The Moral Argument

[leroy]

In ancient times, just like today, "volunteer" were not slaves. There's something missing there that makes the difference. Are you really that moronic that you do not get it?[

wrong, in ancient some slaves where volunteers, had rights and where willing to stay with their masters, even when they had the option to be free.

this is a historical fact,

I personally don't know if this is also the case for ancient Hebrew slaves ..............do you ?

I'll put it in bold for you Leroy:
Is owning another human being as property morally wrong or "morally ok (at least in some contexts)"?

again, depending on the context..


if Hebrew slaves where volunteers (like many ancient slaves from other cultures) then I would call it morally ok

 

[Bango Skank]

wrong, in ancient some slaves where volunteers, had rights and where willing to stay with their masters, even when they had the option to be free.

this is a historical fact,

I personally don't know if this is also the case for ancient Hebrew slaves ..............do you ?

Hebrew slaves were free to go after 7 years if i remember correctly. But they had to leave their wives and children to their master in exchange. So if you wanted to stay with your wife and kids, you were branded and had to remain slave for that master for rest of your life.

Non hebrew slaves had to be slaves for all of their life with no change to go free.

again, depending on the context..

if Hebrew slaves where volunteers (like many ancient slaves from other cultures) then I would call it morally ok

I think taking advantance of someones desperate situation is not moral.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Slavery apologists, those who try to justify slavery morally, rank among the lowest and vilest of human beings.

wrong, in ancient some slaves where volunteers, had rights and where willing to stay with their masters, even when they had the option to be free.

this is a historical fact,

I personally don't know if this is also the case for ancient Hebrew slaves ..............do you ?

You are as ignorant of historical facts as you are about pretty much everything else.

Someone who is not owned as property and who freely controls his own labor is not a slave Leroy.

Slavery as an understood meaning (one that is understood easily by most people but you do not qualify).

I voluntarily work for my employer, I have rights, I stay with my employer despite being free to quit, yet I am not a slave. Why? Because:
- My employer does not own me as property
- My employer does not control my labor, I am free to quit
- And particularly when it comes to the bible: my employer has no sanction to beat me

Once again Leroy, you effing up a general understanding of a word for Leroy's definition of "slavery" and yet you're still too dumb to realize why we ask what you understand about a term.

The ratio of "Leroy got it right" is abysmal.

if Hebrew slaves where volunteers (like many ancient slaves from other cultures) then I would call it morally ok

So you have gone from "slavery is morally wrong" to "I would call it morally ok". That is quite a change.

One made because you still do not understand what slavery is.

 

[leroy]

Someone who is not owned as property and who freely controls his own labor is not a slave Leroy.

luckily I never affirmed the opposite,


I said in ancient times some slaves where volunteers, some where criminals (slavery was a punishment) some slaves where debt slaves, some slaves where even rich and powerful. etc.


the term slave is a very rich term with many different connotations,. ...............you can not simply assume (without evidence) that the authors of the bible meant the same thing that you imagine, when the term slave was used.

Once again Leroy, you effing up a general understanding of a word for Leroy's definition of "slavery" and yet you're still too dumb to realize why we ask what you understand about a term.

And you are too dumb to understand that my personal understanding for the term slavery is irrelevant.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

No I don't understand, as I made it clear, I am not too familiar with those verses.

...

why cant you understand this>

I am not familiar with the texts that condone slavery, and even if I where, I don't have enough knowledge to comment on them.

Wow! Just wow.

It is almost as if morals were not objective; and if they were, they were not based on anything found in the Bible. I wonder how long it will take before verses about killing homosexuals also will be so easily overlooked and ignored by the Christians in the future.

... some slaves where even rich and powerful.

Citation needed.

Oh, and for the record; I disagree with both of your premises equally.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I have not made it to the end of the Evolution Hates Atheist thread, but it seems this section of that thread jumped to over here.

I have 3 alternatives
1 deny the claim that the bible is the word of God
2 kill homosexuals
3 find a way to reconcile the bible with my personal preferences.

up to this point I cant decide what option should I pick

First dandan/leroy was ignorant of slavery in the Bible, now he comes out and says that a real option he has is killing homosexuals. It is sad what religion can do to a persons mind.

in the absence of a law giver all judgements would be subjective

I always find it hilarious when theists pretend to believe in objective morals, but expose that they actually believe in subjective ones. Submitting to the whims of a Law Giver is Divine Command and the morals the Divine Commander gives are subjective to what it picks. Thus, you also believe morals are subjective since they come from the Divine Commander's whims.

As Steelmage99 also notice:

In addition, any law giver gives laws based on his or her opinions. Meaning that, according to you - as far as I have understood you -, those laws cannot be wrong (and subsequently cannot be right either) as they are only wrong (or right) according to the law giver's personal opinions.
There is nothing objective about that.

this is an example of your stupid tedious and dishonest word games, I don't believe objective moral values exist independently of all minds, if you don't like my definition then feel free to give it an other name, you don't have to call them OMV, if your don't want.

