Slavery in the bible discussion thread

[Sparhafoc]

The degree of misrepresentation is truly amazing.

It's like the fake news..

Trump says violence on both sides... and everybody says oh he's a kkk apologist.

Sad

Yep, just like Trump.

Label something 'fake' that's convenient for you to so label so that you so that you can dismiss it and pretend you don't have to answer it - don't bother to establish that it is actually fake, just declare it.

Then end with a 3 letter word which probably represents the most impressive adjective you and Trump can come up with.

 

[Sparhafoc]

They... have been... so unfair to me... very unfair... even though.... I just wrote a beautiful.... everyone agrees.... a beautiful statement in support of slavery.

Sad.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I say slavery isn't a problem. I compare the slavery to employer employee ... that's what I'm talking about.

Yes, and I demolished this equivocation mere moments after you mouthed it.

Then I get atheist rant how I must be pro rape, trading women like property, etc etc etc.

Atheist? Was there talk about gods here?

Can't seem to find any such claim at all.

50 years ago, you'd have been calling me a Commie - that's what small-minded people like you do: build pigeonholes and look for pigeons to stuff into them.

I'm not your pigeon, pal. Learn it quickly.

When you break the 10 commandments in order to have a slave... it's never good... just fyi....

Right.... like commandment number 1:

Thou shalt not OWN another HUMAN BEING.

Like that commandment, right?

No? You're saying it's not there? Well, that's an odd shell game you've got. How did the omniscient and omnipotent creator of the universe who would know intimately the suffering and injustice of slavery fail so tragically to mention it in his special list of 10 things thou shalt not do?

Where's the commandment against rape?

Where's the commandment against priests fiddling with little boys?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Par for course I guess.... that's why you are atheist....

Except, numb nut, I am not an atheist.

Do you like having these public conversations with your prejudice?

Incidentally, if you get to call me an atheist because you hate atheists and want to be a wanker to me, can I call you a pedophile?

 

[Sparhafoc]

I say slavery isn't a problem. I compare the slavery to employer employee

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.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You want to argue that the Bible has some special definition of slavery which means that they weren't REALLY slaves, they weren't REALLY OWNED PROPERTY and so on and so on,...

No I don't want to do that

Except, of course, that's literally all you are doing.

 

[MarsCydonia]

I say slavery isn't a problem. I compare the slavery to employer employee ... that's what I'm talking about.

Then I get atheist rant how I must be pro rape, trading women like property, etc etc etc.

When you break the 10 commandments in order to have a slave... it's never good... just fyi....

We know you bullshit Bernard the slavery-apologist, how many times I have written "And here we have again this false equivalence that slavery-apologists often try to equate slavery with employment."?
Let's try it in a manner your pro-trump brain can understand:
"The fake news christians say slavery is like employment but this is fake news. Sad!"

You can repeat the lie often enough but it will not magically become true.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Bernie's whole argument is predicated on the I'm Alright Jack line of 'reasoning' which is wholly lacking any semblance of human empathy.

In reality, if Bernie's wife was taken captive and enslaved, he'd be adamant that it was completely fucking wrong, even if she was treated perfectly well by her slavers.

This is because it's not treatment of slaves that is the primary immoral component of slavery, but rather the OWNING of another HUMAN BEING as per the arguments Bernie keeps avoiding.

 

[Sparhafoc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership

Ownership of property may be private, collective, or common, and the property may be of objects, land or real estate, or intellectual property. Determining ownership in law involves determining who has certain rights and duties over the property. These rights and duties, sometimes called a "bundle of rights", can be separated and held by different parties.

The process and mechanics of ownership are fairly complex: one can gain, transfer, and lose ownership of property in a number of ways. To acquire property one can purchase it with money, trade it for other property, win it in a bet, receive it as a gift, inherit it, find it, receive it as damages, earn it by doing work or performing services, make it, or homestead it. One can transfer or lose ownership of property by selling it for money, exchanging it for other property, giving it as a gift, misplacing it, or having it stripped from one's ownership through legal means such as eviction, foreclosure, seizure, or taking. Ownership is self-propagating in that the owner of any property will also own the economic benefits of that property.

Slavery entails all of these.

Why?

Because within the context of slavery, human beings are considered property and thus can be traded, sold, gifted etc.

Employees cannot be. Specious equivocation debunked again.

Incidentally, women are chattel in the Bible, property to be traded between men.

This is because the people at the time were not our moral equals, we have learned over the centuries that our treatment of others reflects on ourselves - Iron Age tribespeople had no such conception.

One would imagine that a god as described with Christian ontological characteristics would necessarily be far more advanced morally than humans, but somehow can't seem to get a single sentence down in the Bible telling 'his' special creation that they're not to own other human beings because it's vile and evil.

Funny how there's more words dedicated to telling people what to wear or not to wear than there is telling people not to own human beings.

It's almost as if the Bible were written by Iron Age tribespeople without the slightest input from any alleged god, and that's why all their prejudices and social norms are written there and projected onto the cosmos.

 

[leroy]

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.

I am not condoning slavery, should we add this assertion to the list of lies that you have made?



All I am saying is that there are possible scenarios where regulating slavery is better than forbidding it.


and yes I would be the first one to admit that some parts of the bible are hard to accept and that I personally don't like. being slavery one of this examples

 

[MarsCydonia]

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

Such good Christians we have here.

I am not condoning slavery, should we add this assertion to the list of lies that you have made?

All I am saying is that there are possible scenarios where regulating slavery is better than forbidding it.

and yes I would be the first one to admit that some parts of the bible are hard to accept and that I personally don't like. being slavery one of this examples

Leroy has always been a slavery-apologist. All the christian trolls here, Leroy, thenexttodie and Bernard are.

