100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Do you think that.... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
An entire thread based on...
I smell a... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative:
This is bordering on insanity. How, as humans, can we say that selling another human is moral? How can we say that calling and treating another human like a piece of property is moral? How can we say that beating another human to near death is moral? Msharmony: Because money is not immoral, its only a bartering tool Money has nothing to do with the questions posed. Selling/buying a human as a piece of property is immoral. Because being 'property' has many implications other than mistreatment or dehumanization
Not when the term is being talked about in the context of slavery. beating someone is defying the TENET of CHRIST that says to treat others with love and to do unto each other as we wish to have done to us,, so Im not sure what relevance your last question has
The relevence is had because it is described in the text, and it is about slavery - specifically it is a part of the regulations which you attempt to call 'moral regulations'. Beating a slave to near death is a behavior that is described by Paul, and is not called wrong. In fact, as long as the slave gets up in a couple of days, the slave-owner - according to Paul - should suffer no punishment. Paul wrote the overwhelming majority of the NT. The NT is the backbone of Christianity. There is no excuse for such - regardless of the kind of slave that one is. the bible does REVIEW the conditions of biblical times, it REPEATS the laws that those nations had concerning their situation AS WELL As the laws as laid down by God and expressed by Jesus
to say that the bible somehow is a tool which 'condones' slavery of all forms is to say that my history book 'condones' hangings I've never claimed that the Bible was a tool which condones slavery of all forms. Attributing claims to me that I've not made does not change the ones that have been made. The Bible does not explicitly forbid slavery. It does explicitly forbid all other forms of behavior which it deems immoral/wrong. Therefore, we can only conclude that according to the Bible, slavery is to be considered moral/right/good. again, this is where review, and more review, and research, into the CONTEXT of what we read in the bible becomes extremely important
otherwise you have folks going around claiming that anything discussed, mentioned ,or reviewed in the bible, by nature of its mention or discussion, is being 'condoned' You know, I agree that the context allows one to be able to determine the kind of slavery being talked about, as well as whether or not we are talking about instructions from humans to humans or from God to humans. There are instructions from God to humans regarding slavery. If God, nowhere in the text forbids slavery, but rather endorses it through instruction, then it is quite clear that the biblical God condones slavery. There is no other logical conclusion. The things which God forbade are clear, slavery is not one of those things. To claim that God regulated something which was not condoned, is pure nonsense. slavery has many forms, and in biblical times was used in several contexts,, as a condition for the captured enemy(prisoner of war in modern times), as a condition of the criminal(jail in modern times) , as a condition of providing for those who couldnt provide for themself(welfare in modern times)
The manner in which one becomes a slave does not deny the fact that they are one. All forms of slavery necessitate one human being owned by another. A slave is the property of the slave-owner. The Bible concurs. The context does not change that fact about slavery. That fact is what makes slavery wrong. it is no more amoral than holding pows, or jailing lawbreakers, or providing welfare for those who are disenfranchised
Pow's are not slaves, they are pow's. Welfare recipients are not slaves, they are welfare recipients. Equating these things does not change what slavery is. Neither does it make all pow's and welfare recipients slaves. but it was ALL described with the same term of 'slavery' in the bible
Says you. I'd like to see this supported. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider,
