Slavery in the Bible: more than meets the eye?

[Spartan]

No you did not! You just cited your vain attempt to rewrite of history to justify the slavery of Hebrews to justify your religious agenda.

Your failure to respond to the facts of history is more than apparent.

Still waiting . . .

Wait forever then.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wait forever then.

Classic Duck Bob and Weave when unable to come up with coherent response.

 

[Spartan]

Classic Duck Bob and Weave when unable to come up with coherent response.

Please go whine to somebody else.

 

[shunyadragon]

Please go whine to somebody else.

Classic whining and failure to respond coherently based on the facts of the scripture and history of slavery

 

[tas8831]

You're incorrect. The context of Leviticus 25 is entering into the Promised Land (25:2) which has been inhabited by the evil nations of the Hittites, Girga****es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—seven nations - all whom God ordered to be judged in Deuteronomy chapter 7. So any slaves taken there are a judgment by God on evil nations. So nice try but no cigar.

It is so cool - and by cool, I mean pathetic - how you make it OK for Jehovah to allow slavery at all.

Hypocritical moral relativists, the lot of you.

 

[tas8831]

Please go whine to somebody else.

Poor apologists, always getting upset when they cannot convince non-sheeple that their twisting and equivocation absolves their deity of His cruelty.

 

[viole]

Oh my God Ten pages on and all you do is repeat the same thing.
Slashing them little kids against wall, and rip pregnant women apart,
Slashing them little kids against wall, and rip pregnant women apart,
Slashing them little kids against wall, and rip pregnant women apart,
Slashing them little kids against wall, and rip pregnant women apart,

The answer is YES.It was Bronze age tribal warfare where both sides were facing the same consequences. You have admitted 10 pages ago on this very subject that ......... I already know that morality is relative. And that things valid today, might not have been valid back then, and the other way round So?. #192........ If you already knew that ten pages ago why are you still banging on and on. Get into the geo-politics of the era and DEBATE why the Israelite's should have held to a higher standard than their enemies.Make a case that addresses the issues instead of the one dimensional track you follow. I tried for a couple of pages and i don't think you considered a single point made unless i demanded a straight answer like above. Of course straight definitive answers are not your style are they. You like the emotive gottcha kind of points that get you likes for style over substance.

Emotional? Nope. I am not emotional at all.

So, slashing them little kids against walls, and rip pregnant women apart, is OK, if God orders so?
I am not judging. You can freely say that killing women and kids like that is acceptable, and I would not care.

I just need a yes/no answer from believers in that God; which is usually also their morality giver. I need that for other logical, emotionless. arguments.

So, I assume it is yes. Right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Moz]

Emotional? Nope. I am not emotional at all.

So, slashing them little kids against walls, and rip pregnant women apart, is OK, if God orders so?
I am not judging. You can freely say that killing women and kids like that is acceptable, and I would not care.

I just need a yes/no answer from believers in that God; which is usually also their morality giver? I need that for other logical, emotionless. arguments.

So, I assume it is yes. Right?

Ciao

- viole

YES.

You do Know that they were facing the exact same treatment if they lost don't you?
I just need a yes/no answer. I need that for other logical, emotionless. arguments.

 

[tas8831]

So, slashing them little kids against walls, and rip pregnant women apart, is OK, if God orders so?

Oh yes - theirs is a 'Do as He says, not as He does' religion. Total hypocrites and moral relativists.

Look at how they vote for pedophiles and money-worshippers.

 

[tas8831]

YES.

You do Know that they were facing the exact same treatment if they lost don't you?
I just need a yes/no answer. I need that for other logical, emotionless. arguments.

If who lost? More moral relativism to rescue Jehovah?

Hosea 13
16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

So cool how your Thug wants fetuses killed because He couldn't convince their parents to worship Him!


Worship away!

 

[viole]

YES.

You do Know that they were facing the exact same treatment if they lost don't you?
I just need a yes/no answer. I need that for other logical, emotionless. arguments.

no

Ciao

- viole

 

[Moz]

no

Ciao

- viole

So you didn't know that both sides were facing the same consequences. That seem strange, it is almost like you have not read any of the replies that you have received, it has benn brought up a couple of times. Oh well at least now you know it.
So.......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?

