Slavery in the bible discussion thread

[Sparhafoc]

Maybe regulating slavery would produce less evil than forbidding it

Utterly stupid.

Slavery is evil, banning an evil cannot produce more evil than evil itself.

You are condoning slavery.

Maybe slavery had a different connotation in the past

Yes, it was something you can do legally - i.e. OWN a human being, whereas today we are more moral.

You are condoning slavery.

Maybe slaves where not innocent humans, but rather people that deserve a punishment (criminals)

So we meet criminality by perpetrating evil on them?

You are condoning slavery.

Maybe those particular verses (or books) are not inspired

And then maybe none of the Bible is inspired.

but granted Christians can provide an ultimate and infallible explanation for this problem, all we have are unsupported hypotheses

They're not hypotheses, they are evasions that result in condoning slavery.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well knowing that the Israelites annihilated the people living there before them.... because the previous people's were murderers/adulterers/ and the like.

It can be taken for granted that the mere fact the virgin women were not part of that adulterous horde and therefore God allowed them to live

Vile idiocy, Bernie.

How were the little boys to blame?

Remember the explicit command to kill the little boys?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Ok.... so can you give me a biblical example of slaves being bought and sold?

So how many admissions do we have from Bernhard-the-slavery-apologist that he does not know what the bible says about slavery? 12-15 times?

Shouldn't we expect someone opening a "Slavery in the bible discussion thread" to read the bible about what is says on slavery?

Exodus 21:2-6
Exodus 21:7-8
Leviticus 25:44-46

Maybe now Bernhard will pick up a bible and read it. Should we take bets on how he's going to twist those passages as they plainly talk about buying and selling people?

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

As usual, the fundamentalist knows fuck all about their Bible until you point something out.... then they become an expert.

If you could get LEROY and Bernie sat down as a table with no access to the internet, you can bet they'd be a damn sight quieter and more respectful.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I
Now read it for yourself but the contract was always initiated by the slave. In other words the slave volunteered to be a slave.

My bold

Liar.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Again.... Leviticus 25... contract initiated by the slave.

Liar.

And children the answer is simply because their father volunteered and would of taught their own children that truth.

Women/girl was simply the father did what he thought was best.

You are a sick fucker.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I still think you are not properly processing what the bible is defining a slave as.

And you have been told a dozen times that it doesn't matter if the Bible defines slaves as sugar and silk - the point is that slavery is the OWNING of another human being, and it is always vicious and demented, regardless of when it was perpetrated.

Your brain is too full of the black people slavery where they kidnapped blacks and carted them over the Atlantic in horrific conditions.

You mean the Christians who enslaved Africans and took them to the Americas?

The ones who used the Bible as justification for their activity?

Those people you mean?

You should research how they actually got those slaves.... a real eye opener.. . It was black on black fighting and they captured each other's tribes people and then sold each other to slave boats ...

Fuck off you racist cunt.

Then slave boat captains came to certain places/ports and traded for Africans with other Africans.

Not saying the slave boats aren't guilty.... they are guilty as hell.... but the prisoners were literally handed over by their fellow countrymen.

Scum, you are utter scum.

Joining Rumraket because cunts like this deserve no platform.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Contrary to the bullshit asserted in this thread (note how no support is offered beyond linking to someone else saying the same thing?) slavery in the Bible, in the region in that particular period was rife.

There were many forms of slavery, from an early form of bond slavery where, if one was indebted, one could sell oneself into slavery in a form of protracted labor. But there were many other kinds of slavery as seen in the taking of prepubescent girls as spoils of war, and the numerous specific details regarding the sale and inheritance of slaves.

In reality, a very significant chunk of the population of these ancient societies were slaves because slaves just needed to be fed and would produce greater economic output than the cost of keeping them alive. This is the economy of the ancient world, and it's the economy of the colonial period.

Owning another human being also entails profiting from their labours as many have already pointed out in this thread. Owning another human being means that they become a form of possession, which in turn means that the possession can be sold, gifted, traded, inherited, given and received as legal damages, staked as collateral, and exhibited as a form of status. This is because slaves - owned human beings - represent wealth. In an agrarian society, where profits are largely limited by the amount of crops one can farm, slaves represent a form of domesticated working animal - a beast of burden.

