Total Posts:126|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Voice of Reason and Faith Issue 3

Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.

2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 2:43:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.

2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D

There slavery sounds identical to the practice of slavery in mesoamerica, so it doesn't seem like your god provided the rules governing slavery at all. And slavery in Mayan culture wasn't hereditary not like the Hebrews.

So it seems your god's rules on slavery were inferior to mans rules. Oh dear.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Dwint
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 2:47:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I give you: Slavery in the New Testament

" Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

" Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. " (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
Hitchens is the way!
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 10:12:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 2:47:59 AM, Dwint wrote:
I give you: Slavery in the New Testament

" Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

" Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. " (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
That is in reference to servitude.

The word describing slavery is actually only used twice throughout the entire Bible ("slave" Jeremiah 2:14, and "slaves" Revelation 18:13).
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 10:37:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 10:12:19 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:47:59 AM, Dwint wrote:
I give you: Slavery in the New Testament

" Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

" Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. " (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
That is in reference to servitude.

The word describing slavery is actually only used twice throughout the entire Bible ("slave" Jeremiah 2:14, and "slaves" Revelation 18:13).

Of course dear chap those who know your god know very well that it is incapable of expressing itself in any coherent manner.

I don't think that all of the many, many, many, many sects and cults of your erstwhile religion have made that clear to everyone.

Could you possibly rectify that?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 5:52:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 2:43:18 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.

2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D

There slavery sounds identical to the practice of slavery in mesoamerica, so it doesn't seem like your god provided the rules governing slavery at all. And slavery in Mayan culture wasn't hereditary not like the Hebrews.

So it seems your god's rules on slavery were inferior to mans rules. Oh dear.

I'm going to pretend you're not a troll for just a minute and ask you to elaborate.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 5:55:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 2:47:59 AM, Dwint wrote:
I give you: Slavery in the New Testament

" Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

" Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. " (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

As RoderickSpode said, it was in reference to servitude. And it still doesn't condone it for everyone. We don't keep slaves or whatever you want to call it today. At least not legally.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 5:57:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 10:37:21 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/15/2014 10:12:19 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:47:59 AM, Dwint wrote:
I give you: Slavery in the New Testament

" Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

" Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. " (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
That is in reference to servitude.

The word describing slavery is actually only used twice throughout the entire Bible ("slave" Jeremiah 2:14, and "slaves" Revelation 18:13).

Of course dear chap those who know your god know very well that it is incapable of expressing itself in any coherent manner.

Irrelevant. It doesn't tell them to mistreat their servants in any way, ergo, it's not the slavery you think it is.

I don't think that all of the many, many, many, many sects and cults of your erstwhile religion have made that clear to everyone.

Again, irrelevant. We're talking about whether or not the Bible itself tells us Christians to keep and mistreat slaves.

Could you possibly rectify that?

Don't need to.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 6:02:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.


2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D

These sort of paul copan apologetics annoy the heck out of me...*sigh*
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 6:04:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 6:02:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.



2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D

These sort of paul copan apologetics annoy the heck out of me...*sigh*

Please elaborate.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 6:25:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 6:04:46 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:02:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.



2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D

These sort of paul copan apologetics annoy the heck out of me...*sigh*

Please elaborate.

Long story short: these sort of apologetics don't do justice to taking the texts on it's own terms.

I'll briefly go through general problems.

1) You're missing the broader problem in the first place: even if these laws don't apply to us now why would God ever give such seemingly immoral commands in the first place? We all know slavery is a horrendous evil; thus, God would would know that so much better than I. Why would he not only permit slavery, but command? Even if God has "cleaned up his act" and doesn't command slavery today it leaves the troubling thought that God could and did slavery. So what if God is "reformed" now?

2) A "kinder" slavery is still slavery. House slaves had it much better than field slaves. So what? It's still wrong.
And you know your "indentured servitude" argument only works for Hebrew slaves, yeah?

"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."

Are you an inerrantist?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 7:30:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 6:25:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:04:46 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:02:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.



2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D

These sort of paul copan apologetics annoy the heck out of me...*sigh*

Please elaborate.

Long story short: these sort of apologetics don't do justice to taking the texts on it's own terms.

I'll briefly go through general problems.