And there it is. Dandan/Leroy admitting that he is calling Divine Command objective morality. You do realize that this means whenever you were asking people to "accept objective morals" and they would have an argument against the Bible, you are asking them to accept Divine Command and not objective morals, right? Which means you were not making any sense in that demand. Objective morality are not synonymous with Divine Command. Beyond that, pointing out a logical fallacy (exposing your special pleading) is not a word game. An honest person would take that criticism and make their argument better.

 

[thenexttodie]

Hebrew slaves were free to go after 7 years if i remember correctly. But they had to leave their wives and children to their master in exchange. So if you wanted to stay with your wife and kids, you were branded and had to remain slave for that master for rest of your life.

Non hebrew slaves had to be slaves for all of their life with no change to go free.

Are you saying you think it was wrong for the Hebrews to have slaves?

 

[Dustnite]

Are you saying you think it was wrong to have slaves?

 

[Akamia]

Hebrew slaves were free to go after 7 years if i remember correctly. But they had to leave their wives and children to their master in exchange. So if you wanted to stay with your wife and kids, you were branded and had to remain slave for that master for rest of your life.

Non hebrew slaves had to be slaves for all of their life with no change to go free.

Are you saying you think it was wrong for the Hebrews to have slaves?

Did you really just say that?

I think the consensus here is that it is wrong for anyone to have slaves, regardless of whether the masters in question were Hebrew or not.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Hebrew slaves were free to go after 7 years if i remember correctly. But they had to leave their wives and children to their master in exchange. So if you wanted to stay with your wife and kids, you were branded and had to remain slave for that master for rest of your life.

Non hebrew slaves had to be slaves for all of their life with no change to go free.

Are you saying you think it was wrong for the Hebrews to have slaves?

If, as a Christian, you agree with the dictum, "Do unto others as you would be done by", then you cannot support slavery.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Bango Skank]

Are you saying you think it was wrong for the Hebrews to have slaves?

Yeah, but not because they were Hebrews, it goes for all.

Are you saying you think it was okay for the Hebrews to have slaves, because they were God's "chosen" people?

 

[thenexttodie]

Are you saying you think it was wrong for the Hebrews to have slaves?

Yeah, but not because they were Hebrews, it goes for all.

That's cool. Here is how I explained slavery in a prior thread

"Slavery was an acceptable method of man sustaining his life in a time where day to day where mere day to day survival was not guaranteed. In the earliest times of slavery, wealth would mostly have been held by tribal leaders and rulers of small kingdoms. There would have been little opportunity for independent, economic ventures. Slaves were subject to beatings as a punishment. And so were non-slaves of course.

"

Are you saying you think it was okay for the Hebrews to have slaves, because they were God's "chosen" people?

No.

 

[Steelmage99]

@thenexttodie

Do you acknowledge that a difference exists between indentured servitude (essentially a contract between two people concerning work and compensation for said work) and slavery (owning another person as property with all that relationship lacks and entails)?

Do you acknowledge that both of these states of being are addressed in the Bible?

 

[thenexttodie]

@thenexttodie

Do you acknowledge that a difference exists between indentured servitude (essentially a contract between two people concerning work and compensation for said work) and slavery (owning another person as property with all that relationship lacks and entails)?

Do you acknowledge that both of these states of being are addressed in the Bible?

Yes. People had real slaves back then. Whether or not you believe God is real, you must agree that we know slavery existed during the earliest times of recorded human history.

We would both agree that it was Man who invented slavery, not God? Correct?

 

[Bango Skank]

We would both agree that it was Man who invented slavery, not God? Correct?

God certainly gave a greenlight on slavery.

 

[Steelmage99]

@thenexttodie

Do you acknowledge that a difference exists between indentured servitude (essentially a contract between two people concerning work and compensation for said work) and slavery (owning another person as property with all that relationship lacks and entails)?

Do you acknowledge that both of these states of being are addressed in the Bible?

Yes. People had real slaves back then. Whether or not you believe God is real, you must agree that we know slavery existed during the earliest times of recorded human history.

We would both agree that it was Man who invented slavery, not God? Correct?

Yep, humans has enslaved each other for almost all of human history - until we humans rather recently decided that this state of affairs wasn't really a thing we wanted on modern societies.

It was absolutely "invented" by humans. I put it in quotation marks because I don't think we actually invented it as such, but rather it was a part of our early nature and our less refined ideas about society.

You didn't answer my second question;

Do you acknowledge that both of these states of being (indentured servitude and slavery) are addressed in the Bible?

 

[thenexttodie]

We would both agree that it was Man who invented slavery, not God? Correct?

God certainly gave a greenlight on slavery.

Slavery was man made industry. We have a record of God doing several miracles just to set slaves free in a single nation and the result was that the freed slaves rejected God.

 

[thenexttodie]

You didn't answer my second question;

Do you acknowledge that both of these states of being (indentured servitude and slavery) are addressed in the Bible?

It probably does, I don't know.

When I am talking about slavery I am not talking about indentured servitude.

 

[thenexttodie]

Yes it does. Sorry my mind failed me. What is your point?

 

[Steelmage99]

Yes it does. Sorry my mind failed me. What is your point?

Nothing beyond the question itself.
I have previously had a conversation about the subject, and the person I talked to dishonestly keep switching between the two.
When questioned he wouldn't even acknowledge that they were two different things.