Slavery in the Bible: more than meets the eye?

[viole]

Yes the destructive power of such reasoned responses as "I do not care" and "It doesn't matter" have utterly destroyed me.

When i asked why you do not debate you gave me your answer about whether this was a discussion or not when you said you were merely checking MY so called moral standard, against your standard i assume. I have given you my thoughts so what else is there to do.
...........................................

If you wish go back to post 374 and give the Genghis Khan and morality of war stuff another try and actually address the points. I would like to be destroyed on those topics so that i never make the mistake again. Please share your wisdom.
........................................

You could also PLEASE answer this with a better response than "i don't care"............Does it have any bearings on the morality of the situation in your view when both sides knew what the stakes were to be and engaged in battle anyway? This in my opinion is what destroys your argument that something immoral was going on.

My impression is that it is you answering with 1-liners to my posts, the one trying to not be involved.

And then invoke abortion, as if a bunch of human duplicating cells, that you would be unable to distinguish from the ones of an amoeba, would be a person. Or invoke Stalin and Pol Pot, who would serve the only purpose of showing to be in the same moral league of your moral giver.

Very well, then. I declare here that mandating to dash little children against walls, is morally reprehensible. Period. Even in war.

Now what?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Moz]

My impression is that it is you answering with 1-liners to my posts, the one trying to not be involved.



And then invoke abortion, as if a bunch of human duplicating cells, that you would be unable to distinguish from the ones of an amoeba, would be a person. Or invoke Stalin and Pol Pot, who would serve the only purpose of showing to be in the same moral league of your moral giver.

Very well, then. I declare here that mandating to dash little children against walls, is morally reprehensible. Period. Even in war.

Now what?

Ciao

- viole

I asked TWO questions that you didn't even bother to acknowledge while at the same time accusing me of......My impression is that it is you answering with 1-liners to my posts, the one trying to not be involved.

If you could back up your claim about Genghis Khan like activity instead of dodging the issue that may generate some discussion. Surely you have dozens accounts of this bloodthirsty God commanding rape slaughter and enslavement let's look and see if you were right or if your were just being hyperbolic.
...................................................
And then invoke abortion, as if a bunch of human duplicating cells, that you would be unable to distinguish from the ones of an amoeba, would be a person.

When a family member comes and tells me that they are 8 weeks pregnant i DO NOT say to them that it is ....... a bunch of human duplicating cells, that you would be unable to distinguish from the ones of an amoeba. I congratulate them on the impending child. I find it interesting how you can separate the life of a child by some personal arbitrary line.
I personally see the killing of fetuses as morally reprehensible. Period .
........................................................
Or invoke Stalin and Pol Pot, who would serve the only purpose of showing to be in the same moral league of your moral giver.

I also invoked Churchill and Eisenhower, strategic bombing if you can remember. It is YOU who invoked dictators with the Mafia Genghis Khan stuff.
So.......i take it that you judge the West as totally immoral for killing women and children in the bombing campaigns of ww2. That is an OK conclusion but it is by no means the consensus position.
Now i would write a couple of paragraphs to flesh the argument out, and to not be accused of one liners but i don't know if you will even engage on the topic so what is the point. If you address then subject i will respond with copious quotes and examples of the leading moral philosophers of the 20th century. All you need to do is engage.
............................................
In a previous post i pointed out that two sides engaged in combat with both sides offering the SAME consequences to the vanquished makes all this stuff morally neutral... you said you did not care. You could give a thought out explanation of why you think it is still immoral.
...............................................
In a previous post i attempted to discuss the Hyperbolic nature of Bronze age declarations and mentioned the Assyrian reliefs which show this. You did not even bother to acknowledge or discuss the point.
............................................
In a previous post i pointed out that the Canaanites, despite what you think, were not genocided by the Hebrews. You did not even bother to acknowledge or discuss the point.
...............................................
In a previous post i discussed the Hegemonic position of Jacobs line in the descent from Abraham and how the other tribes acknowledged this but decided to go against the precedent and fought. You did not even bother to acknowledge or discuss the point.
................................................

A bonus question... do you know why the Persian dynasty founded by Cyrus the great is called the Achaemenid Dynasty even though it contained many other Persian tribes. Or the Abbisads for that matter. If you don't then you do not understand the times we are talking about. If you do then apply the same principle to the Hebrews.
.....................................................
In a previous post i have explained how Jehovah was required to interact with the nations on THEIR terms not on his terms and thereby followed the standards of war that the opponents wished.............. YES.... THAT IS THE POINT....who would serve the only purpose of showing to be in the same moral league of your moral giver. When fighting people like this Jehovah threw THEIR OWN standards back at them. You did not bother to discuss the point
............................................................
Very well, then. I declare here that mandating to dash little children against walls, is morally reprehensible. Period. Even in war.