And they were treated exactly like that both in the ancient world and all the way through the colonial period to the abolition of slavery.

The Bible shows laws specifying the treatment of slaves because slaves were wealth. All societies had laws regarding the treatment of slaves as wealth. This is just the same as all these societies had laws pertaining to the exchange, sale, and ownership of other chattel like cows, sheep, and sadly all too often women.

Thus, through Exodus, Deuteronomy, Jeremiah and Leviticus you see very detailed laws regarding the transfer of ownership of a slave.

As I already explained earlier (which of course was ignored) all urbanized societies had to make laws to deal with ownership. In our ancient hunter-gatherer days, we lived in clans of extended families, and possessions were rare. Instead, wealth was largely in the form of animals, with a few choice pieces of luxury appropriate to cultural symbolic status, like iron implements and weapons, skins and furs of animals, and jewelry.

With the change to living in large towns with many unrelated people living in dense populations, and the consequent accrual of material wealth in a multitude of forms, all such societies were legally grounded on laws regarding the ownership of items, as such stealing became a crime, taking the labours of one's neighbour became a crime, and laws were made to regulate trade and to ensure the proto-state profited from all these interactions in the form of tax and duties.

The 19th Century French Sociologist Emlie Durkheim defined societies in terms of a social contract. One gives up the freedom ever to steal another person's possessions in exchange for the proto-state protecting them from having their possessions stolen. Obviously, by 'gives up' there's no actual question asked, rather it is a fundamental platform necessary for such complex urban societies to exist.

This is exactly how slaves were treated - as the property of the slave-owner. Of course, there were limitations on what a slave-owner could or couldn't do with their property, but these laws weren't made for the benefit of the slave any more than laws limiting the exchange and sale of domesticated animals were for the benefit of the animal.

This is what makes our resident slavery-apologist so absurd when he pretends that the slavery in the Bible is different, and special, and positively benign - the slavery in the Bible is no different at all to any other slavery - it is the ownership of another human being, limiting any and all freedom of the slave to self-determination, to benefiting from their labours, to treating them how we treat domesticated animals and thereby failing in every respect to extend to those humans the same freedoms as the human owners of the slaves. This is utterly immoral from any reasoned discourse.

This chap can lie and blag and assert, but he can't address the fact that God could have stopped this had 'he' so desired by making it a fundamental crime, a commandment, and thereby have ensured that 'his' special creation never engaged in such abominable acts. It's not like the alleged God was just silent about it. In the book which is supposed to be the direct word of God recorded faithfully and trustworthy beyond even empirical observation, this God allows slavery to continue, allows 'his' prophets to command the enslavement of children, virgins, and foreigners, and dictates how a slave should or should not be treated - this is actively condoning slavery.

As such, the initial notion is correct: the Bible condones slavery. Not some special cutesy slavery, but the enslavement and ownership of another human being for selfish profit.

And we know historically many slave-owners have appealed to the Bible for justification for the enslavement of other human beings. They are still doing it today. These 'Christians', like the chap who started this thread, also still appeal to the bullshit of the Sons of Ham to justify their prejudice against human beings with different melanin content in their skin. Our resident scum slave-supporter's Facebook makes it absolutely clear that he is on the side of those fucktard white-supremacist Nazis who are marching in the USA right now.

LEROY has, at the very least, shown he can doubt the moral value of these passages in the Bible, and TNTD is far too intelligent to become a moderate appeaser of extremist fundamentalists. What I would personally like to see is the Christians on this forum telling this supposed Christian what Christianity is really about. Otherwise, next time you hear about a Muslim crackpot and declare that moderate Muslims should stand up to these morons, you are hypocritically failing to do that in your own back-yard.

Can we not expect the forum's Christians to contend with a supposed Christian arguing for slavery and racism?

If not, then you can't expect there ever to be any understanding between Christians and non-believers, because to us, Bernie and everything he stands for is utterly heinous. If he represents true Christianity, then Christianity must die for the betterment of this world and the human beings who inhabit it. Unless, of course, there's a better Christianity that other Christians might want to expound and contend with Bernie's version. Or are you going to leave it up to the non-Christians to defend the value of Christianity?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

@leroy

From your earlier argument - that god, having given humans free will, couldn't do anything to stop slavery, and other evils - this implies that you believe in a non-interventionist god.

