Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshonq · 12-30-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

All you are actually doing is avoiding a discussion on the relationship between slavery, poverty, and crime in the ANE.

Actually, you're the one avoiding the discussion. All your points were addressed by me earlier. You've yet to respond to my rebuttals Let's have another go at the questions, shall we?

Quote:

Without slavery, can you please let me know how those destitute were to survive?

* The same way that many survived in the ANE without being slaves:
- by farming or making a living for themselves;
- by hiring themselves out to work crews - Egypt was always hiring for its massive projects;

* The same way that many around the world survive now without slavery.
* And if that survival isn't possible, then they still would have the option to either:

(a) die as free people; or
(b) sell themselves into voluntary servitude for a fixed amount of time - not an inherited slavery

So far your rationalization of slavery as the solution for being destitute isn't working very well.

Besides, these people didn't become slaves as a result of being destitute; they became slaves as a result of being victims of war. You're trying to excuse slavery based upon Reason A, when in fact the cause of the slavery was a totally different Reason B.

Quote:

how those that committed crimes were to be rehabililated?

Slavery was not for rehabilitation. Slavery was inherited; how is that rehabilitory?

Quote:

I am not asking you to get baptized, just to consider the possibility that slavery in the ANE provided social functions that jails and welfare do today.

Which it did not, since:

1. slavery was an inherited condition;
2. there is no evidence that these people "needed' to be slaves for their own survival;
3. you continue to dodge the question: if slavery was so good for the slaves, then how come the slaves didn't agree? How come they had to be shackled?

You're merely the latest in a long string of desperate christians trying to excuse slavery even though you know it's morally reprensible. You're backed into a corner because your faith won't allow you to admit that the bible approved of slavery. Which is why you're doing world-class contortionist tricks now.

Sheshbazzar · 12-30-2008, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

And if this male slave was born to parents who were both lifelong slaves to the master, and was thus the masters slave from the day of his birth?

The Law as it is written is ambiguous, and lacking in detailed instruction, its interpretation and application being entirely committed to the deciding authority of the Jewish priesthood.
Do you trust that the Jewish priesthoods authority was/is divinely ordained, just, and to be obeyed and followed regarding the slavery laws?
Even to the deciding of life and death matters ?

Do you also along with supporting the slave laws, support the continued application of the Law set forth in Deuteronomy 17:8-12?

If you affirm this portion of The Law, then by your own affirmation, that man whom you deify, was then justly and rightly condemned to death by the only Scripturally recognised and authorised authorities.
And thus you ought to also obey The Judgment which they gave, and which is of public record, and well known, that all have been;
"straitly commanded... no longer teach nor preach in this name"
Howbeit if you do not affirm and obey all of The Law, and The Law's authorised Judgment, you become guilty under all of The Law, and of its Judgment.

It is a perversity, and a perversion of The Law, to affirm some few of The Law's rules regarding the institution of slavery, while resisting authoritative Judgments rendered by that selfsame Law's Divinely appointed authorities.

Your appeal to the teachings of The Law as support for the morality of the institution slavery is utterly lacking in merit, in that you willfully neglect such other provisions of The Law that bear upon The Law's active application.

In other words it is not, and never has been, up to "christian" or other such self-appointed "authorities" to Decide, nor to render Judgment upon how The Law is to be implemented.

"Christian" conducted and ruled slavery, is always ipso-facto a pagan slavery, because all christianity is only existent in defiance of, and in opposition to the authority of The Law.
Thus any "rules" or "judgements" about slavery made then, now, or in the future by christian "authorities" are only -pagan- rules and -pagan- judgments made by -pagans- about the -pagan- slave practices of their -pagan- cult.
A re-institution of the slavery as laid out in The Torah, would also require the re-institution of the ONLY authorised Priesthood of The Torah to run, and to regulate it, christian pretenders need not ever apply.

