Read all about it from an apologetic source that has the sole aim of justifying the Bible?

Look at the Hebrew texts on slavery. There is nothing about slavery being voluntary. Slaves were sold as property. Selling/buying a human is immoral. The slave-owner could also have sex with the slaves' wives by virtue of their owning the slave. In other words...

Rape was legalized.

What about what the Hebrews meant?

Oh, but you have assumed. I didn't say that God told the Israelites to turn the girls into slaves and they certainly weren't turned into sexual slaves. God had just caused a plague among the Israelites for their sexual immorality (which would include rape or sex with someone whom you weren't betrothed to). Rape was a capital offense among the Hebrews, no distinctions were made for non-Hebrew women vs Hebrew women. So it certainly wasn't sexual slavery that the women were brought into, but a small number of them probably were raped by evil men. No, God told the men that they could take the virgin girls. He didn't say for what purpose. Childhood deaths were extremely common during those times. Due to famine, disease, wild animals, warfare... I suspect that many, if not most of the girls were adopted as daughters. Remember, the age of marriage back then was around when a girl had her first period. This means that these girls were mostly, if not all under 12 or so. As one of the links I posted earlier noted, in Israelite culture children of age five were given light tasks and children of eight were expected to actually do chores for the family. So many of these children wouldn't have been doing anything more than being children. Those from 5 to 8 would have been given small tasks to do around the house and those who were over 8 would have been asked to perform chores around the house: Just like every other family member.

Some of the girls were probably turned into slaves, but they were probably a minority. In Hebrew culture, a Hebrew family man could adopt a girl and she became a Hebrew. This is an odd quirk of the Hebrew culture, which doesn't exist in any other that I know of. The girl didn't even have to believe in God in order to be a Hebrew in their eyes. I believe this is what God wanted: The girls to be given homes and families and a better life that they could have had among the Midianites. You are begging the question. You assume "take the girls for yourself" means turn them into sexual slaves because..because you assume that is what happened. You actively ignore the strict laws and harsh punishments in Hebrew culture against sexual immorality completely.

It is never a good sign when someone is attempting to completely redefine an uncontentious word in order to make sense of their belief.

Why did I tell myself that you could be reasonable? Back to this crap again?

You ignore EVERYTHING POSTED BY ANYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH. You aren't worth my time. I'll talk to you when you learn some manners.

And here we are AGAIN....

You deciding what is acceptable. I bet you still think you have an "objective" opinion, right?


You'll never get it, just let... it... go......

This coming from one who claims to have morality all figured out before he could read.

Ignoring context and ignoring issues with translations are cheap and dirty tricks. Anyone who tries to discuss anything with someone who employs these methods of debate is wasting their time. Anyone who uses the Genetic fallacy isn't worthy of debate or effort.

Yes I do.

And you should look at dragoness's take on morality, I agree with her.

Morals are inherrent, why isn't this fact obvious to everyone?

I agree , as is slavery throughout history in multiple contexts and situations


like, during a time when people were often at war to acquire ownership of land(kind of like incest when people were still trying to increase the numbers over the earth)


here are a couple non religious sources, as I realize anything that references religion at all might be taken as inherently untrue or jaded


{url] http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac41


http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/bus/A0861124.html


I will leave it to interested parties to put 'slavery throughout history' in their favorite search engine and research the sources there as well to see the broad range of circumstances and REASONS for slavery throughout our existence and to see that not ALL of those were 'amoral'

These consideration are quoted directly from your source Spider, since you insisted that I look. This was taken from the top portion which set the foundation for the rest. That is the part above "With this framework in mind".





p1. The most frequent method of enslavement was the sale of children by their parents
p2. Voluntary entering into slavery requires one make that choice for themself
C. If the most frequent method of enslavement was the sale of children by their parents, then it was not voluntary for the child



This acknowledges the existence of extreme punishment. Therefore, we cannot conclude that that was not a part of Hebrew slavery.