Is this correct?

If so, that means that no-one can use the bible as justification for anything. It's just the Israelites excusing their actions by saying god told them to do it/that it was ok.

Or are you merely applying this to things in the bible with which you are uncomfortable, you can't explain and/or don't believe are "inspired" by god?

If so, that means you're picking-and-choosing which parts of the bible are supported by god, and which aren't.

Either way, it leaves you, Bernhard, thenexttodie, etc, without a leg on which to stand.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Well knowing that the Israelites annihilated the people living there before them.... because the previous people's were murderers/adulterers/ and the like.

It can be taken for granted that the mere fact the virgin women were not part of that adulterous horde and therefore God allowed them to live

I'm not sure if this is meant as a reply to my earlier post.

If so, it's a very poor one.

As Sparhafoc noted, the (virgin) boys were killed (including babies), even though they were - according to you - like the virgin girls: "not part of that adulterous horde".

You are like a drowning man who desperately casts about for anything to stop himself drowning.

Your position is untenable - you know it's untenable - yet you still attempt to defend it.

Why not accept that the bible represents nothing more than a justification by the Israelites for their actions - using their god's "commands" as an excuse?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

@leroy

From your earlier argument - that god, having given humans free will, couldn't do anything to stop slavery, and other evils - this implies that you believe in a non-interventionist god.

Is this correct?

If so, that means that no-one can use the bible as justification for anything. It's just the Israelites excusing their actions by saying god told them to do it/that it was ok.

Or are you merely applying this to things in the bible with which you are uncomfortable, you can't explain and/or don't believe are "inspired" by god?

If so, that means you're picking-and-choosing which parts of the bible are supported by god, and which aren't.

Either way, it leaves you, Bernhard, thenexttodie, etc, without a leg on which to stand.

Kindest regards,

James

Yes, my view is that except for very few exceptos God is a non-interventionist God,

that means that no-one can use the bible as justification for anything

I am not sure if I understood your point, but granted

it is intelectually dishonest to arbitrary grant the parts of the bible that one likes and look for creative interpretations when trying to explain the parts that one doesn't like.

is this the point that you where making?

 

[leroy]

[
They're not hypotheses, they are evasions that result in condoning slavery.

granted.

unlike yourself, I have the intelectual honestly to admit that when my opponents present a good point.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

@leroy

From your earlier argument - that god, having given humans free will, couldn't do anything to stop slavery, and other evils - this implies that you believe in a non-interventionist god.

Is this correct?

If so, that means that no-one can use the bible as justification for anything. It's just the Israelites excusing their actions by saying god told them to do it/that it was ok.

Or are you merely applying this to things in the bible with which you are uncomfortable, you can't explain and/or don't believe are "inspired" by god?

If so, that means you're picking-and-choosing which parts of the bible are supported by god, and which aren't.

Either way, it leaves you, Bernhard, thenexttodie, etc, without a leg on which to stand.

Kindest regards,

James

Yes, my view is that except for very few exceptos God is a non-interventionist God,

Then you believe in a interventionist god.

There's no half-way position here.

Either we have free will or we don't.

that means that no-one can use the bible as justification for anything

I am not sure if I understood your point, but granted

it is intelectually dishonest to arbitrary grant the parts of the bible that one likes and look for creative interpretations when trying to explain the parts that one doesn't like.

is this the point that you where making?

In the case of my second scenario, yes.

However, given your answer - that we have free will, except when we don't - with all due respect, leroy, this is what you're doing.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

[Yet, they never show the same humility when it comes to the origin of the universe or the origin of life, they simply "know".
"

If you would have read my comments on the origin of life and the origin or the universe, you would have noticed that I don't claim to "know"

 

[Sparhafoc]

Yes, my view is that except for very few exceptos God is a non-interventionist God,

So you don't believe in prayer, then.

I am not sure if I understood your point, but granted

it is intelectually dishonest to arbitrary grant the parts of the bible that one likes and look for creative interpretations when trying to explain the parts that one doesn't like.

is this the point that you where making?

