Johnny Skeptic

That is correct. I have not studied hiring illegal immigration laws at all.

In the U.S., it is illegal to discriminate against people based upon their ethnicity. Do you agree with that? What is your position on hiring illegal immigrants? Please answer those questions. I will not answer any more of your questions unless you answer my questions. If you expect that I will let you ask all of the questions, you are mistaken. That is an old fundie trick.

Regarding your claim that I do not understand a culture that I am not from, and a time period separated from mine by 3,000 years, and geographically on the other side of the planet," first of all, how are you able to understand that culture? Second of all, the texts clearly show that Hebrews considered it to be harsh to involuntarily force Hebrews to be slaves for life, and that was prohibited by law. On the other hand, Hebrews did not consider it to be harsh to involuntarily force non-Hebrews to be involuntarily forced to be slaves for life, and that was allowed by law. Morally, how can the same treatment be harsh for one ethnic group, and not be harsh for another ethnic group?

Considering that Hebrews sometimes killed non-Hebrew women and male children from other tribes, it is reasonable to assume that they would abuse non-Hebrew slaves.

Please be advised that I am much more interested in the existence and morals of the God of the Bible than I am about the morals of Old Testament Hebrews. Morality all over the ancient world was questionable by today's stardards, but a loving God could easily have solved that problem. The General Religious Discussions Forum would be a more appropriate place to discuss those issues if you are interested.

No intelligent case can be made that the double-standard of treatment of Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves was moral, especially if a supposely loving God set up the standard. No matter how many posts you make, you will never be able to reasonably prove that Old Testament Jews had better character than all of the other ethnic groups of people who they injured and killed. In addition, you will never be able to reasonably prove that Old Testament Jews did not acquire the land of Canaan immorally by killing the Canaanites, and by stealing the Canaanites' land.

The truth is that you do not have a clue what happened thousands of years ago. You rubber stamp everything that the Bible says by faith, and try to force history to agree with the Bible. If Old Testament Hebrews were immoral people and abused their non-Hebrews slaves, how would you be able to know that?

Johnny Skeptic

I am having trouble getting my thumb on the pulse of how you have determined that the God of the Bible exists, and that he is moral. How have you determined that? If the God of the Bible does not exist, what difference should Old Testament slavery make to you? If you wish to discuss these issues at the General Religious Discussions Forum, that would be fine.

I am not having trouble determining that you know that all long as you ask questions, you will never have to provide any answers. The truth is that there are many questions that I could ask you that you could not provide adequate answers to.

Exciter

I'm not saying that.
Not in every circumstance does an individual have that right.
There's a big part of the problem, perhaps. Using your thumb to find a pulse can give a false result.

One.
No, I don't reject them as Christian apologetic source.

What you linked to is a course on Introduction to Biblical History and Archaeology, the professor could well be an Christian apologist, he could be the President of EAC for all I know.

The reason they claim the remains in the urn are from a child sacrifice is because... the Bible says so.

I asked for something that does not point to the Bible as evidence, I already know what the Bible says.

Sure, but make sure they don't say that some remains are because the Bible says so, lol.

Lol, I asked arnoldo if he could provide archaeological evidence and not because the Bible says so.

You stuck your nose in with that website, which says.... because the Bible says so, and now you want me to come up with the evidence for you?

You claim to have thousands of them, so... just make sure you read them first.

There might not be, but claiming you have evidence because the Bible says so could be considered apologetics.

Then again it's an outline for a course on Biblical History, partly, so you can use the Bible's say so for the course.

Sheshonq

Misleading question, actually. We didn't enslave the citizens of Germany, Japan or Italy like Israel did with the peoples they (allegedly) conquered. Nor did we enslave their descendants in perpetuity.

Because the situations are not the same, no matter how hard you try to pretend that they are.

Sheshonq

Congratulations -- your quote is irrelevant to the question at hand. It doesn't matter what Montesquieu thought about christianity. It was his Enlightenment views on slavery which mattered. But just for the record, Montesquieu also said:

“No kingdom has shed more blood than the kingdom of Christ”

You assume that because someone had some (questionable) nice thing to say about christianity, that somehow refuted my statement that it was Enlightenment principles that laid the foundation for anti-slavery. It's a sily mistake to make; yet you'll make this same mistake again below - let's watch:

As I just indicated: saying nice things about christianity doesn't refute my claim. And since you don't know the history behind the book you're quoting, allow me to fill you in on an important detail of Emile:

In addition to introducing a newly passionate Emile to society during his adolescent years, the tutor also introduces him to religion. According to Rousseau, children cannot understand abstract concepts such as the soul before the age of about fifteen or sixteen, so to introduce religion to them is dangerous. He writes, “it is a lesser evil to be unaware of the divinity than to offend it” [16] Moreover, because children are incapable of understanding the difficult concepts that are part of religion, he points out that children will only recite what is told to them – they are unable to believe. Book IV also contains the infamous “Profession of a Savoyard Priest,” the section that was largely responsible for the condemnation of Emile and the one, paradoxically, most frequently excerpted and published independently of its parent tome. Rousseau claims at the end of the “Profession” that it is not a “a rule for the sentiments that one ought to follow in religious matters, but . . . an example of the way one can reason with one’s pupil in order not to diverge from the method I have tried to establish."[17] Such a claim was clearly difficult for many readers at the time to accept and still is. Rousseau, through the priest, leads his readers through an argument with only one concluding belief: “natural religion.”

And:

But I am mistaken in speaking of a Christian republic; the terms are mutually exclusive. Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favorable to tyranny that it always profits by such a regime. True Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and do not much mind: this short life counts for too little in their eyes.”

