Sven

You also seem to think that there's no problem in allowing one human to beat another human nearly to death.

Gullwind

Of course, the obvious answer to all this is that those of us who feel that it is wrong to own another human being and beat that person if we feel it is necessary (but not excessively, of course) are the ones who are morally wrong.

After all, we obviously hold to a different set of morals than those espoused in the bible, right? :huh:

Hobbs

And as I've already replied to Not_Registered:

Not_Registered

The following was taken from dictionary.com

Analogous

1. Similar or alike in such a way as to permit the drawing of an analogy.

Similar

1. Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.

The following was taken from carm.org

Galations, Chp 4:
1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

The following is taken from http://www.gocrc.com/conF.html.

“The U.S. Supreme Court long ago noted that a parent's right to "the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children" is an interest "far more precious" than any property right.�

The following is taken from http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/custody

In another sense, custody signifies having the care and possession of a thing...

The following is taken from dictionary.com.

Manage

1. To direct or control the use of
2. See (a) and (b)
   1. To exert control over
   2. To make submissive to one's authority, discipline, or persuasion

The following is taken from http://www.divorcenet.com/pa/paart-18.html

Physical Custody. The actual possession and control of the child.

The following is taken from legal-definitions.com

physical custody definition – Physical custody refers to the physical direction and control of the child by the parent.

Angrillori

Hmm, from the guy who tried to excise the "ownership" line out of the biblical definition of servant, I don't expect a whole lot more.
Yes, we agree that is the defintion of analogy. I now repeat: The slave/master relationship is analguous to a father/son how?

One can release himself when he is found competent to do so.
The other can be beaten, nearly unto death, and as long as he can regain his feet after one or two days, there is no repurcussion, and he cannot merely ask and be guaranteed to receive his freedom.

Doesn't help your case: see "as long as he is a child" in which case it is a custodial relationship, not ownership. Also notice that this is a Pauline descriptive statement, not a proscriptive rule. ("Look" says Paul "the heir is like a servant, because he has governors and tutors until he's old enough not too! See? You're like that too!" He was using analogy.) Did you perhaps read the context of this nicely mined quote? Did you even notice that it's from Galatians, and not any book of law?

So....a quote showing how children are not merely chattely, and have "an interest "far more precious" than any property right" is supposed to support your assertion thatthey are like slaves, and merely chattel?

The following is taken from your quote:

"is an interest "far more precious" than any property right.�

(P.S. Note, not merely property!)

Ok. Ownership here? I appreciate your support of my point that parents are allowed to make the decisions for their children until the children are able themselves. But definition mining for "management" only seems to help my case and hurt yours.

Did you quote mine possession too? I did. Look:
Possession: Law. Actual holding or occupancy with or without rightful ownership.
(From www.dictionary.com)

So, possession does not neccessarily indicate ownership.....hmmm.....seems that doesn't support your position that "parents own their children and should be able to beat them nearly unto death, as long as they can regain their feet after one or two days...."

Ok, which also supports my contention that the parent/child relationship is unlike your slave/master relationship. Parents are allowed to make decisions for their children until such time as the children are ruled competent to make the decisions themselves. Heck, if you go back to your Galatians, descriptive of childhood, even Paul sees the difference when he points out that the child is only governed until the time the father set. So. Nice apologetic, but I don't think I'll be considering it moral to:

A) Own another human being,
B) Beat other human beings, nearly unto death, as long as they can regain their feet after one or two days,
C) Do the same to my children.

And I'll continue to consider these things immoral regardless of what your mythbook written by bronze age goat herders has to say about it.

Amaleq13

Changing the emphasis to the more relevant portion suggests this opinion offered by the Court supports Angrillori's statement.

The rights associated with the parent-child relationship are significantly different from and qualitatively superior to the rights associated with ownership of property.

Being responsible for a child, according to the Supreme Court, is clearly not the same as owning property but the Bible, just as clearly, equates slavery with owning property. Therefore, the analogy is not valid.

Not_Registered

Now you use the term servants? What happened to slaves. Unless you're saying today's society has slaves, your point is erroneous. If our society today doesn't have slaves, they can't be beaten. So this proves nothing as to whether or not the beating of slaves can lead to a "productive" society. Your only defense would be the evidence of a productive society that has slaves, but they are not beaten. I wonder how these masters would get their lazy, insubordinate slaves to work? Maybe I don't have enough faith in the phrase "pretty please."


Maybe you have too much faith in "pretty please."


And many people who weren't beaten are crack addicts, criminals, bums, etc. As someone once said, "This is one of the most ridiculous straw man I've ever seen."

Before someone replies back, I'm not saying beating children is the answer, but one cannot say no children should ever be beaten. Because there can be seen faults on both sides. Some parents abuse their children and they turn out to be crack addicts, criminals, bums, etc. Some parents can't discipline their children without physical means and their children, despite their parent's efforts, turn out to be crack addicts, criminals, bums, etc.


No. But, the bible doesn't condone masters to beat their slaves nearly to death. The bible has verses that allow the freeing of the master's slave if that slave should be maimed. It also speaks of loving your neighbor as yourself and treating a slave as a person among you. Of course everyone points to the one verse which says if a slave should continue for a day or two then the master should not be punished. But, there are verses which speak to loving your neighbor and treating them as a person among you and verses that restrict masters from maiming their slaves. Any person with common sense could view the overall picture and see God wasn't telling the masters to beat their slaves to near death. If you can't deduce this from the entire readings then its because your not looking at them objectively. It's amazing how all atheist say it says one thing and all believers say it says another. Someone must be wrong.

Not_Registered

So, another poll.

After reading the laws defined in the bible, you believe:
(a) God wants all masters to beat all their slaves to near death.
(b) God wants all masters to have the right to discipline their slaves when needed.
(c) God wants....ah screw the question I'll provide some superfluous commentary which circumvents it.

Gullwind

How about "God should have said that ownership of another human being is wrong and they should all be freed", rather than supporting an existing human institution which is exactly what you'd expect from a book of law written by normal men in that day and age.

Not_Registered

I have another poll. I would greatly appreciate it this poll were answered honestly. If you could, would you please try to answer the following question honestly. I am curious to see the answers.

Question:
Do you view the slavery defined in the bible to be the exact same as the slavery implemented in the early stages of America. If not, then why?

Once again, I would greatly appreciate it if you all could reply with your answer to this question. Thanks.