Slavery in the bible discussion thread

[Deleted member 619]

Biblical slavery is more like employee/Employer relationship.

Yes, because you're allowed to beat your employees as long as they don't die within a couple of days.

 

[Sparhafoc]

*fatuous idiocy based on prejudice self-pleasuring*

Yes, because you're allowed to beat your employees as long as they don't die within a couple of days.

And for all the other reasons already listed.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=181935#p181935

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.

The Pro-Slavery Merry-Go-Round will not end... until it is ended.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Sorry, is there a set of circumstances in which it's acceptable for an employer to beat an employee as long as they don't die too quickly?

FYI, your opinion and two shits will purchase for you exactly two shits.

 

[Bango Skank]

I think that most of the people against slavery in the bible would be the same people who are for:

Raising minimum wage
Welfare
And various other social programs where the government hands out money like candy to people who refuse to work.

Just lazy.

Any data to support this or just your own prejudice?

And various other social programs where the government hands out money like candy to people who refuse to work. Just lazy.

Refuse to work and being just lazy? Wow, fuck you are stupid.

 

[Sparhafoc]

onanistic blather

Any data to support this or just your own prejudice?

Not JUST his own prejudice.... also vacuity, ignorance, viciousness, callousness, lack of empathy, functional sociopathy, and a complete disdain for reality.

cuntish trolling

Refuse to work and being just lazy? Wow, fuck you are stupid.

Batshit Bernie thinks slavery is preferable to welfare for the disabled.

Whoever lifted the rock from under which Bernie oozed has a debt to society.

 

[MarsCydonia]

It seems that all slavery apologists come from the "ignore criticism, repeat bullshit" school of argumentation.

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

Again... Leviticus 25, Exodus 21... Slaves forced into slavery.

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

So children born into slavery: not a contract initiated by them.

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

So women/girl sold into slavery by her father: not a contract initiated by them.

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

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

I'm "processing" what the bible says slaves are as people who are bought, sold and/or owned as property. So what does the bible says a slave is?
Someone bought, sold and/or owned as property.

So coming from the person who has no idea what the bible says, what slavery is, etc. it doesn't give much value into what Bernhard-the-slavery-apologist thinks.

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 ...

And where did the Israeëlites' got their slaves? A real eye opener... It was middle-eastern men on middle-eastern men fighthing and they captured each other's tribes people and then sold them to slave markets...

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/africans-apologise-slave-trade

See ?.... don't confuse biblical slavery with this...

I'm not. The only person bringing this is Bernhard-the-slavery-apologist. I'm dealing with biblical slavery, Bernhard-the-slavery-apologist is running away from dealing with biblical slavery (on the very thread he started).

And apparently I'm a vile human being because I know the bible condones slavery. I also know that people are misrepresenting biblical slavery.

Biblical slavery is more like employee/Employer relationship.

But somehow I'm vile.

Lol...

All slavery apologists are vile so Bernhard-the-slavery-apologist shouldn't take it personally but the vilest ones are especially those change what the bible says about slavery to try and make excuses for it. Like this false equivalence of "slavery = employment" that Bernhard-the-slavery-apologist keeps on trying to push.

Rape a women ... would that be acceptable? Beat a baby? ....

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Proverbs 13:24

But from anyone vile we'll get false equivalences and lies to make excuses up for these passages.

 

[thenexttodie]

I could have sworn this was once a discussion on Why God Allowed Slavery. Now it is, Why Did God Not Forbid Slavery?

These are 2 different ideas.

Not really - they're 2 sides of the same coin.

How could God have stopped slavery from happening? By forbidding it. Ergo, that God didn't forbid slavery would suggest it's allowed. One assumes that things are allowed which aren't expressly or implicitly forbidden. The 10 Commandments element is a big problem here. A very specific number - the number of fingers we have on our hands, the base of our mathematics - and yet no mention of slavery was made. There are some really wasted items there compared to the abject horror of owning another human being.

Yeah, I understand where you are coming from. I think somewhere in this thread I have expressed my thoughts on this.

Still I just want to mention, very briefly, that when someone asks me why god allows something(Why does God allow little babies to die?) this to me implies an expected miracle that God should perform. Why does not God do x miracle in order to stop y from happening.

On the other hand to forbid implies Law. As you yourself have somewhat demonstrated in your above quote.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I could have sworn this was once a discussion on Why God Allowed Slavery. Now it is, Why Did God Not Forbid Slavery?

These are 2 different ideas.

Not really - they're 2 sides of the same coin.

How could God have stopped slavery from happening? By forbidding it. Ergo, that God didn't forbid slavery would suggest it's allowed. One assumes that things are allowed which aren't expressly or implicitly forbidden. The 10 Commandments element is a big problem here. A very specific number - the number of fingers we have on our hands, the base of our mathematics - and yet no mention of slavery was made. There are some really wasted items there compared to the abject horror of owning another human being.

Yeah, I understand where you are coming from. I think somewhere in this thread I have expressed my thoughts on this.