And this is to be applied to every case of organised violence in human history. Ok.

I think that this is an area with grey in it and while it can be immoral in some situations in other situations a quick death may be the more humane option. There are any number of scenarios that could be devised where the quick death of a child may be the best option. If you are serious about getting to the heart of this subject and getting past the surface emotion i am sure that you agree. If you do not then i will give you some scenario's in the next reply and you can show me how i am wrong.
........................................................................
Now what?

I guess the balls in your court. Above are a few areas that you failed to discuss, we can go back into any of those and you can actually explain why you feel that none of it informs the issue and doesn't need to be discussed or understood.
.................................................

 

[viole]

I asked TWO questions that you didn't even bother to acknowledge while at the same time accusing me of......My impression is that it is you answering with 1-liners to my posts, the one trying to not be involved.

If you could back up your claim about Genghis Khan like activity instead of dodging the issue that may generate some discussion. Surely you have dozens accounts of this bloodthirsty God commanding rape slaughter and enslavement let's look and see if you were right or if your were just being hyperbolic.
...................................................
And then invoke abortion, as if a bunch of human duplicating cells, that you would be unable to distinguish from the ones of an amoeba, would be a person.

When a family member comes and tells me that they are 8 weeks pregnant i DO NOT say to them that it is ....... a bunch of human duplicating cells, that you would be unable to distinguish from the ones of an amoeba. I congratulate them on the impending child. I find it interesting how you can separate the life of a child by some personal arbitrary line.
I personally see the killing of fetuses as morally reprehensible. Period .
........................................................
Or invoke Stalin and Pol Pot, who would serve the only purpose of showing to be in the same moral league of your moral giver.

I also invoked Churchill and Eisenhower, strategic bombing if you can remember. It is YOU who invoked dictators with the Mafia Genghis Khan stuff.
So.......i take it that you judge the West as totally immoral for killing women and children in the bombing campaigns of ww2. That is an OK conclusion but it is by no means the consensus position.
Now i would write a couple of paragraphs to flesh the argument out, and to not be accused of one liners but i don't know if you will even engage on the topic so what is the point. If you address then subject i will respond with copious quotes and examples of the leading moral philosophers of the 20th century. All you need to do is engage.
............................................
In a previous post i pointed out that two sides engaged in combat with both sides offering the SAME consequences to the vanquished makes all this stuff morally neutral... you said you did not care. You could give a thought out explanation of why you think it is still immoral.
...............................................
In a previous post i attempted to discuss the Hyperbolic nature of Bronze age declarations and mentioned the Assyrian reliefs which show this. You did not even bother to acknowledge or discuss the point.
............................................
In a previous post i pointed out that the Canaanites, despite what you think, were not genocided by the Hebrews. You did not even bother to acknowledge or discuss the point.
...............................................
In a previous post i discussed the Hegemonic position of Jacobs line in the descent from Abraham and how the other tribes acknowledged this but decided to go against the precedent and fought. You did not even bother to acknowledge or discuss the point.
................................................

A bonus question... do you know why the Persian dynasty founded by Cyrus the great is called the Achaemenid Dynasty even though it contained many other Persian tribes. Or the Abbisads for that matter. If you don't then you do not understand the times we are talking about. If you do then apply the same principle to the Hebrews.
.....................................................
In a previous post i have explained how Jehovah was required to interact with the nations on THEIR terms not on his terms and thereby followed the standards of war that the opponents wished.............. YES.... THAT IS THE POINT....who would serve the only purpose of showing to be in the same moral league of your moral giver. When fighting people like this Jehovah threw THEIR OWN standards back at them. You did not bother to discuss the point
............................................................
Very well, then. I declare here that mandating to dash little children against walls, is morally reprehensible. Period. Even in war.

And this is to be applied to every case of organised violence in human history. Ok.

I think that this is an area with grey in it and while it can be immoral in some situations in other situations a quick death may be the more humane option. There are any number of scenarios that could be devised where the quick death of a child may be the best option. If you are serious about getting to the heart of this subject and getting past the surface emotion i am sure that you agree. If you do not then i will give you some scenario's in the next reply and you can show me how i am wrong.
........................................................................
Now what?

I guess the balls in your court. Above are a few areas that you failed to discuss, we can go back into any of those and you can actually explain why you feel that none of it informs the issue and doesn't need to be discussed or understood.
.................................................

Impending child? Is an impending child a child?

Well, but now suppose the foetus is one hour old. Terminating it will still qualify as abortion.
So, is that only a question of embryological development? Whether it still looks like an amoeba or like those little pink dolls anti-abortionists show all the time? If not, why mention the 8 weeks?