The ages have moved on, and it is now recognised (by most) that slavery has never been either a just, nor an effective solution to humanities problems.
There is no slave in the "Old Testement" (sic) that would not have been better off in all respects, as a free and paid worker.

Surely you are not suggesting that I am calling for a return to slavery. That totally misrepresents my position.

You HAVE been attempting the defense of the moral rightness of OT type slavery for hundreds of posts.
And as you find fault with all slavery -except- that of the OT type (of which you actually know very little about), and as you also admit latter in this post;

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Slavery is alive and well in nearly every part of the world.......Yes, the slavery instituted by most of the world (including Christendom) was unlawful, immoral, and cruel.

This, (and many of your previous post) does suggest that you are advocating a return from all these latter, and presently "unlawful", "immoral", and "cruel" forms of slavery, -to your idealised (but unrealistic) vision of that "lawful", "moral" and "kindly" type of slavery that you would like to imagine existed in the time of Moses.
Else one would wonder for what other reason a person would engage in such a protracted, but fault ridden defense of all OT slave practices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

As far as Jesus, the law was the instrument of his humiliation. His humiliation is now over, though.

And by The Law he was guilty, not innocent.
(all moot anyway as there never was any such person or trial, the entire story being only the Action/Adventure comic book productions of latter gentile chrestian fabrications)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

It is naive to suggest that people have moved on. Slavery is alive and well in nearly every part of the world. Even more now are killed in the simple name of inconvenience. OT Hebrews were smart enough not to kill their own children by twisting off their head as they were being born. To state that people have gotten smarter just means you probably do not have cable and are not paying attention.

Yes, the slavery instituted by most of the world (including Christendom) was unlawful, immoral, and cruel. This is contrary to the description of slavery in the OT.
However, since one of the themes of the Bible is the depravity of man, it does not provide any leverage for your position at all. Christians screw things up - just like all other manner of person. moot point.

Thus all slavery not conducted according to Moses' "lawful", "moral" and "kindly" type of slavery, is "depravity" in your sight?
It doesn't take a genius to comprehend what the ellipsis of that view must be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

All you have to do to prove your point that slavery served no purpose is answer the question of how would the destitute have survived without slavery. If merely waving a fair wages wand is your reply then why do we have prisons and welfare in our enlightened times?

Prisons are for people who willfully commit crimes against their fellow man, not for people who are merely destitute.
The poor we always have with us, and every civilised and compassionate society makes provisions for the poor and the elderly.
And it does not require the imposition of comic-book characters created by chrestia-inanity to care for others.
Rather those who are guilty of participating, and furthering such vile "religious" perversions, are all the more guilty of NOT loving their fellow man.
So in a truly just society the destitute are not enslaved by masters, but are fed, clothed, and helped out of true human compassion and love for our fellow man, not by the instituting of stupid and evil laws authorising enslavement.

arnoldo · 12-30-2008, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Why can't we compare this culture with other cultures on the subject of slavery?

code of Ur-Namma

If a slave escapes from the city limits, and someone returns him, the owner shall pay two shekels to the one who returned him.

code of Haamurabi

If any one find runaway male or female slaves in the open country and bring them to their masters, the master of the slaves shall pay him two shekels of silver.

code of Hittites

If a slave set a house ablaze, his master shall compensate for him. The nose of the slave and his ears they shall cut off, and give him back to his master. But if he do not compensate, then he shall give up this one.

compare these with the runaway slave laws of the OT.

There really is no comparison, the Mosaic laws were by far more lenient in the treatment of slaves than the other ancient middle eastern laws.

sschlichter · 12-30-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Actually, you're the one avoiding the discussion. All your points were addressed by me earlier. You've yet to respond to my rebuttals Let's have another go at the questions, shall we?

this post was not even directed to you. I did not even know you had questions for me.

Quote:

(a) die as free people; or
(b) sell themselves into voluntary servitude for a fixed amount of time - not an inherited slavery

ok, so you are providing two alternatives to slavery. One is death and the other is slavery. That is interesting.

