Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[BilliardsBall]

So you've once again changed your stance regarding morality by contradicting yourself, saying that biblical morality is not morality.

Huh? I wrote "Morality of an individual is measured by their adherence to biblical morality. Jesus said His words will judge us both, on Judgment Day."

I measure your morality as relative morality against Bible morality as an absolute, and do the same for my morality.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So slavery is "always" right, got it. With that being said, I would have to ask, "why is slavery wrong when a Hebrew takes another Hebrew as a slave?" I always thought (no pun intended) that "always" means, "at all times; on all occasions." So why is it wrong on the occasion in which the would be slave happens to be a Hebrew?

Kindly answer those questions with sincere honesty please.


Wrong. Choice of work assignment, work location, hours of work, etc. ARE in our realm of choice.

The modern employment where I'm from(USA), I have the choice to refuse the work assignment given to me if it is a potential danger to my physical wellbeing, my physical life. It's called, work ethics.

I have the choice to work for an employer in Los Angeles or in New York, whereas a slave can't choose to be the slave of a slave owner in Los Angeles if he was sold to a different slave owner in New York. Of course that slave can choose to run away, but obviously, that means that that person is no longer a slave to his previous owner.

I have the choice to work part-time or full-time, a slave cannot choose to be a part-time slave.

I my boss introduces me to a co-worker and I decide to marry her, if I quit my job or gets fired, my wife has the choice to quit the job and leave with me, if a slave owner chooses to utilize the loophole, he can introduce slave A to slave B hoping they will marry each other. And once they do end up marrying each other, the slave owner can purposely free slave A (knowingly that both slaves won't leave the other one behind to continue the life being a slave), since slave A is no longer a slave and have become known as person A, in order for the couple to live their lives together, person A must become a slave once again, but this time the slave owner owns slave A forever.

Yes, I agree, a Jewish slave had more opportunity of work location, say, then a Gentile slave. Kindly address what I wrote, next, and I ask you again to confine yourself to one thread with me inside a larger thread, and not four. Thanks.

 

[night912]

Before proceeding to your fresh questions, I've answered you in detail regarding prior questions--despite what you wrote here. Did you not read. for one example, what I wrote about morality not having to do with obeying straight orders (aka I AGREE with you) but that also there are subtleties of obedience for any slave/servant/employee, for example?

I want to have a discussion with you, not hear rhetoric and false accusations.[/QUOTE]
I read all your posts, and you never answered my old questions. Please answer them before we move on.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Before proceeding to your fresh questions, I've answered you in detail regarding prior questions--despite what you wrote here. Did you not read. for one example, what I wrote about morality not having to do with obeying straight orders (aka I AGREE with you) but that also there are subtleties of obedience for any slave/servant/employee, for example?

I want to have a discussion with you, not hear rhetoric and false accusations.

I read all your posts, and you never answered my old questions. Please answer them before we move on.[/QUOTE]

I feel much the same way, but am willing to answer. Since I've done so badly in the past, perhaps you'll do me the courtesy of giving me your three most important questions in this subject under discussion. Thank you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Before proceeding to your fresh questions, I've answered you in detail regarding prior questions--despite what you wrote here. Did you not read. for one example, what I wrote about morality not having to do with obeying straight orders (aka I AGREE with you) but that also there are subtleties of obedience for any slave/servant/employee, for example?

I want to have a discussion with you, not hear rhetoric and false accusations.

These aren't fresh questions.

If you agree with me that morality is not about obeying straight orders, then why are you advocating for exactly that?
You told me that, "Morality (to me) is about how closely a person adheres to biblical morality."
Biblical morality consists of a bunch of orders (aka "commandments") supposedly sent down by the moral arbiter of the universe (at least in your opinion.) Why don't you tell us what happens to us if we don't follow those commands?

I'm confused.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't agree with your obfuscation of the obvious word "neighbor" and you are forgetting both OT and NT examples, like the Good Samaritan parable where a persecuted, subjugated person by class (Samaria resident) treated a Jew AS his neighbor.