You're more than welcome to put forth some sort meaningful support for your pictorial objection. Pictures are nice and pop-ups are better, at least for grade-school children. For adults, like myself, I prefer an intelligible string of words that produce a coherent argument. Do you have such a thing to offer? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spider, You're more than welcome to put forth some sort meaningful support for your pictorial objection. Pictures are nice and pop-ups are better, at least for grade-school children. For adults, like myself, I prefer an intelligible string of words that produce a coherent argument. Do you have such a thing to offer? You've been given links and arguments and facts and you've ignored it all. Not because we don't make good points or that the facts aren't on our side (because they are), but because you want to continue to bash Christianity. Here's the deal: Our Government regulates the tobacco industry, that does not mean it condones it. You assume that because God made laws on how slaves should be treated, that means God supported slavery. God has always focused on the inner man. A truly moral man won't own slaves, even if it's legal. But a man who can't legally own slaves isn't necessarily moral. God worked at making the society more moral, so that they would see the wrongness of slavery. Life sucks man and it sucks because we make it suck. Someone commits suicide every 40 seconds, someone else is murdered every 60 seconds...In the time it's taken me to write this post, at least 5 people have killed themselves and 4 people have been murdered. If those people (or their murderers) were morally and spiritually grounded, they would still be alive now. Society will never be improved by laws, because laws can be broken. There are 12 million slaves in the world today, many of them in countries that make slavery illegal. But by improving the moral and spiritual health of society, murder, rape, suicide, slavery and all manner of sins are reduced and life improves for everyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the deal: Our Government regulates the tobacco industry, that does not mean it condones it. You assume that because God made laws on how slaves should be treated, that means God supported slavery. I see. So, when God told Moses to wipe out the Midianites except for the virgins whom he told Moses to enslave, he was doing nothing different than what the Dept. of Health and Human Services does under Democratic presidents every day? Just a little 'government regulation'? Who knew. "... but I'm not an alien." -Tom Servo as Exeter in MST3K: The Movie. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the deal: Our Government regulates the tobacco industry, that does not mean it condones it. You assume that because God made laws on how slaves should be treated, that means God supported slavery.
Evidently you do not have any idea what the term condone means. con·done/kənˈdōn/Verb 1. Accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue. 2. Approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see. So, when God told Moses to wipe out the Midianites except for the virgins whom he told Moses to enslave, he was doing nothing different than what the Dept. of Health and Human Services does under Democratic presidents every day? Just a little 'government regulation'? I am sure that God wanted as little bloodshed as possible to achieve the goal of freeing Canaan from the societies that controlled the place. The problem wasn't the people per se, it was the societies. The societies where human sacrifice was a normal practice and special prostitutes existed who were hired to get pregnant and carry to baby full term and then the child was taken and placed into an idol of Ba'al where it was cooked alive. This was a brutal society ruled by the strong and violent. I'm pretty sure that those girls were better off alive as Hebrew slaves than dead or even alive in their own culture. Alive, they were considered a part of the extended Hebrew family and had to be given decent food, a wage, lodging and protected from the elements, wild animals and human sacrifice. If a Hebrew man wanted to marry one of the girls, he had to first free her and then she had to declare that she wanted to marry him. If she didn't, then she was free to go. If one of the girls were married, her husband wasn't allowed to divorce her for any reason. If she was unhappy being a slave and she didn't want to marry a Hebrew she could run away and was considered a free woman. All in all, that sounds a lot better than to be killed or growing up in a culture that practiced human sacrifice or gang-raped strangers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A fine example of God not condoning slavery?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slavery is not a behavior,,,if one can start with that foundation one can understand how it cannot appropriately be labeled 'good' or 'bad'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the deal: Our Government regulates the tobacco industry, that does not mean it condones it. You assume that because God made laws on how slaves should be treated, that means God supported slavery.