 

[viole]

So you didn't know that both sides were facing the same consequences. That seem strange, it is almost like you have not read any of the replies that you have received, it has benn brought up a couple of times. Oh well at least now you know it.
So.......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?

I don't care. would you kill a child, if not doing that will cost your life? Would you kill a one day old baby to save your asset?

Therefore, morality is: kill everyone, no matter how small, if he can come after you in 30 years. Like in the Godfather movie. Part 2.

So, that is what your moral giver tells you? Do not ask questions about those children and women, because if you do, that is what your woman and children will die for. Ergo, morality is predicated to what happens to me if I try to apply it. Great.

Are you talking here about the eternal moral giver, or Genghis Khan? Or is He the head of the Corleone family? Or is His name Soprano?

To be honest with you, I cannot see the difference. Does your eternal moral giver live in New Jersey, too?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Moz]

I don't care. would you kill a child, if not doing that will cost your life? Would you kill a one day old baby to save your asset?

Therefore, morality is: kill everyone, no matter how small, if he can come after you in 30 years. Like in the Godfather movie. Part 2.

So, that is what your moral giver tells you? Do not ask questions about those children and women, because if you do, that is what your woman and children will die for. Ergo, morality is predicated to what happens to me if I try to apply it. Great.

Are you talking here about the eternal moral giver, or Genghis Khan? Or is He the head of the Corleone family? Or is His name Soprano?

To be honest with you, I cannot see the difference. Does your eternal moral giver live in New Jersey, too?

Ciao

- viole

It doesn't matter if you care or not. It only matters if the specific actions you are condemning are moral or not. If both sides are facing the same consequences and they agree to engage in battle then it is incumbent on you to give a rational thought out reason why anything that ensues is immoral. This is where the discussion must go if you are debating my position isn't it? I don't care is not an acceptable rebuttal.

Are you worried that if you are forced to discuss the context and the history of it all that your claims will fall apart?

..................................................

You say the God of the Bible is like Genghis Khan... Ok. How about we dig into that a little.

The Canaanite stuff your are referring is from the 1400's bce approx. The Jewish polity under the direction of this Mafia Don cross Genocidal God lasted for the next 1400 years so i guess you have a list of continuing barbarity that spans the whole existence of the Kingdom.

If on the other hand it turns out that the Jewish nation does not have a history of Rape, slaughter, pillaging and conquest then there must be something different about the warfare that you are fixating on and maybe the reasons for the seeming aberration need to be cared about and understood before you pass an arbitrary judgment.

Are you worried that if you are forced to discuss the context and the history of it all that your claims will fall apart?
.........................................

A couple of days ago the US attacked the compound of the Isis leader and in the ensuing encounter his wives and his children were killed. Now i have seen NO moral outrage in the secular world about the immorality.
If you have ever looked into the subject of the "morality of War" or done any reading on the differing views on the morality of the Strategic Bombing campaign of WW2, which i would have thought a prerequisite to opine on this subject, you would not be able to make such glib and superficial pronouncements about this issue. All of those questions you pose as seemingly cut and dried issues were argued over and discussed by the 20th centuries brightest and best moral philosophers and intellectuals and none came to the black and white views that you seem to have.

Are you worried that if you are forced to discuss the context and the history of it all that your claims will fall apart?
......................................................

 

[viole]

It doesn't matter if you care or not. It only matters if the specific actions you are condemning are moral or not. If both sides are facing the same consequences and they agree to engage in battle then it is incumbent on you to give a rational thought out reason why anything that ensues is immoral. This is where the discussion must go if you are debating my position isn't it? I don't care is not an acceptable rebuttal.

Are you worried that if you are forced to discuss the context and the history of it all that your claims will fall apart?

..................................................

You say the God of the Bible is like Genghis Khan... Ok. How about we dig into that a little.

The Canaanite stuff your are referring is from the 1400's bce approx. The Jewish polity under the direction of this Mafia Don cross Genocidal God lasted for the next 1400 years so i guess you have a list of continuing barbarity that spans the whole existence of the Kingdom.

