Johnny Skeptic

Of course, and I never that said we couldn't. Many people are interested in Old Testament slavery from solely an academic, secular historical perspective. If that is your only interest in Old Testament slavery, that is fine with me, but a major problem that you have is that you cannot be reasonably certain how Old Testament Hebrews acted based upon copies of copies of ancient writings that were originally written thousands of years ago. My primary interest is whether or not a God inspired the Bible. A good deal of credible evidence suggests that such was not the case. As an academic, secular historical matter, I do not find the history of Old Testament Jews to be any more interesting than any other kind of history. Why should I? The only reason that I have debated slavery is that I want to discredit fundamentalist Christianity, not merely Old Testament Jews. There are thousands of other ways to adequately discredit the Bible without discussing slavery. The global flood is a good example. It is very probable that a global flood did not occur. It is easy to discredit the Bible regarding that issue.

I do not doubt that Old Testament Jews were not much better or worse than many other groups of people. If that was the case, so what?

sschlichter

I think Diodorus was a 1st century historian describing the child sacrifice of the Hittites (someone can correct me if I am wrong).

They were filled with superstitious dread, for they believed they had neglected the honors of the gods that had been established by their fathers. In their zeal to make amends for their omission, they selected 200 of the noblest children and sacrificed them publicly; and others who were under suspicion sacrificed themselves voluntarily, in a number not less than 300. (Diodorus 20.14.1-7 and following).

sschlichter

This is a good way to avoid ever being surprised by what turns out to be true.

Sheshonq

1. The fact is you got yourself in way too deep on this topic. That's why you want to ignore my point-by-point rebuttal above and simply return to asserting your desired conclusion. Waving your hands and saying "Ignoring all the facts you just presented, I still believe XYZ" is bad logic and childish.

2. Coincidence is not causality. The fact that the an anti-slavery movement arose in Christian Europe doesn't demonstrate that it was Christianity that somehow started that movement. After all, christian Europe was around for a thousand years before anti-slavery even started to be taken seriously. And during that timeChristian Europe not only tolerated, but practiced, slavery. So there's obviously nothing about Christianity or Christian Europe that opposed slavery.

3. To find out what caused the end of slavery, you have to:

(a) identify some philosophical force proximate in time to the start of the anti-slavery movement, which
(b) actively opposed slavery

Given the above, it's rather obvious that it was the philosophy of the Enlightenment that put an end to slavery. The anti-slavery movement arose in Europe in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

Naive? You're the man who thought a few internet quotes about Voltaire constituted a rebuttal argument, and you want to tell other people what "naive" is?

There is little if any relationship between the Reformation and the Enlightenment. The only real effect the Reformation had was to weaken the hold that the Roman Catholic Church had on Europe. Once weakened, the Enlightenment was in a position to take advantage of that weakness. But the Reformation, once free of the Roman Catholic Church, became just as dogmatic and anti-Enlightenment as the RCC did. The Enlightment was a direct threat to both the RCC and the new Protestantism.

Read this again from Britannica:

The bolded sections above point out why there is no connection between the Reformation and the Enlightenment - the Enlightenment philosophy was at war with the Reformation.

We've been through this before - in that big response above that you tried to ignore.

1. Almost all EUROPEANS were christians at that time - it proves nothing to say that most Enlightment philosophers were christian;

2. Trying to credit these philosophers' belief in christianity does not work. In point of fact, most Enlightenment philosophers were not christians in the sense that you would describe being a christian, but were instead natural religionists or Deists (see Voltaire and other quotes above);

3. If Christianity had any real opposition to slavery, then why did it take 1000 years of before Christian Europe decided that slavery was a bad thing? Answer: because it wasn't christianity that started the abolition movement after all. It was the philosophy of the Enlightenment, which didn't come along until centuries after Christianity arrived to Europe.

4. Educate yourself:
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2004/...ghtenment.html


It certainly wasn't due to Christianity or the Reformation, because neither one of those created the Enlightment. Europe had an Enlightenment because it had previously experienced a Renaissance rooted in humanism.

Sheshonq

Nonsense. They would pick up the culture and customs of their captors (Hebrews). Unless you think that idol worship is somehow genetically programmed?

Exciter

It really isn't hard. Actually you do fine by yourself by just posting.
Well see, I have not done this. I merely pointed out that the website appears to be an outline on a course. What you referenced said the urn with child remains is a sign of child sacrafice because the Bible says so. If that means they are Christian apologetics then...

No I haven't. You just dislike like that I pointed out that you have been wrong in a lot of what you said and/or you can't get a pulse on what I'm posting. It's not hard to realize slavery, poverty, and crime is immoral, but for you it's hard to say that it is immoral.
I told you already, don't let them become destitute in the first place!
How was making them a slave rehabilitation again?
As much so that it did in the US, and it was still immoral no matter how much white wash you use.

Sheshonq

1. Making stuff up does not work here. How do you know it was only one slave? How do you know this wasn't a commonly occurring problem with dozens or hundreds of runaways?

2. You have no idea *why* this slave ran away. Suppose he ran away because he wanted to worship his idols?

3. The OT is pretty explicit - there was zero tolerance for idol worshipping. So even if you were correct - a huge stretch - then a runaway slave would still not be tolerated, because (according to your logic) he would be a free idol worshipper loose inside Israel.

This silly response from you was answered already. I'll just re-post it here since you chickened out and didn't address it earlier:

1. You just got through claiming that these slaves were apprentices; clearly you beileve they were learning some kind of useful trade. Apparently you don't realize the ramifications of your own arguments.

It doesn't really matter; experience in other cultures and other times says you're wrong. Liberated slaves do find a way to stay alive, even if it takes a decade or a generation. And ultimately, a parent would rather raise their child as a free person on meager bread, than consign that child to a lifetime of servitude at someone else's hands.

1. Slavery meant forced servitude, less than adequate conditions, and no way out. If you think it was such a good deal, then why did they have to shackle the slaves?

2. People were quite able to find their own food and make their own way in life. And if not, then they were free to voluntarily sell themselves for a fixed period of time into indentured servitude.

Slavery is not a kindness - and all your attempts to rationalize this and avoid admitting an unpleasant truth about the bible are not going to work.

It's more about you twisting and turning to avoid admitting a moral failure in the bible.

No, it represents a period of mourning for their dead husbands and children.

Which didn't answer the question posed to you:

1. They would still be foreign women.
2. They would still be worshippers of idols.

So if Moses was worried about having idol worshippers loose in Israel, then why did Moses order the Hebrew men to take these women as wives?

Try to grow a spine and actually answer the question this time, hmm?

Sheshonq

Over the top whining. Go somewhere else; no one here is listening.

Why?

It was your claim - you back it up. How many times do we have to drill that into your head, arnoldo?

Exciter

Actually I think that website sschlichter linked used Jeremiah 7:30–32 which says the same thing so that'd be no.

Passages from the Bible are not evidence that remains in an urn are indeed from child sacrifice, sorry.

Sheshonq

Don't play stupid. The question wasn't about all debt; it was *specifically* about the debt of those destitute who cannot pay it back. It's the same principle, in fact, as a bankruptcy court.

Of course, you're too busy spinning and kneejerking to realize that.

Does your body know that its brain isn't at home?
Does your village know that its idiot is missing?

Are we done now? Maybe you can address the questions and stop creating strawmen.