This is rather pathetic. It is a self-contradicting statement. The first part claims that there were no apparent differences in the way the interests of slaves and free men were defended. Then goes on to say that a slave could not engage in litigation with their master. If a slave cannot engage in litigation with their masters, then there is no way to for the slave to defend his/her own interests. There is no legal recourse available to be taken by a slave against his/her master.

Does not sound moral to me.

Confusing reality with your imagination again I see. How many times must I tell you that those thoughts exist in your head, not mine?



No wonder I am reminded of a four-year-old's take on what is right and wrong when I read your responses regarding that.



Because it is not a fact. It is a mistake in thought being asserted in writing as though it were a fact. Morals are learned, and can conflict with morality, which is inherent. There are many people who realize that morality and morals are not the same thing. It takes more than a four-year-old understanding of morality in order to grasp that fact. It's a logical one, a necessary truth.

morality:

a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson
b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson

2a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct

3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct

4: moral conduct : virtue


morals:
a : the moral (see 1moral) significance or practical lesson (as of a story)

b : a passage pointing out usually in conclusion the lesson to be drawn from a story

2plural a : moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct b : ethics

3: morale



....draw your own conclusions,,,

Face it, you are wrong on all counts.

You quoted Exodus?

Why didn't you quote these verses?

Exodus 21:16 (New King James Version)
16 “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death."


Exodus 21:16 (New International Version, ©2010)
16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.


Exodus 21:16 (English Standard Version)
16 "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."


Exodus 21:16 (GOD’S WORD Translation)
16 “Whoever kidnaps another person must be put to death, whether he has sold the kidnapped person or still has him."




Forced "slavery" was forbidden, period.

"Slavery" isn't even the correct translation, period.

I was right when I said you wouldn't look it up for yourself, because you would have given up this unwinnable debate.

Ms,

You somehow think that that conflicts?

Like I said, morality is not a simple subject matter to understand.

ahh, something to agree upon, most words in the english language are not SIMPLE to understand without a CONTEXT with which to define them


hence my reason for suggesting that those reading the definitions draw their 'own' conclusions

All bark no bite.



Hell, I dunno?

Why do you quote a single verse and call it 'verses'? Why did you not address the rejoinders? Why do you think that I should listen to anything you say?



You think that this single verse makes all of the other verses about slavery go away?



I can see how one would think that, if one bases his entire understanding of what forced slavery is upon this verse. The translations conflict with one another, by the way. So, which one is right? Let me point something else out to you...

Stealing a man and selling him does not exhaust the meaning of what constitutes being forced slavery.

A parent who sells a prepubescent child into slavery is forcing that child into slavery. What about these verses Pan, from the same book that you've offered? They give the single verse offered by you a little more viable context, and actually completely dispute your meanderings.

Exodus 21:2-4

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

Hmmm... seems to me that that is forcing the wife and children to continue to be slaves. Now you tell me, would you choose to go free if you knew that the law required you to leave your family behind?

Do you not see the problem here?



Whatever.

Take that one up with the biblical scholars and academic minds which not only understand Hebrew better than you or I, but are inclined understand that morality and morals are not the same thing as well.



I love it when an opponent claims victory based upon facts that are clearly not in evidence. Confusing your imagination with reality again I see.

It is a fact that all the sources describe a human who is bought/sold. There is universal agreement on that aspect. Argue with Exodus some more, Numbers while your at it.

most contracts use a bartering of services for a bartering of a need

nothing inherently amoral if its consentual


we have prostitution and we have casual sex

are they both amoral or is one amoral simply because the one providing a 'need' is being paid for it (bought)

if someone provides for you in exchange for your service, and it is consentual, I am failing to see where it is amoral , even if that service happens to be EXCLUSIVE for a given and agreed upon period of time

I know it touches the sensibilities anytime money enters into an equation but it still doesnt change the ACTIVITY that is specific to that equation or define its morality

Never disagreed with that. I am looking at context. It seems rather clear to me, that according to the Bible, there are slaves which have no choice in the matter - according to the context.

there are , and their situation is not the DEFINITION of what slavery was anymore than those who have embezzled provide the DEFINITION of what capitalism is

what HAPPENS , on occasion, does not necessarily broadly define the conditions or institution in which it happens