Quote:

So far your rationalization of slavery as the solution for being destitute isn't working very well.

Besides, these people didn't become slaves as a result of being destitute; they became slaves as a result of being victims of war. You're trying to excuse slavery based upon Reason A, when in fact the cause of the slavery was a totally different Reason B.

you have not been paying attention. We have all gone over passages that made it clear that slaves came from A) those that sold themselves due to destitution, B) those sentenced to slavery due to crime, and C) those made subjects as a result of surrender.

I was addressing A and B.

Quote:

Slavery was not for rehabilitation. Slavery was inherited; how is that rehabilitory?

This was addressed.

Quote:

1. slavery was an inherited condition;
2. there is no evidence that these people "needed' to be slaves for their own survival;
3. you continue to dodge the question: if slavery was so good for the slaves, then how come the slaves didn't agree? How come they had to be shackled?

what shackles?

Quote:

You're merely the latest in a long string of desperate christians trying to excuse slavery even though you know it's morally reprensible. You're backed into a corner because your faith won't allow you to admit that the bible approved of slavery. Which is why you're doing world-class contortionist tricks now.

I said the OT did condone slavery.

sschlichter · 12-30-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

So you would legislate the forgiveness of all debt.

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.

Quote:

Does your father know that you are playing on his computer?

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.

actually, Exciter, I apologize for that last comment. It was intended to be in jest but after reading it again in this post, it was not appropriate.

I'm sorry for that.

Sheshong,

It was my question. Why are you telling me what my question was about? We have already established that some sold themselves into servitude out of desperation. There is no loan inherent in this. if there is a loan then fine, forgive it. However, you are still destitute. I think you outlined the options when you suggested they could die free or sell themselves into servitude. Given these options, servitude is the one that is beneficial.

sschlichter · 12-30-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

because in 7 years, you would have a growing population of idol worshippers living in your midst.

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

I do think it is genetic. the worship of all that is not God is the inclination of man. If you see how badly the Hebrews followed Mosaic law, you will notice that they did not kill who they were supposed to kill, kick out who they were supposed to kick out and became influenced, idol worshippers, sacrificers of children, and finally slaves themselves due to their disobedience.

sschlichter · 12-30-2008, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Do you accept Jeremiah 19.3-6 as evidence that the Judeans themselves sometimes practiced child sacrifice to Ba'al?

Ben.

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.

I provided a quote from a non-biblical source. You now have 3 sources.

A) The Bible - what it says about those cultures and what it says about its influence on Hebrew culture.

B) archeological evidence

C) a 1st century BC historian

Johnny Skeptic · 12-31-2008, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

The only reason that I have debated slavery is that I want to discredit fundamentalist Christianity, not merely Old Testament Jews.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlicter

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

If what turns out to be true, that Old Testament Jews had better character than some other groups of people in the ancient world? If that is all that you are trying to prove, even if you are right, all that you have accomplished is to reasonably prove an academic, secular historical claim. If even one group of ancient people had better character than ancient Jews did, what would that indicate to you?

Some skeptics have better character than the God of the Bible does since they would never send anyone to hell for 1,000 years without parole, let alone for eternity. In addition, they would never create hurricanes and kill people who they loved with them.

As far as avoiding arguments is concerned, since you have avoided discussing the existence and morality of the God of the Bible, you have avoided discussing much more important issues than the merely academic secular issue of Old Testament slavery.

If you are suggesting that since the character of Old Testament Jews was unusually superior to all of other groups of people in the ancient world, that that is reasonable proof that the God of the Bible exists, or helps to provide reasonable proof that the God of the Bible exists, just say so and I will be happy to discuss that issue with you.

Today, some of most loving, kind, moral people in the world are non-Christians, many of whom have equal or better character than many Christians do. How do you account for that? In the U.S., Baptists have a higher divorce rate than atheists do. How do you account for that? In Denmark, heterosexuals have a much higher divorce rate than homosexuals do. How do you account for that?