Fucking hell LEROY. This vile thread posted by a vile excuse for a human being has had the wondrous result of occasioning in you some actually honest statements. I mean that genuinely too. If you behaved like this, then we'd all get along just fine and actually be able to engage in robust discourse.

 

[Sparhafoc]

[
They're not hypotheses, they are evasions that result in condoning slavery.

granted.

unlike yourself, I have the intelectual honestly to admit that when my opponents present a good point.

Except I can provide an example of where I did exactly that to you several weeks ago, so nice attempt at polishing your knob in public, but probably best you put it away before it gets you in trouble.

You know what Leroy? Thank you for taking the time to engage in this topic. I honestly think this is the first time we've actually communicated together, rather than just talked past each other.

This is really what I am here for - to test my thoughts, and to see what's on offer that might be better.

As such, I disagree with what you think about this topic below, but I appreciate that you do actually have a position that is worth discussing, and worth reflecting on. I just don't think your position is any more reasonable than mine, or anyone else's.

But the exchange of ideas is the most important element here, because we're not talking about what is, but what could be.

However, thank you for your honesty with regards to your position (if not to mine) - it really has been a long time in the coming.

 

[Sparhafoc]

[Yet, they never show the same humility when it comes to the origin of the universe or the origin of life, they simply "know".
"

If you would have read my comments on the origin of life and the origin or the universe, you would have noticed that I don't claim to "know"

Ummm.... you claim to know about the necessary causality of the universe, LEROY. There's not much greater excessive contention based on false certainty possible.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Either way, it leaves you, Bernhard, thenexttodie, etc, without a leg on which to stand.

James, if I may challenge this point.

Thenexttodie doesn't seem to have offered any argumentation either way here, just discussed a technical point. Perhaps I missed something, but I haven't seen anything contentious from him.

Even LEROY cannot be put into the same barrel as Bernie's barrel of syphilitic monkeys. LEROY's been amazingly honest and open in this thread, even acknowledging that the arguments made result in the condoning of slavery.

Criticism and credit where it's due.

 

[Sparhafoc]

It's just the Israelites excusing their actions by saying god told them to do it/that it was ok.

Which is consistent with how historians and academics treat the OT and other religious works from the period - as an incredible source into the minds and beliefs of people thousands of years ago who, without written record, we'd be completely ignorant about.

My personal journey away from Christianity when I was a young teenager was very much founded on the historical argument initially. As a kid who loved the classical world, there were so many mistakes I ended up questioning the truth of the scriptures. This lead me to conversations with priests and pastors of a number of Christian sects (from Anglican to Catholic, and from Baptist to Jehovah's Witness), ultimately arriving at me deciding to sit down and read the whole thing.

To be honest, I was horrified. I recall the feeling as I read through the passages like Psalm 137:9

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Reading it almost seemed illicit, like I was reading some kind of snuff porn or something dark and unsuitable for children. I still feel nauseous thinking too long about such a passage - it is horrifying to anyone of good conscience.

Many times over the years I've met people who are being preached to by local ministries, for example here in Thailand there is quite a lot of effort to convert the Buddhists, albeit not very successfully. Those here who are open to suggestion tend to think of all 'holy' scripture as being essentially good, all paths leading to Rome. As such, they find it difficult to understand how a white guy rejects the religion they assume he must belong to. At least until I point to scripture like the above. Without fail, peoples' faces drop in shock and revulsion.

These scriptures represent only the small-minded vicious tribalism of the Iron Age, and they can never be the product of a being that created everything and knows all. It is not logically possible, and the contention otherwise is what drove me and many others away.

 

[leroy]

Ummm.... you claim to know about the necessary causality of the universe, LEROY. There's not much greater excessive contention based on false certainty possible.

I didn't claim to know, I simply claimed that there are good reasons to grant that events have a cause, and no good reasons to inoke exceptions

 

[Sparhafoc]

Ummm.... you claim to know about the necessary causality of the universe, LEROY. There's not much greater excessive contention based on false certainty possible.

I didn't claim to know, I simply claimed that there are good reasons to grant that events have a cause, and no good reasons to inoke exceptions

That amounts to a claim to knowledge, LEROY.

How do you know what is reasonable to contend about the state in which the universe allegedly began to exist?

Explain to me how you know.