Rousseau was also banned from France for these books criticizing religion. So no: Rousseau is not the friend to christianity that you think he is. But how could you possibly know that? All you did was quote-mine him until you found something that you liked; you had no previous knowledge of him and clearly didn't do any real research.

Rousseau on slavery:
From whatever aspect we regard the question, the right of slavery is null and void, not only as being illegitimate, but also because it is absurd and meaningless. The words slave and right contradict each other, and are mutually exclusive. It will always be equally foolish for a man to say to a man or to a people: “I make with you a convention wholly at your expense and wholly to my advantage; I shall keep it as long as I like, and you will keep it as long as I like.”

You're confused. Voltaire was describing the current state of affairs in the world at that time, not how he believed the world should be run. Voltaire opposed slavery on political and ethical grounds, although personally he was a racist. That's not surprising; many people in the 17th and 18th centuries were racist, even those who advocated abolishing slavery.

You might want to pay attention to this quote from Voltaire:

"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices."

Which demonstrates nothing, since Jesuits are found as inquisitors and thieves as well. And obviously it doesn't do anything to refute my argument that Enlightenment principles started the anti-slavery movement - after all, if anti-slavery was a part of the Jesuit creed, then the anti-slavery movement would have:

(a) the anti-slavery movement would have been universal among Jesuits -- which it wasn't); and
(b) the anti-slavery movement would have started centuries earlier in 1540 when the pope first founded the Jesuit order -- which it did not

Again your arrow flies wide of the mark here. I'm beginning to think that you don't know how to form a proper cause-and-effect argument.

Same problems with your quotation of Kant here.

None really - but let's see how you embarrass yourself further:

I ignore nothing at all. Christianity had almost no role in the Enlightnment philsophy. In point of fact, the Enlightment ran contrary to christianity and was seen as a direct threat to christianity. Britannica:


The one part of christianity that *did* have impact on anti-slavery was the role of minority denominations like the Quakers. However, it must also be said that these were fringe groups and ostracised for their position; they were seen as rather quirkly little groups and not really representative of christianity. In that regard, they were similar to the modern liberal churches in America today that hide illegal Mexican or Guatemalan immigrants in their basements to keep the Immigration & Naturalization Service from apprehending them.

So unfortunately for you, christianity's role in the Enlightenment was negligible at best.

1. I ignore nothing. You, on the other hand, confuse a kind word or two about christianity as some kind of proof that the Enlightenment was not the root of anti-slavery.

2. There is no Law. If you're referring to the OT texts on slavery, I understand those quite well.

3. At the end of the day, you're going to have to do better than running a web search and a little quote-mining. Start at antislavery.org, where you'll find this:

sschlichter

Of course I do. What you are missing is that ethnic and national lines are different in the US where in the ANE an ethnic line is the same as a nationalistic line. The favoritism in the law is to preserve the nation of Isreal. Ethnicity is not the issue.

I find it difficult to understand different cultures. I never stated otherwise. It requires a lot of research and interpretation of the law is very difficult. Those who read it at face value and do not take time to understand it in cultural context will likely err.

Life as a slave was harsh and rigorous for both Hebrews and foreigners. While it is permissible to allow a foreigner to be enslaved for life, it was not permissible to enslave a Hebrew for life. This was not an ethnic consideration, it was due to the fact that slavery was not an ideal condition and God did not want those that belonged to him to be owned by someone else. He makes it very clear that that is the reason.

it is likely that they did. However, it was forbidden in the law of Moses.

I expect it is true that no one will be able to prove that to you.

as I said, they probably did, in direct contradiction of the law. The hebrews were punished by being taking as slaves because of their inability to follow the law.

so, let's look at what you call a double standard. Is it a double standard in our country that some laws only apply to citizens while others apply only to non-citizens. Why do you have to be an immigration attorney to answer that question?

sschlichter

The fact is that slavery existed throughout history until Christian Europe. To ignore the relationship between the reformation and the enlightenment is naive (at best). Most enlightenment philosophers were Christians who harbored dis-taste for the abuses of the church and for slavery.

Why do you think enlightenment philosophy sprang from Europe and not Saudi Arabia?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to sschlicter: Consider the following post that I made today in sugarhitman's thread on slavery at the General Religious Discussions Forum:

Such being the case, it is reasonable to assume that a God did not inspire any writings about slavery in the Bible. Since the General Religious Discussions Forum is a better place to discuss those issues, I request that you reply to those arguments at the General Religious Discussions Forum. If you do, please including stating what God's motive was in making rules that protected slaves. It is doubtful that his motive was the welfare of slaves. If it was, he would not likely have injured or killed them. If a God exists, his motives are of the utmost importance. Many things that the God of the Bible does do not make any sense. If he does not exist, that explains why.

Discussing Old Testament slavery from a secular, historical perspective will not settle the much more important issues of whether or not God inspired any writings about slavery, and what his motive was for making rules that protected slaves. The majority of people at this forum are not interested in theological and philosophical issues. I am, and so are millions of other people.

Johnny Skeptic

What is your position on the hiring of illegal immigrants? If you do not have a position, then neither do I. I am certainly not going to let you ask all of the questions and give no answers.

Do you have to be an immigration attorney to state what your position is on the hiring of illegal immigrants? Since I have never studied the pros and cons of hiring illegal immigrants, it would be ridiculous for me to comment on that issue unless I learn more about it. Even if I knew a lot about hiring illegal immigrants, there would be no need for me to state my position before you state your position since you are the one who brought up the issue.

Johnny Skeptic

How would granting non-Hebrew slaves the right to gain their freedom have interfered with preserving Israel?