Still I just want to mention, very briefly, that when someone asks me why god allows something(Why does God allow little babies to die?) this to me implies an expected miracle that God should perform. Why does not God do x miracle in order to stop y from happening.

On the other hand to forbid implies Law. As you yourself have somewhat demonstrated in your above quote.

Well, we can phrase the question however is best to crack the desired nut.

No miracle is needed here to stop slavery - all that was needed was a commandment, as with all the other commandments unless they are equally to be considered 'miracles'. Given that 4 of the commandments are basically rules of worship (2 just iterating the same notion of not worshiping other gods), it is difficult to understand how these supersede the horror of slavery.

I can appreciate the difficulty in answering this - it's not like it's something that many Christians contemplate much, but I would appreciate it if you tried to reason through this.

In kind, I will address your point from my reasoning. For me, the point about babies dying - say, for example, of a genetic condition - the question is not why God doesn't intervene in 'his' Creation, but rather why are infant deaths by genetic abnormality a facet of 'his' creation; why does such a horror exist in the first place?

There's a fundamental disconnect between the theist claim of a universe designed according to a divine plan, and in the Abrahamic traditions, this Creation being expressly called 'good', and a universe replete with nasty, twisted, and horrifying conditions that must similarly have been designed into the universe, even if one believes not until after the Fall.

To me, this takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to maintain belief in while simultaneously believing in a quintessentially good god.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I personally find it amazing that hack can't think of a circumstance where you can beat the carp out of an employee... really amazing... here's a little list:

Employee assaults a baby
Employee assaults/Rape a women
Employee beats/mutilates/kills farm animals


.......

I personally find it amazing that you think any of those situations has anything whatsoever to do with the employer/employee relationship, and that's setting aside that you think that violence is justified in such a situation.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

I personally find it amazing that hack can't think of a circumstance where you can beat the carp out of an employee... really amazing... here's a little list:

Employee assaults a baby
Employee assaults/Rape a women
Employee beats/mutilates/kills farm animals


.......

I personally find it amazing that you think any of those situations has anything whatsoever to do with the employer/employee relationship, and that's setting aside that you think that violence is justified in such a situation.

My question is why does an employee doing any of this justify the employer beating the poor carp out of the employee's possession. What did the carp do? I mean, look at it, it's innocent.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Oh look... itsdentitans... curious... you still a Christian?

:^)

 

[Deleted member 619]

Poor hack... he cannot bring himself to admit there are justified beatings.. .

Admit?I repudiate this assertion. Beatings are never justified.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Oh look... itsdentitans... curious... you still a Christian?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Here's some evidence.

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

This has been lost

I've got no dog in this fight, so feel free to hash out specifics people. But for those interested, his link was refuted refuted here

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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

James, if I may challenge this point.

As long as the Christians don't see the lions fighting amongst themselves! :lol:

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.

Although I understand your point/concern, I'm basing my comment on the previous topics in which all three have partook to which you are undoubtedly unfamiliar, as these occurred over the past several years.

Bear in mind the three possibilities in my second scenario, which applies to all three - Bernhard, leroy, and thenexttodie - to a greater or lesser degree.

As an aside, I think the Wiki article on slavery in the bible is a good guide - it clearly indicates the different forms that appears in the bible.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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.

Spong's The Sins of Scripture : Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love covers a lot of the "terrible texts of the bible".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Well now, looks like our friend is a stunning example of Romans 1:22. The irony :roll:

 

[Sparhafoc]

Although I understand your point/concern, I'm basing my comment on the previous topics in which all three have partook to which you are undoubtedly unfamiliar, as these occurred over the past several years.

Bear in mind the three possibilities in my second scenario, which applies to all three - Bernhard, leroy, and thenexttodie - to a greater or lesser degree.

Fairy muff... although I do believe that they're allowed to change their position. In fact, it would be highly desirable if they think condoning slavery is a position Christians should take.

As an aside, I think the Wiki article on slavery in the bible is a good guide - it clearly indicates the different forms that appears in the bible.

Yup. The claim that there's only sugar and silk slavery in the Bible is ignorance/bullshit.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Spong's The Sins of Scripture : Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love covers a lot of the "terrible texts of the bible".

Thanks James, that sounds interesting. I've heard that guy speak many times and he's definitely got his head screwed on right. If all Christians were like him, there'd be no contest between Christians and non-Christians, and fundies like the OP wouldn't need to posture and defecate to mark their territory. The sooner all religion follows this the better.


Edit: lololol to remind myself of this chap's voice, I clicked a random link...

If God is the source of life, then the only way your worship God is by living; living fully. Sharing light, giving life away, not being afraid, wandering out of the certain into the uncertain, out of the known into the unknown.

And herein lies my definition of a True (tm) Christian, or a True (tm) believer: humility in the face of their beliefs.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

It's okay that I'm in danger of hellfire. You wanted me to go to hell anyways, Bernie. You said it yourself when you said you wanted me to lose my faith. Guess you got your wish.

I just hope I see you there, you self absorbed hypocrite.