Instead of focusing on that, perhaps you could just answer the question.

Besides, you're the one attempting to obfuscate the word "neighbour" and apply it to slaves, which is what I was pointing out in the first place. Can you show me a passage in the Bible that speaks about being nice to your neighbours, where the passage is talking about your slave neighbours? No, you can't. Because it doesn't exist.

--The Bible DOES state there is a LIMIT on the punishment for beating a fellow Jew who is a free citizen and not a slave, yes. The Bible says love your neighbor also.

Look, if you're going to accuse me of obfuscation, it's probably best not to do it yourself in the very next sentence.

We're not talking about Jewish slaves who can be freed unless they are tricked into taking a wife. We are talking about the rest of them. As myself and another poster have repeatedly pointed out.

The fact that you keep trying to focus on Jewish slaves while ignoring the ones who are treated more harshly instead, speaks volumes about your position, I think.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Instead of focusing on that, perhaps you could just answer the question.

Besides, you're the one attempting to obfuscate the word "neighbour" and apply it to slaves, which is what I was pointing out in the first place. Can you show me a passage in the Bible that speaks about being nice to your neighbours, where the passage is talking about your slave neighbours? No, you can't. Because it doesn't exist.


Look, if you're going to accuse me of obfuscation, it's probably best not to do it yourself in the very next sentence.

We're not talking about Jewish slaves who can be freed unless they are tricked into taking a wife. We are talking about the rest of them. As myself and another poster have repeatedly pointed out.

The fact that you keep trying to focus on Jewish slaves while ignoring the ones who are treated more harshly instead, speaks volumes about your position, I think.

These aren't fresh questions.

If you agree with me that morality is not about obeying straight orders, then why are you advocating for exactly that?
You told me that, "Morality (to me) is about how closely a person adheres to biblical morality."
Biblical morality consists of a bunch of orders (aka "commandments") supposedly sent down by the moral arbiter of the universe (at least in your opinion.) Why don't you tell us what happens to us if we don't follow those commands?

I'm confused.

**

I agree with you that morality is not about obeying straight orders but a personal conviction acted upon--however--as I've said to dear friends with great character, "You don't often pray about what to do in moral choices because you've internalized good character/what is right... [biblical commands]." Ergo, a set of standards to which we can rebel or conform with the most moral/righteous people wanting to please their father in obedience from the heart/submissively... which leads to the morality of a slave obeying their master, particularly where their master is a strong Christian. In fine, you can have a godly slaver with a wicked, rebellious slave--mindblowing to you (and frankly, me) I know.

We need not focus on Jewish slaves. Gentile slaves in Israel were:

The specific case of slavery is more complex than first appears...there is no monolithic 'institution' of slavery in the bible--e.g. the OT has SEVERAL models of what might be called 'slavery' and much of what passed as slavery in the ANE is no longer considered such in socio-economic understandings of the period and area.

Source: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Now I agree with you that there is no passage in the OT about loving your neighbor who is a slave. There is also no passage about loving your neighbor who is your cousin, uncle, a Hittite, Jebusite, the King and Queen, an anointed prophet, etc. Your argument from silence is not compelling to any person, biblical or secular, who knows there are brief statements in the OT to love one's neighbor . . .

. . . What we DO have is the concept of oikos or "circle", because even if I move to Myanmar to share the gospel, I'm still living the gospel with NEIGHBORS, even though I went to reach others.

Abraham begged God to give Eliezer all his immense power and wealth AFTER God said he'd have a son finally! Repeating: The specific case of slavery is more complex than first appears...there is no monolithic 'institution' of slavery in the bible--e.g. the OT has SEVERAL models of what might be called 'slavery' and much of what passed as slavery in the ANE is no longer considered such in socio-economic understandings of the period and area.

 

[SkepticThinker]

These aren't fresh questions.

I know.