If on the other hand it turns out that the Jewish nation does not have a history of Rape, slaughter, pillaging and conquest then there must be something different about the warfare that you are fixating on and maybe the reasons for the seeming aberration need to be cared about and understood before you pass an arbitrary judgment.

Are you worried that if you are forced to discuss the context and the history of it all that your claims will fall apart?
.........................................

A couple of days ago the US attacked the compound of the Isis leader and in the ensuing encounter his wives and his children were killed. Now i have seen NO moral outrage in the secular world about the immorality.
If you have ever looked into the subject of the "morality of War" or done any reading on the differing views on the morality of the Strategic Bombing campaign of WW2, which i would have thought a prerequisite to opine on this subject, you would not be able to make such glib and superficial pronouncements about this issue. All of those questions you pose as seemingly cut and dried issues were argued over and discussed by the 20th centuries brightest and best moral philosophers and intellectuals and none came to the black and white views that you seem to have.

Are you worried that if you are forced to discuss the context and the history of it all that your claims will fall apart?
......................................................

I am not worried at all. For me your God is as plausible as Santa, or Mickey Mouse. And I am not eight years old, anymore.

I am just a bit concerned that people, who might look normal at first sight, are ready to justify the slaughtering of women and babies because they cannot see the obvious fact that the God they believe in, was just the invention of some Bronze Age tribe looking for some Lebensraum.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Moz]

I am not worried at all. For me your God is as plausible as Santa, or Mickey Mouse. And I am not eight years old, anymore.

I am just a bit concerned that people, who might look normal at first sight, are ready to justify the slaughtering of women and babies because they cannot see the obvious fact that the God they believe in, was just the invention of some Bronze Age tribe looking for some Lebensraum.

Ciao

- viole

I am not worried at all. For me your God is as plausible as Santa, or Mickey Mouse. And I am not eight years old, anymore.
We are actually not even talking about God at the moment. We are talking about the morality of what the Israelite's did and of Bronze age warfare in general as you keep claiming that the act is immoral just by declaring that it is immoral. We are not discussing some hypothetical fantasy like Santa clause but the actual death of human beings.
This is not a subject that is new. There is some deep stuff been written about this by the brightest minds and they are no so sure about the morals of non combatant death in the past or in modern times for that matter.

......................................
I am just a bit concerned that people, who might look normal at first sight, are ready to justify the slaughtering of women and babies because they cannot see the obvious fact that the God they believe in, was just the invention of some Bronze Age tribe looking for some Lebensraum.

The Lebensraum reference is a nice touch. The reference shows that you have some nuance in your thinking so i wonder why it is so hard for to engage in the debate.

I think the points i posted were reasonable counters to your claims and i don't see why you would not be able to argue your case, without resorting to "I am not worried at all" or "I don;t care" and then end with some vague Nazi innuendo.
....................................

Btw, i am quite happy to delve into the totalitarian states and their moral underpinnings if you'd like. We could discuss some of the moral decisions of the secular humanists and see what their conclusions were in some cases. The sanctity of the individual human life is often sacrificed on the alter of both religious and secular governments.
..............................
You're a bit concerned about what really. Do you think the Christians are going to rise up and reimpose Bronze age standards of warfare or something and start slaughtering babies.I would actually hazard a guess that you are on the side of the baby slaughters in our present society. It is the waning of Christianity that has led to the non birth of millions of children killed in the womb. I would not be so crass though as to accuse you of following a barbaric ideology without fully engaging in the debate to the deepest extent possible and at least offering a counter view to any specific points you think justify your stand.. It's funny that i am the blind one apparently.
.........................................

 

[viole]

We are actually not even talking about God at the moment. We are talking about the morality of what the Israelite's did and of Bronze age warfare in general as you keep claiming that the act is immoral just by declaring that it is immoral. We are not discussing some hypothetical fantasy like Santa clause but the actual death of human beings.
This is not a subject that is new. There is some deep stuff been written about this by the brightest minds and they are no so sure about the morals of non combatant death in the past or in modern times for that matter.