A quick death? So, do you think it is moral to mandate the dashing of little kids against walls? I am addressing the order here, not necessarily the act (which might follow later).

Ciao

- viole

 

[Moz]

Well, but now suppose the foetus is one hour old. Terminating it will still qualify as abortion.
So, is that only a question of embryological development? Whether it still looks like an amoeba or like those little puppets anti-abortionists show all the time? If not, why mention the 8 weeks?

A quick death? So, do you think it is moral to mandate the dashing of little kids against walls? I am addressing the order here, not necessarily the act (which might follow later).

Ciao

- viole

I give a substantial post with multiple points and this is your reply.

A defence of the killing of unborn babies and a reiteration of a question i've answered a couple of times already.

Yes telling the Hebrews to play by the same rules as the Canaanites is moral.

Now please go back and address the substance and not the fluff.

 

[viole]

I give a substantial post with multiple points and this is your reply.

A defence of the killing of unborn babies and a reiteration of a question i've answered a couple of times already.

Yes telling the Hebrews to play by the same rules as the Canaanites is moral.

Now please go back and address the substance and not the fluff.

What fluff? You are the one who keeps on running away with the tails between your legs. Or are you withdrawing conclusions because they might undermine your case. Again?

I asked you if you think it is moral to ORDER to dash babies against walls or not. All your replies do not address that at all. You mention Churchill or whomever, as if they were the ultimate standard of morality (in their defence thay did not mandate to dash all German kids against walls).

So, is it ordering that moral, or not?

The germans used to throw kids in the air and see if they can shoot them with their Luger, before they touched ground. Not to speak of gassing them in the millions.

Would have been moral to use these same rules of the Germans when fighting them? yes or no? Does morality depend on what the enemy does? If my enemy rapes, slowly tortures and burns my kids, is it moral for me to do the same with their kids?

Is that what your divinely inspired standard recommends?

Ciao

- viole

 

[tayla]

You help return lost property in the last chapters but when it comes to slaves… you let them stay free.

Is this referring to slaves of non-Israelites? I doubt the Israelites would have such a rule for their own slaves; probably someone would be stoned if an Israelite took possession of another Israelite's slave?

Also, note that the Israelites were all too happy to take possession of other people's slaves (and women and children) when conquering them.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Is this referring to slaves of non-Israelites? I doubt the Israelites would have such a rule for their own slaves; probably someone would be stoned if an Israelite took possession of another Israelite's slave?

Also, note that the Israelites were all too happy to take possession of other people's slaves (and women and children) when conquering them.

This is a blanket rule for any slave that escapes his master.

It is a greater picture of people escaping slavery to sin and finding freedom in Christ.

 

[whirlingmerc]

What fluff? You are the one who keeps on running away with the tails between your legs. Or are you withdrawing conclusions because they might undermine your case. Again?

I asked you if you think it is moral to ORDER to dash babies against walls or not. All your replies do not address that at all. You mention Churchill or whomever, as if they were the ultimate standard of morality (in their defence thay did not mandate to dash all German kids against walls).

So, is it ordering that moral, or not?

The germans used to throw kids in the air and see if they can shoot them with their Luger, before they touched ground. Not to speak of gassing them in the millions.

Would have been moral to use these same rules of the Germans when fighting them? yes or no? Does morality depend on what the enemy does? If my enemy rapes, slowly tortures and burns my kids, is it moral for me to do the same with their kids?

Is that what your divinely inspired standard recommends?

Ciao

- viole

The New Testament rule explicitly said is 'never return evil for evil' and 'do not curse but return a blessing instead'

There is no command to do what you said in the old testament but there is an imprecatory prayer
leaving the vengeance to God for the oppressive Babylonians in a Psalm. All people stand condemned and in the absence of forgiveness in Christ will face a crisis of judgement. That is the claim of the New Testament

Christ who was rich became poor that we might become rich.
Christ who had no sin became sin that we might be the righteousness of God in Him.
Christ became a curse for us on the cross that we might be a blessing.

It's a true redistribution of wealth, God's righteousness wealth.

 

[tas8831]

This is a blanket rule for any slave that escapes his master.

It is a greater picture of people escaping slavery to sin and finding freedom in Christ.

So you are cool with slavery, as your God was. Cool.

 

[viole]

The New Testament rule explicitly said is 'never return evil for evil' and 'do not curse but return a blessing instead'

Therefore, either is dashing kids and ripping pregnant women apart is not evil, or it is allowed to return evil for evil, and therefore the Bible undermines itself.

Your call.

Ciao

- viole