If you agree with me that morality is not about obeying straight orders, then why are you advocating for exactly that?
You told me that, "Morality (to me) is about how closely a person adheres to biblical morality."
Biblical morality consists of a bunch of orders (aka "commandments") supposedly sent down by the moral arbiter of the universe (at least in your opinion.) Why don't you tell us what happens to us if we don't follow those commands?

I'm confused.

**

I agree with you that morality is not about obeying straight orders but a personal conviction acted upon--however--as I've said to dear friends with great character, "You don't often pray about what to do in moral choices because you've internalized good character/what is right... [biblical commands]." Ergo, a set of standards to which we can rebel or conform with the most moral/righteous people wanting to please their father in obedience from the heart/submissively... which leads to the morality of a slave obeying their master, particularly where their master is a strong Christian. In fine, you can have a godly slaver with a wicked, rebellious slave--mindblowing to you (and frankly, me) I know.

Do you not see the contradiction in stating that "morality is not about obeying straight orders" while also stating that "moral/righteous people" obey God's orders " to please their father in obedience from the heart/submissively " and emphasizing the "morality of a slave obeying their master"... ?

That sure sounds like following orders to me. Do tell, what happens to you if you don't follow those orders?

We need not focus on Jewish slaves. Gentile slaves in Israel were:

The specific case of slavery is more complex than first appears...there is no monolithic 'institution' of slavery in the bible--e.g. the OT has SEVERAL models of what might be called 'slavery' and much of what passed as slavery in the ANE is no longer considered such in socio-economic understandings of the period and area.

Source: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Now I agree with you that there is no passage in the OT about loving your neighbor who is a slave. There is also no passage about loving your neighbor who is your cousin, uncle, a Hittite, Jebusite, the King and Queen, an anointed prophet, etc. Your argument from silence is not compelling to any person, biblical or secular, who knows there are brief statements in the OT to love one's neighbor . . .

. . . What we DO have is the concept of oikos or "circle", because even if I move to Myanmar to share the gospel, I'm still living the gospel with NEIGHBORS, even though I went to reach others.

Abraham begged God to give Eliezer all his immense power and wealth AFTER God said he'd have a son finally! Repeating: The specific case of slavery is more complex than first appears...there is no monolithic 'institution' of slavery in the bible--e.g. the OT has SEVERAL models of what might be called 'slavery' and much of what passed as slavery in the ANE is no longer considered such in socio-economic understandings of the period and area.

This just sounds like an attempt to explain away the actual descriptions of slavery contained within the Bible. Sorry but it's there for all to read.

Of course you want to focus on Jewish slaves, as you've been trying to do during every conversation I have with you about this. Because slavery for them was slightly more pleasant and they had the opportunity to be freed (unless, of course, they were tricked into taking a wife). But these are not the slaves we are talking about and never have been. Please stop deflecting to Jewish slaves.

If you want me to believe that slaves are just like any other neighbour, then you'll have to explain why the Bible asks you to treat them worse than you'd treat any other neighbour, including your Jewish ones. Does the Bible explain how you can treat the local butcher down the street or your fellow free man, by explaining how you can beat him without punishment, as long as he doesn't die within a few days?

 

[night912]

I feel much the same way, but am willing to answer. Since I've done so badly in the past, perhaps you'll do me the courtesy of giving me your three most important questions in this subject under discussion. Thank you.

How about you just answer my questions and not trying to dodge them again.

 

[night912]

To BilliardsBall and anyone else,
Is it immoral for someone to commit the "act" of sex trafficking?

For clarification, definition below.

Sex trafficking is human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, including sexual slavery, which is considered a form of modern slavery.

Sex trafficking - Wikipedia

Short. Simple. And straight to the point. Enough said.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I know.



Do you not see the contradiction in stating that "morality is not about obeying straight orders" while also stating that "moral/righteous people" obey God's orders " to please their father in obedience from the heart/submissively " and emphasizing the "morality of a slave obeying their master"... ?

That sure sounds like following orders to me. Do tell, what happens to you if you don't follow those orders?



This just sounds like an attempt to explain away the actual descriptions of slavery contained within the Bible. Sorry but it's there for all to read.