Case in point, if only Leroy took the time to understand the meaning of some words, he'd realize that he just condoned slavery.

I did warn him to read on what condoning meant, apparently Leroy thinks educating himself is wrong?

To condone: to treat something as permissible or acceptable, to tolerate or tacitly approve

To forbid: to treat something as unpermissible, to proscribe or command against

"I am not saying slavery is permissible or acceptable, should we add this assertion to the list of lies that you have made?

All I am saying is that there are possible scenarios where regulating slavery is better than to treat it as unpermissible or unacceptable."

And as usual, Leroy says something is possible because its easier than deal with the reality and justify how god, an all-powerful, all-knowledge and supposedly all-benelovent being, would condone slavery.

That's at least the most honest Leroy can be, basically an admission that he doesn't know why slavery was condoned.

corrected a typo

 

[Sparhafoc]

I am not condoning slavery, should we add this assertion to the list of lies that you have made?

Sure! It can go with the list of lies I've made that exists only in your head, and which you can't provide a single jot of evidence for.

Of course, we know it's just the childish playground version of 'no, you are' because you KEEP lying about what I said, and I keep calling you out for it. Guess it smarts even when you think you're the fulcrum of the universe.

Anyway, it was your argument, if you don't mean to condone slavery, perhaps you shouldn't make arguments that very much appear to be condoning slavery.

All I am saying is that there are possible scenarios where regulating slavery is better than forbidding it.

And that's expressly, definitionally, absolutely condoning slavery. That's exactly what condoning means.

No, LEROY - there is NO possible scenario where it is better to regulate slavery rather than banning it.

And, as I already educated you, banning something IS a form of regulation, so your argument is typically incoherent.

and yes I would be the first one to admit that some parts of the bible are hard to accept and that I personally don't like. being slavery one of this examples

Fucking hell LEROY. Are you... being.... human with me? Goodness, I didn't think you had it in you - perhaps there is a god after all!

Well, in the spirit of sharing, the slavery in the Bible was one of the group of problems I encountered while I was still a Christian which lead me to question the validity of the Bible as a work of a divine overseer.

 

[MarsCydonia]

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

You really have no clue about what the bible says Bernhard the slavery-apologist. Take 2 seconds to think, 2 seconds more than usual, was there ever a single time where you posted bull that we did not see it? Why keep on trying? Is your particular denomination big on lying for Jesus or is there some other reason?

So Bernhard, let's see your latest lie.
First, it isn't "in the bible where the man left his wife", it isn't a story being reported, it's a law being explained.
The law being that if a slavemaster has to free a hebrew male slave, if the slavemaster gave him a wife, the wife and their children were not free because they're still the property of the slavemaster. So, not a single time but every time slavemasters gave a wife to a slave that is to be freed.
(and if that doesn't clue you in that they were treated as property when the slavemasters is the one that gives a wife, nothing will).

So second, there's nothing there about a marriage with an unbeliever in the law but it so christian of you that you think the hebrew slavemasters would give canaanite slaves as wives to hebrew slaves... That the hebrew slavemasters would purposefully give the hebrew slaves illegimate wives. Speak a lot of what think marriage responsabilities are...

And third, yeah, that the hebrew male slaves had to be freed in the 7 year does indeed show that they had to be freed in the 7 years but have you missed that the wife and children were not as they were the property of the master?

As far as slavery-apologists go, you may be one of the vile ones but you are not one of the smart ones.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Right because the slave women who wasn't freed was a canaanite. Not a hebrew

Do you some difficulty understanding simple sentences? Perhaps some indoctrination-based damage?

None of the women given as wives were freed nor were their children. Canaanite or hebrew did not matter. And how would the children of hebrews be canaanites? So I can't way to see how you will see answer next. Bullshit spin or run away?

Here's some evidence.

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

You don't know how evidence works do you?
Bullshit presented by someone else is still bullshit.

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

Slavery then: owning human beings as property
Slavery today: owning human beings as property.

Can everyone spot the difference that exists in Bernhard the slavery-apologist's head?

So I see Bernhard the slavery-apologist didnt follow my advice:
Lie better.

 

[leroy]

I am not condoning slavery, should we add this assertion to the list of lies that you have made?

Sure! It can go with the list of lies I've made that exists only in your head, and which you can't provide a single jot of evidence for.

Of course, we know it's just the childish playground version of 'no, you are' because you KEEP lying about what I said, and I keep calling you out for it. Guess it smarts even when you think you're the fulcrum of the universe.

Anyway, it was your argument, if you don't mean to condone slavery, perhaps you shouldn't make arguments that very much appear to be condoning slavery.

All I am saying is that there are possible scenarios where regulating slavery is better than forbidding it.

And that's expressly, definitionally, absolutely condoning slavery. That's exactly what condoning means.

No, LEROY - there is NO possible scenario where it is better to regulate slavery rather than banning it.

And, as I already educated you, banning something IS a form of regulation, so your argument is typically incoherent.

and yes I would be the first one to admit that some parts of the bible are hard to accept and that I personally don't like. being slavery one of this examples

Fucking hell LEROY. Are you... being.... human with me? Goodness, I didn't think you had it in you - perhaps there is a god after all!

Well, in the spirit of sharing, the slavery in the Bible was one of the group of problems I encountered while I was still a Christian which lead me to question the validity of the Bible as a work of a divine overseer.

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

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 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.

 

[leroy]

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?

 

[IBSpify]

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.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

My question seems to have been lost in the back-and-forth, so I'll repeat it:

Bernhard, would you wish to be a slave?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Collecemall]

Right because the slave women who wasn't freed was a canaanite. Not a hebrew

So nationality is a viable reason for continued captivity?

 

[Sparhafoc]

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?