1) You're missing the broader problem in the first place: even if these laws don't apply to us now why would God ever give such seemingly immoral commands in the first place? We all know slavery is a horrendous evil; thus, God would would know that so much better than I. Why would he not only permit slavery, but command? Even if God has "cleaned up his act" and doesn't command slavery today it leaves the troubling thought that God could and did slavery. So what if God is "reformed" now?

2) A "kinder" slavery is still slavery. House slaves had it much better than field slaves. So what? It's still wrong.
And you know your "indentured servitude" argument only works for Hebrew slaves, yeah?

"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."

Are you an inerrantist?

If you read carefully, you'll see that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area. So basically, slavery for them back then was what prison is for us today. If you have nothing against jailing criminals, it doesn't make sense to be against this type of slavery, and depending on the circumstances, they even let them go free after a while.
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2014 9:30:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.

If Judaism is not relevant to Christianity, why does the Christian religion have the Jewish bible alongside the Christian bible?


2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Yes. A punishment for having their own country and their own religion.


Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 1:11:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 9:30:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.

If Judaism is not relevant to Christianity, why does the Christian religion have the Jewish bible alongside the Christian bible?

Because the Bible is still a historical document, so considering that, the Jewish Bible should be included as a part of that history.


2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Yes. A punishment for having their own country and their own religion.

You're going to need to elaborate on that a little more. The word "heathen" in the dictionary seems to lend credence to this.


Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Dwint
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 3:03:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In my opinion, slavery in the Bible doesn't prove God's wrong moral standards. There are plenty of stories where God is immoral and slavery is nothing compared to genocide, mind games, the plagues and other great stories. The way I see it, slavery is in the Bible because it was an important part of ancient cultures and proves the Bible was influenced a lot by people, making it a lot less reliable.
Hitchens is the way!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 8:01:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 7:30:02 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:25:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:04:46 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:02:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.



2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D

These sort of paul copan apologetics annoy the heck out of me...*sigh*

Please elaborate.

Long story short: these sort of apologetics don't do justice to taking the texts on it's own terms.

I'll briefly go through general problems.

1) You're missing the broader problem in the first place: even if these laws don't apply to us now why would God ever give such seemingly immoral commands in the first place? We all know slavery is a horrendous evil; thus, God would would know that so much better than I. Why would he not only permit slavery, but command? Even if God has "cleaned up his act" and doesn't command slavery today it leaves the troubling thought that God could and did slavery. So what if God is "reformed" now?

2) A "kinder" slavery is still slavery. House slaves had it much better than field slaves. So what? It's still wrong.
And you know your "indentured servitude" argument only works for Hebrew slaves, yeah?

"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."

Are you an inerrantist?

If you read carefully, you'll see that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area. So basically, slavery for them back then was what prison is for us today. If you have nothing against jailing criminals, it doesn't make sense to be against this type of slavery, and depending on the circumstances, they even let them go free after a while.

Believe me, I have "read carefully" into this issue. I don't know if it's deliberate or not buy you're sugarcoating the conditions of slavery. Do you really want to go into the details? Because we can.

Since when making slaves out of "heathens" ok? Since when in our modern day prison industrial complex (which I think is immoral as well so it does nothing to make analogies between ancient slavery and it for me) are prisoners' children born into conditions that allow them to ne considered property as soon as they were born?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 10:51:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/15/2014 6:25:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:04:46 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:02:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.



2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D

These sort of paul copan apologetics annoy the heck out of me...*sigh*

Please elaborate.

Long story short: these sort of apologetics don't do justice to taking the texts on it's own terms.

I'll briefly go through general problems.

1) You're missing the broader problem in the first place: even if these laws don't apply to us now why would God ever give such seemingly immoral commands in the first place? We all know slavery is a horrendous evil; thus, God would would know that so much better than I. Why would he not only permit slavery, but command? Even if God has "cleaned up his act" and doesn't command slavery today it leaves the troubling thought that God could and did slavery. So what if God is "reformed" now?

2) A "kinder" slavery is still slavery. House slaves had it much better than field slaves. So what? It's still wrong.
And you know your "indentured servitude" argument only works for Hebrew slaves, yeah?

"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."