Of course you want to focus on Jewish slaves, as you've been trying to do during every conversation I have with you about this. Because slavery for them was slightly more pleasant and they had the opportunity to be freed (unless, of course, they were tricked into taking a wife). But these are not the slaves we are talking about and never have been. Please stop deflecting to Jewish slaves.

If you want me to believe that slaves are just like any other neighbour, then you'll have to explain why the Bible asks you to treat them worse than you'd treat any other neighbour, including your Jewish ones. Does the Bible explain how you can treat the local butcher down the street or your fellow free man, by explaining how you can beat him without punishment, as long as he doesn't die within a few days?

There are levels of obedience. You find it amoral to blindly obey orders, I do also, however, the Bible explains that following orders wholeheartedly can lead to glory, even power. Consider, for example, the second most powerful man in an empire, the military leader who submits to an emperor.

"Sorry but it's there for all to read" is our mutual understanding that it looks damning at face value before you make an effort--which the author I quoted did, and I myself did, but you didn't--to clarify the text via source language and historical context. The issue there is that I've linked you to thousands of words on the subject including language definitions, Bible and ANE examples, etc. and you won't read them.

YES some Israelites owned slaves, NO you are misunderstanding the slave/owner relationship in the ANE in general and ancient Israel in the specific, therefore, most of your arguments--while I respect your right to argue--are strawmen to me.

YES, you can punch a slave or a free man per the Bible and be punished eye for eye or not at all if his tooth is lost, NO if you punch a slave or a free man and he dies, punishment ranges up to capital punishment--YOU die.

You are missing the obvious--not through any fault of your own--so I'll detail it. Imagine a scenario where you knock my tooth out and I forgive you. Ancient Israel wasn't ancient Italy--which is the point of the Bible's moral blessings to a society--in Italy--I come-a ova and-a I kill-a you family because-a you knock-a my tooth out.

If a master knocks a slave's tooth loose the judges/town elders had two routes they could go in the Mosaic Law--and I know if we were looking at say, Georgia State Law, and you quoted one statute, I could quote a mitigating or complimentary statute, right? You knock a tooth loose and the judge could fine the master for the slave, let it go if there were circumstances/no punishment, but could not execute the offending master unless the slave DIED.

You assume based on bias or cultural understanding that the master waltzed up to a slave and knocked his tooth out, not realizing that in that culture, the slave could actually strike the master and they could have a boxing match for a while. Don't think so? The people class with the most laws written about them to execute them for capital crimes was the MASTER class. That's really the point. It was a CAPITAL crime to kidnap someone in the Bible. So slaves were often the result of war or even--there's a Bible story, people who fear the Israelites and come to them to become a class of indentured servants.

 

[BilliardsBall]

To BilliardsBall and anyone else,
Is it immoral for someone to commit the "act" of sex trafficking?

For clarification, definition below.

Sex trafficking is human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, including sexual slavery, which is considered a form of modern slavery.

Sex trafficking - Wikipedia

Short. Simple. And straight to the point. Enough said.

Huh? Per the Bible, kidnapping a person for ANY reason is a CAPITAL offense. The Israelites were strictly disallowed from human trafficking and the few slaves in Israel came to them by other means--you'd know more if you studied the whole topic of slavery throughout the Bible.

 

[night912]

Huh? Per the Bible, kidnapping a person for ANY reason is a CAPITAL offense. The Israelites were strictly disallowed from human trafficking and the few slaves in Israel came to them by other means--you'd know more if you studied the whole topic of slavery throughout the Bible.

Slavery is not, but nonetheless, you donated money to an organization to help prevent sexual SLAVERY.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Slavery is not, but nonetheless, you donated money to an organization to help prevent sexual SLAVERY.

I agree with you--the Israelites were forbidden from trafficking, prostitution--and--wait for it--abortion. I give money and time both to ending sex slavery and murder. You have at least one double standard.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are levels of obedience. You find it amoral to blindly obey orders, I do also, however, the Bible explains that following orders wholeheartedly can lead to glory, even power. Consider, for example, the second most powerful man in an empire, the military leader who submits to an emperor.