Consider the following:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

The article was written by the Journal of Religion and Society. Consider the following:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/toc/About.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by moses.creighton.edu

The Journal of Religion & Society is a refereed academic journal dedicated to the publication of scholarly research in religion and its diverse social dimensions. All submissions to the journal will be subject to blind peer review.

As an electronic journal taking full advantage of the World Wide Web, the Journal of Religion & Society will incorporate photos, graphics, and other media where appropriate in its articles. Moreover, the journal will publish material on an ongoing rather than a periodic basis, eliminating any backlog between acceptance and publication, and also accelerating the publication of scholarly research.

Each volume of the journal will be limited to material published within a given calendar year. The journal also publishes a Supplement Series consisting of occasional collections of essays on a particular theme or topic.

Following are excerpts from the article, although I suggest that readers read the entire article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moses.creighton.edu

This study is a first, brief look at an important subject that has been almost entirely neglected by social scientists. The primary intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data. Some conclusions that can be gleaned from the plots are outlined. This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health. It is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark future research and debate on the issue.

Levels of religious and nonreligious belief and practice, and indicators of societal health and dysfunction, have been most extensively and reliably surveyed in the prosperous developed democracies (Figures 1-9). Similar data is often lacking for second and third world nations, or is less reliable. The cultural and economic similarity of the developed democracies minimizes the variability of factors outside those being examined. The approximately 800 million mostly middle class adults and children act as a massive epidemiological experiment that allows hypotheses that faith in a creator or disbelief in evolution improves or degrades societal conditions to be tested on an international scale. The extent of this data makes it potentially superior to results based on much smaller sample sizes. Data is from the 1990s, most from the middle and latter half of the decade, or the early 2000s.

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health.

If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.

Conclusion

The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.

I believe that the evidence makes a good case that there is not a necessary correlation between religious conservatism and societal health.

As many people know, the term "secular democracies" does not mean "atheist." For example, the vast majority of people in Sweden, other Scandanavian countries, and Japan are theists.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-31-2008, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

There really is no comparison, the Mosaic laws were by far more lenient in the treatment of slaves than the other ancient middle eastern laws.

It doesn't matter since the God of the Bible is immoral when compared with common decency. For instance, no moral God would make rules to protect slaves and then turn around and injure and kill them by various means such as storms and disease. The buck stops with God, not with Old Testament Jews.

If Judaism was fine, what need was there for Jesus after thousands of years of Judaism?

sugarhitman · 12-31-2008, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Well, the Jews in Egypt were treated harshly solely based upon their ethnicity

In point of fact there is no evidence that Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. We have only been assuming that for the sake of this argument. But there is zero archaeological evidence to support it.

Also wrong. They were enslaved because the Hebrews needed a rationalization for occupying those lands and taking slaves. There is also no evidence for this gross immorality that you are talking about.

Not that it matters much - the bible also says that the children shall not suffer for the sins of the parents. You cannot justify perpetual slavery of an entire group of people based upon what their ancestors may have done 10 generations ago.

Quote:

Now, if you feel it's immoral to allow tribes to continue burning their children in fire to their pagans gods then perhaps you'll understand why these tribes were treated harshly. . .

What an incredibly silly comment.

1. If you have evidence of this practice, then provide it. You never do; so I don't have high hopes for you this time, either.

2. Even if it did happen, that is no reason to keep an entire group of people enslaved for something that happened 10 generations earlier. By that argument, the Jews were in slavery in Egypt legitimately, because Isaac lied to get Esau's birthright. So Hebrews were rightfully enslaved in Egypt, because they're liars and you can't trust them in open society.

You can't have it both ways - although I'm sure like most fundie apologists, you'll certainly try.

Typical Islamic bias. Hey they are attacking your faith in GRD.....will you stand up and defend Allah?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.