Are you an inerrantist?
The problem with being an errantist is that it apparently causes one to look over other related scriptures. If you don't compare scripture with scripture you will inevitably read

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."

as condoning ruthless abuse of foreigners. The problem is that the inerrantist has to compare that with other scriptures that make it clear that the foreigner is not to be abused whatsoever. The very same rule applies.

That being the case, you have to consider whether to believe that

1. God didn't place these laws, and that the Israelites placed these laws only giving a sort of written lip service to fair treatment so they wouldn't look bad amongst their peers....and possible outsiders.

2. God did place these laws, therefore God is evil.

3. God did place these laws, thus maybe there's something you're misunderstanding.

When it comes to the foreign slaves being purchased, all you know is that the scripture indicates that they could have been made slaves for life. So you know that there was no command to make them slaves for life. But you also don't know if that law differentiates from the same slave-for-life law placed for the fellow Israelite where the law required a mutual bonding.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 11:14:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 10:51:12 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:25:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:04:46 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:02:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.



2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D

These sort of paul copan apologetics annoy the heck out of me...*sigh*

Please elaborate.

Long story short: these sort of apologetics don't do justice to taking the texts on it's own terms.

I'll briefly go through general problems.

1) You're missing the broader problem in the first place: even if these laws don't apply to us now why would God ever give such seemingly immoral commands in the first place? We all know slavery is a horrendous evil; thus, God would would know that so much better than I. Why would he not only permit slavery, but command? Even if God has "cleaned up his act" and doesn't command slavery today it leaves the troubling thought that God could and did slavery. So what if God is "reformed" now?

2) A "kinder" slavery is still slavery. House slaves had it much better than field slaves. So what? It's still wrong.
And you know your "indentured servitude" argument only works for Hebrew slaves, yeah?

"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."

Are you an inerrantist?
The problem with being an errantist is that it apparently causes one to look over other related scriptures. If you don't compare scripture with scripture you will inevitably read

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."

as condoning ruthless abuse of foreigners. The problem is that the inerrantist has to compare that with other scriptures that make it clear that the foreigner is not to be abused whatsoever. The very same rule applies.


No, it doesn't. What other scriptures are you talking about? Foreign slaves were treated different than Hebrew slaves. Slavery itself is abuse.

That being the case, you have to consider whether to believe that

1. God didn't place these laws, and that the Israelites placed these laws only giving a sort of written lip service to fair treatment so they wouldn't look bad amongst their peers....and possible outsiders.

2. God did place these laws, therefore God is evil.

3. God did place these laws, thus maybe there's something you're misunderstanding.

When it comes to the foreign slaves being purchased, all you know is that the scripture indicates that they could have been made slaves for life. So you know that there was no command to make them slaves for life.

So God gave them his permission?

But you also don't know if that law differentiates from the same slave-for-life law placed for the fellow Israelite where the law required a mutual bonding.

Yes, we do know it differentiates from law for Israelites.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 11:26:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Btw, Roderick, I am specifically talking about foreign slaves. It won't help your casr to point to texts thst ommand Israel to be friendly to strangers - that isn't talking about slaves. It's talking about those foreigners who lived among the Israelites as paid workers of that society.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 1:00:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 1:11:41 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 9:30:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.

If Judaism is not relevant to Christianity, why does the Christian religion have the Jewish bible alongside the Christian bible?

Because the Bible is still a historical document, so considering that, the Jewish Bible should be included as a part of that history.

So, if the Jewish bible has relevance as only a historical document, then, why do Christians say, "All scripture (including the Jewish bible) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...:"?



2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Yes. A punishment for having their own country and their own religion.

You're going to need to elaborate on that a little more. The word "heathen" in the dictionary seems to lend credence to this.

The Israelites left Egypt, having been in bondage for four-hundred years, and totally wiped out nations of people, whom they never met, because they said God told them to and took their land. How's that, for starters?



Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 5:07:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 11:14:12 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/16/2014 10:51:12 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:25:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:04:46 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:02:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.



2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D

These sort of paul copan apologetics annoy the heck out of me...*sigh*

Please elaborate.

Long story short: these sort of apologetics don't do justice to taking the texts on it's own terms.

I'll briefly go through general problems.