So we are talking about obedience, as I pointed out. Doesn't matter how many levels or whatever. We're talking about obedience. In your mind, morality is obedience to what a person thinks God's wishes are. So in essence, you are saying that God is morality.

Following orders can also lead to mass immorality and disaster, as seen during the Holocaust where we learned that excuse just doesn't fly. So if following orders can lead to good things, and to bad things, maybe we need some other standard for morality, don't you think? Maybe like actually considering the consequences of our actions and how they affect the wellbeing of ourselves and others, while exercising some empathy.

"Sorry but it's there for all to read" is our mutual understanding that it looks damning at face value before you make an effort--which the author I quoted did, and I myself did, but you didn't--to clarify the text via source language and historical context. The issue there is that I've linked you to thousands of words on the subject including language definitions, Bible and ANE examples, etc. and you won't read them.

What you and the author you are quoting are doing is apologetics. You're not looking at it for what it is and what it says. You are looking at it with an eye to justify and rationalize it. Because you have no other choice, because it's right there in your holy book.

YES some Israelites owned slaves, NO you are misunderstanding the slave/owner relationship in the ANE in general and ancient Israel in the specific, therefore, most of your arguments--while I respect your right to argue--are strawmen to me.

No, you are obfuscating the slave/owner relationship in order to minimize the immorality of it and to try to rationalize it.

YES, you can punch a slave or a free man per the Bible and be punished eye for eye or not at all if his tooth is lost, NO if you punch a slave or a free man and he dies, punishment ranges up to capital punishment--YOU die.

Thanks for verifying that it's moral to beat a slave to within inches of their life without any punishment whatsoever.
And you think that's moral because well, they're not killing him though!
I really don't think you are this immoral BB.

You are missing the obvious--not through any fault of your own--so I'll detail it. Imagine a scenario where you knock my tooth out and I forgive you. Ancient Israel wasn't ancient Italy--which is the point of the Bible's moral blessings to a society--in Italy--I come-a ova and-a I kill-a you family because-a you knock-a my tooth out.

If a master knocks a slave's tooth loose the judges/town elders had two routes they could go in the Mosaic Law--and I know if we were looking at say, Georgia State Law, and you quoted one statute, I could quote a mitigating or complimentary statute, right? You knock a tooth loose and the judge could fine the master for the slave, let it go if there were circumstances/no punishment, but could not execute the offending master unless the slave DIED.

I think you're missing the obvious when you try to justify and rationalize Iron Age thinking in the 21st Century.
One would think God's laws would be timeless and universal, but they certainly don't appear to be.

You assume based on bias or cultural understanding that the master waltzed up to a slave and knocked his tooth out, not realizing that in that culture, the slave could actually strike the master and they could have a boxing match for a while. Don't think so? The people class with the most laws written about them to execute them for capital crimes was the MASTER class. That's really the point. It was a CAPITAL crime to kidnap someone in the Bible. So slaves were often the result of war or even--there's a Bible story, people who fear the Israelites and come to them to become a class of indentured servants.

So you can't kidnap someone unless you perceive them as a spoil of war? Then it's okay?
How is this moral from the perspective of the person being taken as a spoil of war?



Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."


This describes the purchase and sale of slaves as property. What it is describing is a slave trade system.

 

[night912]

I agree with you--the Israelites were forbidden from trafficking, prostitution--and--wait for it--abortion. I give money and time both to ending sex slavery and murder. You have at least one double standard.

Sexual Slavery

In Pakistan, young girls have been sold by their families to big-city brothel owners. Often this happens due to poverty or debt, whereby the family has no other way to raise the money than to sell the young girl.

Sexual slavery - Wikipedia

Yep indentured servitude.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So we are talking about obedience, as I pointed out. Doesn't matter how many levels or whatever. We're talking about obedience. In your mind, morality is obedience to what a person thinks God's wishes are. So in essence, you are saying that God is morality.