Evidently you do not have any idea what the term condone means. con·done/kənˈdōn/Verb 1. Accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue. 2. Approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance I see your definition and raise you. condone transitive verb : to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless <a government accused of condoning racism> <condone corruption in politics> We live in a free society, where we are allowed to make mistakes. Because of that, the government has to regulate activities and products without making a moral judgment. God never said that slavery was morally acceptable and God never said that slavery should continue, but He made laws to protect slaves. If you had actually read the Bible, you would know that the Israelites were influenced by their neighboring countries. They demanded to have a king, so that they could be like other nations. They demanded divorces, so that they could be like other nations. Jesus taught that it was never God's desire to allow divorce for anything other than sexual immorality, but Moses had to allow it for the people would have rebelled. God allowed slavery, because otherwise the Israelites would have rebelled and that would have been worse than them owning slaves that they were required by law to treat well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative:
This is bordering on insanity. How, as humans, can we say that selling another human is moral? How can we say that calling and treating another human like a piece of property is moral? How can we say that beating another human to near death is moral? Msharmony: Because money is not immoral, its only a bartering tool Money has nothing to do with the questions posed. Selling/buying a human as a piece of property is immoral. Because being 'property' has many implications other than mistreatment or dehumanization
Not when the term is being talked about in the context of slavery. beating someone is defying the TENET of CHRIST that says to treat others with love and to do unto each other as we wish to have done to us,, so Im not sure what relevance your last question has
The relevence is had because it is described in the text, and it is about slavery - specifically it is a part of the regulations which you attempt to call 'moral regulations'. Beating a slave to near death is a behavior that is described by Paul, and is not called wrong. In fact, as long as the slave gets up in a couple of days, the slave-owner - according to Paul - should suffer no punishment. Paul wrote the overwhelming majority of the NT. The NT is the backbone of Christianity. There is no excuse for such - regardless of the kind of slave that one is. the bible does REVIEW the conditions of biblical times, it REPEATS the laws that those nations had concerning their situation AS WELL As the laws as laid down by God and expressed by Jesus
to say that the bible somehow is a tool which 'condones' slavery of all forms is to say that my history book 'condones' hangings I've never claimed that the Bible was a tool which condones slavery of all forms. Attributing claims to me that I've not made does not change the ones that have been made. The Bible does not explicitly forbid slavery. It does explicitly forbid all other forms of behavior which it deems immoral/wrong. Therefore, we can only conclude that according to the Bible, slavery is to be considered moral/right/good. again, this is where review, and more review, and research, into the CONTEXT of what we read in the bible becomes extremely important
otherwise you have folks going around claiming that anything discussed, mentioned ,or reviewed in the bible, by nature of its mention or discussion, is being 'condoned' You know, I agree that the context allows one to be able to determine the kind of slavery being talked about, as well as whether or not we are talking about instructions from humans to humans or from God to humans. There are instructions from God to humans regarding slavery. If God, nowhere in the text forbids slavery, but rather endorses it through instruction, then it is quite clear that the biblical God condones slavery. There is no other logical conclusion. The things which God forbade are clear, slavery is not one of those things. To claim that God regulated something which was not condoned, is pure nonsense. slavery has many forms, and in biblical times was used in several contexts,, as a condition for the captured enemy(prisoner of war in modern times), as a condition of the criminal(jail in modern times) , as a condition of providing for those who couldnt provide for themself(welfare in modern times)
The manner in which one becomes a slave does not deny the fact that they are one. All forms of slavery necessitate one human being owned by another. A slave is the property of the slave-owner. The Bible concurs. The context does not change that fact about slavery. That fact is what makes slavery wrong. it is no more amoral than holding pows, or jailing lawbreakers, or providing welfare for those who are disenfranchised
Pow's are not slaves, they are pow's. Welfare recipients are not slaves, they are welfare recipients. Equating these things does not change what slavery is. Neither does it make all pow's and welfare recipients slaves. but it was ALL described with the same term of 'slavery' in the bible