I told you: you may assume I am an amoral robot checking the internal consistency of your so-called moral standard. Didn't I?

The Lebensraum reference is a nice touch. The reference shows that you have some nuance in your thinking so i wonder why it is so hard for to engage in the debate.

I think the points i posted were reasonable counters to your claims and i don't see why you would not be able to argue your case, without resorting to "I am not worried at all" or "I don;t care" and then end with some vague Nazi innuendo.

Nazi innuendo? That is a German word that the Nazi used. But that does not mean they invented it. It actually conveys the right meaning with a minimum in typing, in this case. For, mutatis mutandis, I really see no difference between both forms of propaganda (depicting the people to be conquered as sub-humans/cannibals/child sacrificer, etc.). An old trick to reduce the natural empathy of the soldier. Add "Gott mit uns", or its local translation, and you are done.

So, what is more likely? That the creator of the Universe chooses a tribe in the Middle East (for some reason) and commands it to annihilate entire populations, or that a tribe in the Middle East, needing some space, invented a deity that chose them and approves their conquests. providing thereby a nice moral escape (since what God commands is good by definition)?

What conclusions would a rational person, knowing a bit of history oh humanity, reach, in absence of axiomatic a-priori metaphysical beliefs? Or even with them?
....................................

Btw, i am quite happy to delve into the totalitarian states and their moral underpinnings if you'd like. We could discuss some of the moral decisions of the secular humanists and see what their conclusions were in some cases. The sanctity of the individual human life is often sacrificed on the alter of both religious and secular governments.

You mean those governments that execute people for nothing, and you and Paul are OK when they actually execute those people? You seem to apply moral labels to governments. Which, by transitivity, would mean that applications of things like the death penalty by these governments, have a moral label, too.

Right?

..............................
You're a bit concerned about what really. Do you think the Christians are going to rise up and reimpose Bronze age standards of warfare or something and start slaughtering babies.I would actually hazard a guess that you are on the side of the baby slaughters in our present society. It is the waning of Christianity that has led to the non birth of millions of children killed in the womb. I would not be so crass though as to accuse you of following a barbaric ideology without fully engaging in the debate to the deepest extent possible and at least offering a counter view to any specific points you think justify your stand.. It's funny that i am the blind one apparently.
.........................................

So, apart from showing that your God is not worse than extant baby slaughters, I am not sure what your point is.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Moz]

I told you: you may assume I am an amoral robot checking the internal consistency of your so-called moral standard. Didn't I?



Nazi innuendo? That is a German word that the Nazi used. But that does not mean they invented it. It actually conveys the right meaning with a minimum in typing, in this case. For, mutatis mutandis, I really see no difference between both forms of propaganda (depicting the people to be conquered as sub-humans/cannibals/child sacrificer, etc.). An old trick to reduce the natural empathy of the soldier. Add "Gott mit uns", or its local translation, and you are done.

So, what is more likely? That the creator of the Universe chooses a tribe in the Middle East (for some reason) and commands it to annihilate entire populations, or that a tribe in the Middle East, needing some space, invented a deity that chose them and approves their conquests. providing thereby a nice moral escape (since what God commands is good by definition)?

What conclusions would a rational person, knowing a bit of history oh humanity, reach, in absence of axiomatic a-priori metaphysical beliefs? Or even with them?
....................................



You mean those governments that execute people for nothing, and you and Paul are OK when they actually execute those people? You seem to apply moral labels to governments. Which, by transitivity, would mean that applications of things like the death penalty by these governments, have a moral label, too.

Right?


So, apart from showing that your God is not worse than extant baby slaughters, I am not sure what your point is.

Ciao

- viole

It is a shame that you did not want to engage in the debate.

 

[viole]

It is a shame that you did not want to engage in the debate.

It is a shame that you give up so easily.

But, in your defence, it is not really a problem with you. It is a problem with the claims: it doesn't really take much thinking to destroy them.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Moz]

It is a shame that you give up so easily.

But, in your defence, it is not really a problem with you. It is a problem with the claims: it doesn't really take much thinking to destroy them.

Ciao

- 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.