Following orders can also lead to mass immorality and disaster, as seen during the Holocaust where we learned that excuse just doesn't fly. So if following orders can lead to good things, and to bad things, maybe we need some other standard for morality, don't you think? Maybe like actually considering the consequences of our actions and how they affect the wellbeing of ourselves and others, while exercising some empathy.



What you and the author you are quoting are doing is apologetics. You're not looking at it for what it is and what it says. You are looking at it with an eye to justify and rationalize it. Because you have no other choice, because it's right there in your holy book.


No, you are obfuscating the slave/owner relationship in order to minimize the immorality of it and to try to rationalize it.


Thanks for verifying that it's moral to beat a slave to within inches of their life without any punishment whatsoever.
And you think that's moral because well, they're not killing him though!
I really don't think you are this immoral BB.


I think you're missing the obvious when you try to justify and rationalize Iron Age thinking in the 21st Century.
One would think God's laws would be timeless and universal, but they certainly don't appear to be.



So you can't kidnap someone unless you perceive them as a spoil of war? Then it's okay?
How is this moral from the perspective of the person being taken as a spoil of war?



Leviticus 25:44-46
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."


This describes the purchase and sale of slaves as property. What it is describing is a slave trade system.

I urge you to consider the difference between following the orders of Jesus like "Love your neighbor" and "Put down the sword" and the orders of Hitler. I discern a vast difference between obeying the two. You don't see levels of morality in obeying my mom or obeying a gang leader? Obeying religious conviction of choosing to join the SS instead of the regular German army? Really?

I did not "verify that it's moral to beat a slave to within inches of their life without any punishment whatsoever." I've given you examples of how people, slaves and masters, were to be judged in ancient Israel for crimes and for righteousness. For example, we are discussing the law that ends " . . . if they do not die." What happens if the slave does die? The master is put to death. Just one reason to sort Israelite slavery from antebellum slavery. You can't have it both ways and talk constantly about relative morality, "It's more moral to parse an order and weigh an order than to obey an order", while not parsing and weighing Israelite practice and jurisprudence.

You can't have it both ways on another important issue, either. I do assert your right to focus on a few out of hundreds of Bible laws and precepts, I don't assert the validity of rejecting source studies with thousands of words on source language and ACTUAL slave practices of the ANE and ancient Israel with hand waving, and I've tried very patiently to present to you facts and concepts that you won't consider, so feel free to have the last word on this subject.

Thank you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sexual Slavery

In Pakistan, young girls have been sold by their families to big-city brothel owners. Often this happens due to poverty or debt, whereby the family has no other way to raise the money than to sell the young girl.

Sexual slavery - Wikipedia

Yep indentured servitude.

No that is sex slavery, not "sex indentured servitude". I recognize both that indenture and slavery are different and that the Israelites were forbidden sex trafficking and prostitution, while in Muslim and Hindu nations, unfortunately, karma or Allah's will is invoked in defense of the practice, which is why I financially support a ministry that rescues people from sex slavery overseas.

If you'd like to keep discussing slavery, I'm less interested than if you'd like to discuss slavery in the Bible and in the ANE.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I urge you to consider the difference between following the orders of Jesus like "Love your neighbor" and "Put down the sword" and the orders of Hitler. I discern a vast difference between obeying the two. You don't see levels of morality in obeying my mom or obeying a gang leader? Obeying religious conviction of choosing to join the SS instead of the regular German army? Really?

We're not talking about levels of morality. We're talking about levels of obedience, as per your assertion that morality amounts to following dictates from the Bible/God.

My assertion is that simply obeying orders without actually analyzing them and considering the consequences of our actions and how they affect ourselves and those around us, is not a practice in morality. It's a practice in how well we can follow orders. If the Nazis ordered me to kill someone, I can carry out this kind of analysis to determine whether the action is a moral one or not. Same goes if the Nazis order me to brush my teeth. The action I'm commanded to take isn't wrong or bad depending on who it comes from. Rather, it's wrong or bad (or good and right) depending on the consequences that will occur if I carry out such an action. I'm guessing you think that anything God tells us to do must be moral, by default?