Says you. I'd like to see this supported. I dont know how to convince you when you are already convinced, I dont know how to provide contrary evidence when no initial evidence is given to support your point, so I will leave it at agreeing to disagree,,, I dont put the power in the word, but in the DETAILS and the CONTEXT slavery is but a WORD, it has been applied to many different situations than the ONE you insist it refers to,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative:
This is bordering on insanity. How, as humans, can we say that selling another human is moral? How can we say that calling and treating another human like a piece of property is moral? How can we say that beating another human to near death is moral? Msharmony: Because money is not immoral, its only a bartering tool Money has nothing to do with the questions posed. Selling/buying a human as a piece of property is immoral. Because being 'property' has many implications other than mistreatment or dehumanization
Not when the term is being talked about in the context of slavery. beating someone is defying the TENET of CHRIST that says to treat others with love and to do unto each other as we wish to have done to us,, so Im not sure what relevance your last question has
The relevence is had because it is described in the text, and it is about slavery - specifically it is a part of the regulations which you attempt to call 'moral regulations'. Beating a slave to near death is a behavior that is described by Paul, and is not called wrong. In fact, as long as the slave gets up in a couple of days, the slave-owner - according to Paul - should suffer no punishment. Paul wrote the overwhelming majority of the NT. The NT is the backbone of Christianity. There is no excuse for such - regardless of the kind of slave that one is. the bible does REVIEW the conditions of biblical times, it REPEATS the laws that those nations had concerning their situation AS WELL As the laws as laid down by God and expressed by Jesus
to say that the bible somehow is a tool which 'condones' slavery of all forms is to say that my history book 'condones' hangings I've never claimed that the Bible was a tool which condones slavery of all forms. Attributing claims to me that I've not made does not change the ones that have been made. The Bible does not explicitly forbid slavery. It does explicitly forbid all other forms of behavior which it deems immoral/wrong. Therefore, we can only conclude that according to the Bible, slavery is to be considered moral/right/good. again, this is where review, and more review, and research, into the CONTEXT of what we read in the bible becomes extremely important
otherwise you have folks going around claiming that anything discussed, mentioned ,or reviewed in the bible, by nature of its mention or discussion, is being 'condoned' You know, I agree that the context allows one to be able to determine the kind of slavery being talked about, as well as whether or not we are talking about instructions from humans to humans or from God to humans. There are instructions from God to humans regarding slavery. If God, nowhere in the text forbids slavery, but rather endorses it through instruction, then it is quite clear that the biblical God condones slavery. There is no other logical conclusion. The things which God forbade are clear, slavery is not one of those things. To claim that God regulated something which was not condoned, is pure nonsense. slavery has many forms, and in biblical times was used in several contexts,, as a condition for the captured enemy(prisoner of war in modern times), as a condition of the criminal(jail in modern times) , as a condition of providing for those who couldnt provide for themself(welfare in modern times)
The manner in which one becomes a slave does not deny the fact that they are one. All forms of slavery necessitate one human being owned by another. A slave is the property of the slave-owner. The Bible concurs. The context does not change that fact about slavery. That fact is what makes slavery wrong. it is no more amoral than holding pows, or jailing lawbreakers, or providing welfare for those who are disenfranchised
Pow's are not slaves, they are pow's. Welfare recipients are not slaves, they are welfare recipients. Equating these things does not change what slavery is. Neither does it make all pow's and welfare recipients slaves. but it was ALL described with the same term of 'slavery' in the bible
Says you. I'd like to see this supported. I dont know how to convince you when you are already convinced, I dont know how to provide contrary evidence when no initial evidence is given to support your point, so I will leave it at agreeing to disagree,,, I dont put the power in the word, but in the DETAILS and the CONTEXT slavery is but a WORD, it has been applied to many different situations than the ONE you insist it refers to,,, This would be settled if some people would just read a Hebrew Bible. They were "servants" or "bondsmen", not "slaves". Read a little futher and one will see that it was unlawful to steal a person and sell them or keep them. So msharmony, it appears that some people don't know how to objectively evaluate the evidence at hand. *shrugs* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slavery is not a behavior,,,if one can start with that foundation one can understand how it cannot appropriately be labeled 'good' or 'bad'
Alright Msharmony. Begin there and show me how you arrive at the conclusion that slavery cannot be appropriately labeled 'bad'. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you fluent in Hebrew Pan?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slavery is not a behavior,,,if one can start with that foundation one can understand how it cannot appropriately be labeled 'good' or 'bad'