1) You're missing the broader problem in the first place: even if these laws don't apply to us now why would God ever give such seemingly immoral commands in the first place? We all know slavery is a horrendous evil; thus, God would would know that so much better than I. Why would he not only permit slavery, but command? Even if God has "cleaned up his act" and doesn't command slavery today it leaves the troubling thought that God could and did slavery. So what if God is "reformed" now?

2) A "kinder" slavery is still slavery. House slaves had it much better than field slaves. So what? It's still wrong.
And you know your "indentured servitude" argument only works for Hebrew slaves, yeah?

"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."

Are you an inerrantist?
The problem with being an errantist is that it apparently causes one to look over other related scriptures. If you don't compare scripture with scripture you will inevitably read

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."

as condoning ruthless abuse of foreigners. The problem is that the inerrantist has to compare that with other scriptures that make it clear that the foreigner is not to be abused whatsoever. The very same rule applies.


No, it doesn't. What other scriptures are you talking about? Foreign slaves were treated different than Hebrew slaves. Slavery itself is abuse.

The term slavery had a very broad frame of reference. Even a king was termed a slave to an emperor. Eventually that part of the world removed the term away from it's many references due to it's association with New World Slavery.

But here is a scriptural example:

"`If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. (Deut 25.47)

And yes, that is referring to an alien who would have been in service to an Israelite either to an individual, or a serf.
That being the case, you have to consider whether to believe that

1. God didn't place these laws, and that the Israelites placed these laws only giving a sort of written lip service to fair treatment so they wouldn't look bad amongst their peers....and possible outsiders.

2. God did place these laws, therefore God is evil.

3. God did place these laws, thus maybe there's something you're misunderstanding.

When it comes to the foreign slaves being purchased, all you know is that the scripture indicates that they could have been made slaves for life. So you know that there was no command to make them slaves for life.

So God gave them his permission?

This type of servitude was not preferential whether it be the result of being in debt or thievery, or a nation becoming serfs as a result of war (which I believe Pitbull was referring to). It's just like prison. It would be preferable to not have prisons at all (no need). But do you think we should get rid of prisons?

But you also don't know if that law differentiates from the same slave-for-life law placed for the fellow Israelite where the law required a mutual bonding.

Yes, we do know it differentiates from law for Israelites.

By all means...show me this to be the case.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2014 5:26:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 11:26:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Btw, Roderick, I am specifically talking about foreign slaves. It won't help your casr to point to texts thst ommand Israel to be friendly to strangers - that isn't talking about slaves. It's talking about those foreigners who lived among the Israelites as paid workers of that society.
Who exactly do you think the strangers in question are?
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 3:30:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 1:00:32 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/16/2014 1:11:41 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 9:30:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.

If Judaism is not relevant to Christianity, why does the Christian religion have the Jewish bible alongside the Christian bible?

Because the Bible is still a historical document, so considering that, the Jewish Bible should be included as a part of that history.

So, if the Jewish bible has relevance as only a historical document, then, why do Christians say, "All scripture (including the Jewish bible) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...:"?

The lawbooks of the OT (Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers.) were laws only given to the Israelites, and I never said it was only relevant as a historical document. In some of the books following it, it goes into what pleases God in general for everyone. (e.g. Proverbs.)


2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Yes. A punishment for having their own country and their own religion.

You're going to need to elaborate on that a little more. The word "heathen" in the dictionary seems to lend credence to this.

The Israelites left Egypt, having been in bondage for four-hundred years, and totally wiped out nations of people, whom they never met, because they said God told them to and took their land. How's that, for starters?

I would like to see sources for this.



Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 3:33:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/16/2014 8:01:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 7:30:02 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:25:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:04:46 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:02:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.



2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D

These sort of paul copan apologetics annoy the heck out of me...*sigh*

Please elaborate.

Long story short: these sort of apologetics don't do justice to taking the texts on it's own terms.

I'll briefly go through general problems.

1) You're missing the broader problem in the first place: even if these laws don't apply to us now why would God ever give such seemingly immoral commands in the first place? We all know slavery is a horrendous evil; thus, God would would know that so much better than I. Why would he not only permit slavery, but command? Even if God has "cleaned up his act" and doesn't command slavery today it leaves the troubling thought that God could and did slavery. So what if God is "reformed" now?