Just because a God commands an action, doesn't make it moral. Just because a gang leader may command an action doesn't make it immoral. It depends what the action is and how it affects oneself and others.

I did not "verify that it's moral to beat a slave to within inches of their life without any punishment whatsoever."

You did, actually. You confirmed that is what the Bible says. You made a big point to point out that if you kill your slave you will be punished, after I pointed out that there is no punishment for beating a slave to within inches of their life, as long as they ended up living.

I've given you examples of how people, slaves and masters, were to be judged in ancient Israel for crimes and for righteousness.

In doing so, you keep avoiding my point. According to what you are describing to me, morality changes over time. There is no timeless, universal moral code that God laid down at the beginning of time. Rather, this God changes his mind about what is morality depending on what time period we are living in.
Which is funny, because that's what I would expect to see from human beings who have evolved and progressed over time as they learned and grew as a society. To me, it's some of the best evidence that we make our own morality, rather than deriving it from a deity.

For example, we are discussing the law that ends " . . . if they do not die." What happens if the slave does die? The master is put to death. Just one reason to sort Israelite slavery from antebellum slavery. You can't have it both ways and talk constantly about relative morality, "It's more moral to parse an order and weigh an order than to obey an order", while not parsing and weighing Israelite practice and jurisprudence.

You already said this in the last post. The paragraph right before this was my response to it.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. That is specifically what the Bible says about it. You're the one trying to have it both ways here.

Also, I'm not talking about relative morality. As pointed out several times now.

You can't have it both ways on another important issue, either. I do assert your right to focus on a few out of hundreds of Bible laws and precepts, I don't assert the validity of rejecting source studies with thousands of words on source language and ACTUAL slave practices of the ANE and ancient Israel with hand waving, and I've tried very patiently to present to you facts and concepts that you won't consider, so feel free to have the last word on this subject.

Thank you.

Sorry but I'm not interested in apologetics that I've already discussed. I don't need interpretations that seek to sugar coat immoral practices, because what you're essentially trying to do is say that the Bible doesn't say what it says.

I'm interested in reading what the Bible actually says about slavery.

 

[night912]

No that is sex slavery, not "sex indentured servitude". I recognize both that indenture and slavery are different and that the Israelites were forbidden sex trafficking and prostitution, while in Muslim and Hindu nations, unfortunately, karma or Allah's will is invoked in defense of the practice, which is why I financially support a ministry that rescues people from sex slavery overseas.

If you'd like to keep discussing slavery, I'm less interested than if you'd like to discuss slavery in the Bible and in the ANE.

You're the only one who is constantly avoiding talking about slavery, both in and out of the bible. Sometimes, things like this are needed in order for some individuals to realize that they're point is fallacious.

Since you finally admitted that you agree with others in here regarding slavery, in that it is not the same as indentured servitude, we can finally have the discussion about why slavery is immoral. Now that you yourself have shown that you understand the point that your opponents have made in regards to everytime that you bring up indentured servitude, that it is fallacious and simply just a dishonest response in order for you to avoid discussing about actual slavery.

So let's recap what was discussed. You contradicting yourself when you argue that biblical morality is absolute but provided evidence that shows that it is not absolute. You were also contradicting yourself when you said that your morality is based on biblical morality but provided evidence that you disagree with some of the things the bible teach as being moral. You may have said that slavery is morally right, but you contradict that by telling us that you donate money to agencies that are against slavery and is working to prevent/end slavery. That right there, shows that you actually believe that slavery is immoral.

Now that you've acknowledged that indentured servitude is irrelevant to slavery since they are two different and separate things, you can no longer use that as excuse to avoid discussing slavery. In doing so, you will only be showing that your way of thinking and reasoning is irrational.

So let's continue with this discussion regarding slavery in the bible.