Alright Msharmony. Begin there and show me how you arrive at the conclusion that slavery cannot be appropriately labeled 'bad'. similar to how war cannot be labeled inherently 'bad'(morally speaking), it is a reality of our culture and our times it is to equate 'killing' with being morally reprehensible, when in FACT there are so many different situations in which KILLING occurs that the word itself doesnt imply any specfic moral attribute however, there are certain 'acceptable' reasons to kill(as in self defense, or war, or death penalty) and there are certain ACCEPTABLE reasons to go to war(such as defending civilians or a system of government) similarly, because SLAVERY is a term which by itself has no EXCLUSIVE and SPECIFIC application, it also has not SPECIFIC moral attribute as I have mentioned before, there are grown people RIGHT now who enter in their lives into a master servant relationship, because they TRUST the 'master' to care enough about them to want to see them be and have the best just as the example of a christian or CHRIST being servant(interchangable with SLAVE of God, it only implies that there has been a transfer of authority,,,sometimes completely consentually and sometimes forced the former, rooted in consent, by nature of it being consentual, can by itself not be IMMORAL by the standard of doing to others what they WISH to have done the latter, obviously would be one AMORAL manifestation of slavery in which the standard of the GOLDEN rule is not being applied to state that I am a slave, to whatever or whomever, only means I have given them an absolute authority, which is not an amoral act and neither is accepting that authority so long as it is not abused |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont know how to provide contrary evidence when no initial evidence is given to support your point, so I will leave it at agreeing to disagree
I did not ask you to provide contrary evidence to my claim. I asked for evidence to support yours. I've given plenty of evidence to support my points/claims. A claim cannot be both true and false simultaneuosly. The Bible condones, instructs, and even commands slavery. That is the claim. The evidence which supports that claim has been given. It consists of verses contained within the Bible. If the Biblical scholars got it wrong, and those things do not equate to the conditions of slavery, then your fight is not with me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 01/18/11 05:41 PM
|
|
I dont know how to provide contrary evidence when no initial evidence is given to support your point, so I will leave it at agreeing to disagree
I did not ask you to provide contrary evidence to my claim. I asked for evidence to support yours. I've given plenty of evidence to support my points/claims. A claim cannot be both true and false simultaneuosly. The Bible condones, instructs, and even commands slavery. That is the claim. The evidence which supports that claim has been given. It consists of verses contained within the Bible. If the Biblical scholars got it wrong, and those things do not equate to the conditions of slavery, then your fight is not with me. I am not fighting at all. I am also making a point(one which you have repeatedly admitted makes no difference to you) the bible REGULATED slavery, yes the bible did not CONDONE everything that happened to slaves or by slavemasters as a consequence,,,no The bible did speak to people who already had slaves as to the proper way to treat someone in that situation that word IF means alot, especially when Jesus came and showed by example how we were to live and treat each other,,, much like Jesus commanded that IF a man slaps you you should turn the other cheek,,,,the point not being that he was all for anyone slapping someone, but that he was trying to instruct on the proper way to conduct oneself in whatever situation they happened to FIND Themself(whether moral or not) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
condone
transitive verb : to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless <a government accused of condoning racism> <condone corruption in politics> Spider you're not making any sense here. Using your definition... Your claiming that God did not regard/treat slavery as acceptable? He commanded it. That is a fact. Tell me, exactly how does God command slavery without regarding/treating slavery as acceptable? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
condone
transitive verb : to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless <a government accused of condoning racism> <condone corruption in politics> Spider you're not making any sense here. Using your definition... Your claiming that God did not regard/treat slavery as acceptable? He commanded it. That is a fact. Tell me, exactly how does God command slavery without regarding/treating slavery as acceptable? where did he command slavery and in what context? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
similar to how war cannot be labeled inherently 'bad'(morally speaking), it is a reality of our culture and our times
I'm not understanding here... So you claim that because war and slavery are part of reality, of our culture and our times they cannot be 'good' or 'bad'? What does it take then, for something to be 'good or bad'? |
|
|
|
|