2) A "kinder" slavery is still slavery. House slaves had it much better than field slaves. So what? It's still wrong.
And you know your "indentured servitude" argument only works for Hebrew slaves, yeah?

"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."

Are you an inerrantist?

If you read carefully, you'll see that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area. So basically, slavery for them back then was what prison is for us today. If you have nothing against jailing criminals, it doesn't make sense to be against this type of slavery, and depending on the circumstances, they even let them go free after a while.

Believe me, I have "read carefully" into this issue. I don't know if it's deliberate or not buy you're sugarcoating the conditions of slavery. Do you really want to go into the details? Because we can.

Since when making slaves out of "heathens" ok? Since when in our modern day prison industrial complex (which I think is immoral as well so it does nothing to make analogies between ancient slavery and it for me) are prisoners' children born into conditions that allow them to ne considered property as soon as they were born?

If you're against jailing tried and true criminals, then there's no way you're going to accept heathen and criminals of that day being made into servants.

And where does it say that in the Bible? That they're considered property as soon as they're born, according to your definition of slavery?
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 10:27:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 3:30:39 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/16/2014 1:00:32 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/16/2014 1:11:41 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 9:30:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.

If Judaism is not relevant to Christianity, why does the Christian religion have the Jewish bible alongside the Christian bible?

Because the Bible is still a historical document, so considering that, the Jewish Bible should be included as a part of that history.

So, if the Jewish bible has relevance as only a historical document, then, why do Christians say, "All scripture (including the Jewish bible) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...:"?

The lawbooks of the OT (Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers.) were laws only given to the Israelites, and I never said it was only relevant as a historical document. In some of the books following it, it goes into what pleases God in general for everyone. (e.g. Proverbs.)

Let me repeat this, for you; because, you seemingly don't get it: "All scripture (including Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...:". Please, show me, using the verse I cited, where it is said Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers are excluded, from the all.

Secondly, who determines which tenets of Judaism apply to Christians, and which don't?

Thirdly, don't you think Jews have every right to be offended, when it is Christians chop up their religion and reinterpret it...? When groups of people do that with the Christian religion, Christians call them cults.



2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Yes. A punishment for having their own country and their own religion.

You're going to need to elaborate on that a little more. The word "heathen" in the dictionary seems to lend credence to this.

The Israelites left Egypt, having been in bondage for four-hundred years, and totally wiped out nations of people, whom they never met, because they said God told them to and took their land. How's that, for starters?

I would like to see sources for this.

Try the book of Joshua.




Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 10:31:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 3:33:16 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/16/2014 8:01:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 7:30:02 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:25:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:04:46 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:02:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.



2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D

These sort of paul copan apologetics annoy the heck out of me...*sigh*

Please elaborate.

Long story short: these sort of apologetics don't do justice to taking the texts on it's own terms.

I'll briefly go through general problems.

1) You're missing the broader problem in the first place: even if these laws don't apply to us now why would God ever give such seemingly immoral commands in the first place? We all know slavery is a horrendous evil; thus, God would would know that so much better than I. Why would he not only permit slavery, but command? Even if God has "cleaned up his act" and doesn't command slavery today it leaves the troubling thought that God could and did slavery. So what if God is "reformed" now?

2) A "kinder" slavery is still slavery. House slaves had it much better than field slaves. So what? It's still wrong.
And you know your "indentured servitude" argument only works for Hebrew slaves, yeah?

"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."

Are you an inerrantist?

If you read carefully, you'll see that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area. So basically, slavery for them back then was what prison is for us today. If you have nothing against jailing criminals, it doesn't make sense to be against this type of slavery, and depending on the circumstances, they even let them go free after a while.

Believe me, I have "read carefully" into this issue. I don't know if it's deliberate or not buy you're sugarcoating the conditions of slavery. Do you really want to go into the details? Because we can.

Since when making slaves out of "heathens" ok? Since when in our modern day prison industrial complex (which I think is immoral as well so it does nothing to make analogies between ancient slavery and it for me) are prisoners' children born into conditions that allow them to ne considered property as soon as they were born?

If you're against jailing tried and true criminals, then there's no way you're going to accept heathen and criminals of that day being made into servants.

And where does it say that in the Bible? That they're considered property as soon as they're born, according to your definition of slavery?

