It doesn't really mean that the person is a Communist, its sole purpose is to express utter contempt, a summation of hatred and prejudice wrapped up into a word and thrown as an ad hominem to attack the fundamental characteristics of a person prior to bothering with anything else about them.

Small-minded people need pigeonholes to house the pigeons they've manufactured - they have no better way of expressing their hatred because they are small minded, and think juvenile squarking is the height of intellectual sophistication.

Bernie's entire 5 days of shit-shoveling here has seen him repeatedly use the term 'atheist' to heap ridiculous charges, sneer, and hate on people because they disagree with you.

Bernie's even gone to the length of calling Muslims 'atheists' so he can better express his utter hatred of them.

Whenever one of LEROY's gambits fails, he throws his toys out of the pram and makes some condemning generalization about 'atheists' where that is supposedly the solitary reason his argument was shown to be bunk.

Even if both of you will remain completely blind to your demented hatred and vacuous prejudice for the rest of your silly little existences, you still need to explain why the fuck you would willingly waste your time interacting with people who you consider to be human offal and why you get such a kick out of hating your fellow human beings.

Even in your wildest onanistic fantasies.... what kind of person does that make you?

/shrug

 

[MarsCydonia]

why is it that you always what to impose your own personal favorite definitions of terms?

How can Leroy still be so oblivious after several comments? He doesn't know what "condoning" is. It isn't Sparhafoc that is using his personal definition, it isn't me using my personal definition either,
We're using several dictionaries' definition.

I'll repeat this one more time to Leroy: if you don't know what a word means, refrain from using it.
Or at least go with "Leroy's definition of condoning", we already have "Leroy's definition of transcendent", "Leroy's definition of human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." etc.

I disagree, at least sometimes it is better to regulate bad stuff than forbidding it. And I am pretty sure you can think of multiple real life examples.

Let me think of multiple real life examples of "bad stuff":
Murder: better to condone it or forbid it?
Rape: better to condone it or forbid it?

Just because someone can think of reasons "it is better to regulate bad stuff than forbidding it", how does that mean that these reasons also apply to slavery, murder or rape? "Reasons to permit rather than forbid" are not transferable from one type of "bad stuff" to another.

Leroy is just attempting to make excuses for the slavery condoned within the bible. You know how that is called? Slavery apologetics and Leroy is a slavery apologist.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Here's some evidence.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/four-differences-between-new-testament-servitude-and-new-world-slavery/

This has been lost

Even if you are correct and if I am therefore wrong, the fact of the matter is the article accurately depicts the bible ☺☺☺[/quote]
As we've explained, repeatedly, to Bernhard-the-slavery-apologist, his knowledge of the bible is abysmal.
How would he know if this article accurately depicts the bible when his only knowledge of the bible appears to come from these articles?

So let me clarify if for him: this article isn't accurately depicting the bible. This articles is complete bollocks and is actually lying about the bible depicts.

Do yourself a favor Bernhard-the-slavery-apologist, read the bible yourself.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Incidentally, Bernie - everyone's perfectly capable of noting how you've failed to address even 1% of the responses given here.

You know why that is?

Because your contention is bollocks.

You know why that is?

Because your knowledge of slavery, ownership and even Christianity was shown to be millimetres deep.

I think you're being too generous with both the depth of Bernhard-the-slavery-apologist's bible knowledge or how many responses he actually addressed here.

The canaanite thing still baffles me. Bernhard-the-slavery-apologist would be able to defend the bible better if he actually knew what it said on the topic.

 

[Deleted member 619]

The bible states one who kidnaps a human is to be put to death.

Rape ... punishable by death.

So when you define slavery in terms of kidnap, rape, and other unjustified violence... the bible condemns such slavery

Errr...

"But teh lttl girlz taht has no secks w d00dz can liv so u can has pedo buttsecks w tehm n stuf cuz Ceiling Cat is pedo." nfw

 

[Deleted member 619]

I thought I'd already responded to this illiterate guff, but it seems to have disappeared into the aether.

The problem you are immediately getting into is comparing all ownership to Ill treating your property.

Total cock. What is actually happening is that it's being pointed out that ownership of something entails being able to do with it what you will, which includes, but is not limited to, mistreatment.

If this is the extent of your understanding of English, some study is required.

 

[leroy]

Sparhafoc....if you are not atheist what are you then?

In what respect?

I am a human being.

I was born in England.

I am 41.

I'm a palaeoanthropologist.

What information about me do you want?

Sparhafoc, this is a written forum, anyone can note that Bernhard asked a very simple question and that you failed to answer clearly and unambiguously.

you are simply unable to answer direct questions, this is the main reason you are unable to have meaningful conversations with people with a different world view.