Did you even read what I typed? -_-

Want to debate this?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 12:46:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 10:31:36 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/17/2014 3:33:16 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/16/2014 8:01:29 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 7:30:02 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:25:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:04:46 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 6:02:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.



2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D

These sort of paul copan apologetics annoy the heck out of me...*sigh*

Please elaborate.

Long story short: these sort of apologetics don't do justice to taking the texts on it's own terms.

I'll briefly go through general problems.

1) You're missing the broader problem in the first place: even if these laws don't apply to us now why would God ever give such seemingly immoral commands in the first place? We all know slavery is a horrendous evil; thus, God would would know that so much better than I. Why would he not only permit slavery, but command? Even if God has "cleaned up his act" and doesn't command slavery today it leaves the troubling thought that God could and did slavery. So what if God is "reformed" now?

2) A "kinder" slavery is still slavery. House slaves had it much better than field slaves. So what? It's still wrong.
And you know your "indentured servitude" argument only works for Hebrew slaves, yeah?

"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."

Are you an inerrantist?

If you read carefully, you'll see that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area. So basically, slavery for them back then was what prison is for us today. If you have nothing against jailing criminals, it doesn't make sense to be against this type of slavery, and depending on the circumstances, they even let them go free after a while.

Believe me, I have "read carefully" into this issue. I don't know if it's deliberate or not buy you're sugarcoating the conditions of slavery. Do you really want to go into the details? Because we can.

Since when making slaves out of "heathens" ok? Since when in our modern day prison industrial complex (which I think is immoral as well so it does nothing to make analogies between ancient slavery and it for me) are prisoners' children born into conditions that allow them to ne considered property as soon as they were born?

If you're against jailing tried and true criminals, then there's no way you're going to accept heathen and criminals of that day being made into servants.

And where does it say that in the Bible? That they're considered property as soon as they're born, according to your definition of slavery?

Did you even read what I typed? -_-

Yes, but I don't believe we understood each other's typing.

Want to debate this?

Sure. Who makes the challenge?
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
Pitbull15
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 1:05:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 10:27:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/17/2014 3:30:39 PM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/16/2014 1:00:32 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/16/2014 1:11:41 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
At 4/15/2014 9:30:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/15/2014 2:18:16 AM, Pitbull15 wrote:
Ok, so we're all aware of how relevant the Bible is to our culture, and the moral value of its teachings, right?

Evidently not, as I see people on this site and everywhere else pull out the same arguments again and again on how the Bible condones slavery, rape, etc. I'm here to debunk all of that with my four part series on the Bible's morality.

The Morality of the Bible Part 1 of 4: Does it condone slavery?

Well, one thing that most of us at least know is the harsh laws in the Old Testament regarding the children of Israel and slavery. Most people arguing this will pull out verses like Deuteronomy 15:12-15, saying that it somehow condones it just because it's mentioned.

Let's see how those are straw men.

1.) The laws of the Old Testament are irrelevant to us today.
Read carefully at the beginnings of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, and you'll find that these laws were only given to the Israelites of that day, and not Christians, since that was a long time before Christ came along. So this totally invalidates the "it condones it because it was commanded" argument for the whole slavery issue.

If Judaism is not relevant to Christianity, why does the Christian religion have the Jewish bible alongside the Christian bible?

Because the Bible is still a historical document, so considering that, the Jewish Bible should be included as a part of that history.

So, if the Jewish bible has relevance as only a historical document, then, why do Christians say, "All scripture (including the Jewish bible) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...:"?

The lawbooks of the OT (Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers.) were laws only given to the Israelites, and I never said it was only relevant as a historical document. In some of the books following it, it goes into what pleases God in general for everyone. (e.g. Proverbs.)

Let me repeat this, for you; because, you seemingly don't get it: "All scripture (including Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...:". Please, show me, using the verse I cited, where it is said Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers are excluded, from the all.

Secondly, who determines which tenets of Judaism apply to Christians, and which don't?

Thirdly, don't you think Jews have every right to be offended, when it is Christians chop up their religion and reinterpret it...? When groups of people do that with the Christian religion, Christians call them cults.

Sorry, lost track of time. I'll cover this in the next one and answer those for you.



2.) Slavery was different back then.
If you read carefully again, you'll find that they made slaves out of the heathen in the area, or criminals, basically. So essentially, slavery back then was what prison or the life sentence is to us now. But to slaves that weren't POWs, it was more of an employment than forced service, and many even volunteered to serve. It was called indentured servitude. And In war, they weren't enslaved by their race or color of their skin, but they were enslaved as a punishment.

Yes. A punishment for having their own country and their own religion.

You're going to need to elaborate on that a little more. The word "heathen" in the dictionary seems to lend credence to this.

The Israelites left Egypt, having been in bondage for four-hundred years, and totally wiped out nations of people, whom they never met, because they said God told them to and took their land. How's that, for starters?

I would like to see sources for this.

Try the book of Joshua.




Just those two premises alone invalidate the whole argument and are rather simple and quick about it. Anyone want sources or want to debate the issue? Then respond to the post and we'll see what you have that can contradict these two premises.

As always, thanks for reading! =D
zmikecuber and I debate the Modal Ontological Argument
http://www.debate.org...

"YOU ARE A TOTAL MORON!!! LOL!!!- invisibledeity

"I have shown incredible restraint in the face of unrelenting stupidity."-Izbo10

"Oh my God, WHO THE HELL CARES?!"-Peter Griffin

"Let me put this in Spanish for you: NO!!"-Jase Robertson
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 11:50:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 3:18:23 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/11/2014 11:35:01 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Actually it 's not parents I'm talking about.

Well, I am. Im talking about slavery as a whole, in the bible, not just slavery regarding isrealites in the bible.

The word slavery is only used twice in the Bible (Jeremiah 2:14 and Revelation 8:13). God condemned that type of slavery which would fall under description #1:

slave (n): 1. A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no will of his own, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. In the early state of the world, and to this day among some barbarous nations, prisoners of war are considered and treated as slaves. The slaves of modern times are more generally purchased, like horses and oxen.

2. One who has lost the poser of resistance; or one who surrenders himself to any power whatever; as a slave to passion, to lust, to ambition.-Webster's Dictionary


The other verses in question refer to servitude that is a broad term that even included kings (to emperors), and emperors (to gods).

I'm talking about the actual foreign servants themselves. A foreigner living among the Israelites could become wealthy, and purchase the service of an Israelite.

Sure. But what about the israelites, purchasing children of other parents, as slaves?

The reason why parents sold their children into servitude was out of desperation. To put the whole thing into proper context, historically speaking, this purchasing of servants was rather rare. The individual that was able to purchase servants among the strangers in the land were fairly wealthy. That won't mean much to you because since you see it as an unjustifiable act, if only one person purchased a servant it would be wrong. However, this was a method of ensuring a better position in life for the children. The alternative was poverty. In addition, the parents were servants as well. They were serfs that were occupying land owned by the Israelites. I say that to again emphasize the broader meaning of the word slave in context to servitude.

Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. Lev 25

And scripturally speaking, they were not to rule over foreigners with rigour either. You might look at it as a teacher saying "under no circumstances will any of you bully Johnny (anymore)". That's not a statement isolating Johnny, allowing anyone else to be bullied. The foreign servant was able to leave their master if they were abused, and no one was allowed to return them to their owner. And...were allowed to stay where they please. And there is no evidence anywhere that suggests that a foreign servant had to stay with their master against their will. There's no reason to suggest that the servant-for-life was a mutual bonding like that of the Israelite who decides to stay with their master. Masters supported their servants. They were a source of security and protection. No doubt that there were servants, Israelite and foreign who opted to remain with their masters. And...no doubt some were abused, and thus fled.

First off, how is a parent selling their child, as property, for ever, voluntary from the childrens perspective(i.e. The people who are actually being sold as slaves)?

Well again, the selling of children was for the benefit of the children. Even today a child that falls within a certain age range are subject to authority that might conflict with their personal interests. However, I've also heard that in at least some ANE contracts, children were allowed a certain amount of freedom as far as volunteering. Although that may have been more in principle than in action.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 11:55:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 11:50:22 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:

There's no reason to suggest that the servant-for-life was a mutual bonding like that of the Israelite who decides to stay with their master.

That should actually read:

There's no reason to suggest that the servant-for-life was not a mutual bonding like that of the Israelite who decides to stay with their master.