Mike Rosoft

Okay, Clouseau, where are the commandments? (And I am not talking about generalities like "you shall love your neighbor like yourself".)
This post is in reply to the OP, which is not mine. I need to know what it refers to if I am to answer it, if indeed it is for me to answer.

Indeed it's your post; it has been split from here. You are even quoting my entire post, and claiming that slavery is preferable to death, and that the remaining commandments do in fact exist in the Bible.

Regarding slavery, couldn't have God commanded "Captives shall not be killed or enslaved"? In the Old Testament we see BOTH done to them.

Regarding the rest of commandments: Where is rape mentioned in the Bible as a crime against the woman's dignity, as opposed to one against her man and master? (The Pentateuch details punishments for transgressions of a sexual nature. The punishment for consensual sex with a married/engaged woman is death for both - Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24; for rape it's death for the man only, and it seems to be an amazing discovery that a raped woman is not to be put to death - Deuteronomy 22:25-27. For rape - Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - or consensual sex - Exodus 22:16-17 - with an unmarried woman the punishment is the same: the perpetrator must pay a fine and marry the woman, unless her father objects.)

Where does the Bible prohibit sexual abuse of children? Where does it say that a woman is free to marry, or refuse to marry, a man according to her wishes?

Where is torture or other inhumane treatment condemned in the Bible? (In the Old Testament there are many mentions of cruelties that God has inflicted, or threatened to inflicted upon the people; in the New Testament we can find them as well [the book of Revelation], in addition there are multiple references to eternal punishment in hell. And the Biblical heroes, such as Moses, Joshua, and David, have committed their shares of atrocities, often ordered or approved by God.)

As for treatment of other nations and religions, the Bible contains some calls for tolerance (such as the story of the Good Samaritan), and many calls for intolerance, persecution, even extermination.


Mike Rosoft

Clouseau

Where does the Bible say that enslavement is ok?

'"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."' Ex 21:16 NIV

It's very obvious that the people who enslaved free non-combatant people are to be counted with lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious on the Last Day, if you believe in that sort of thing, and if they read and believed the Bible, they damn well knew it, even if you don't.

Why not? Isn't this the place to slag off the Good Book?

Why don't you read my posts, fer pete's sake? If the world economy was to somehow retrogress to purely agrarian economies rather than capitalism, I, like the blacks who suffered after the Civil War, would say that slavery would be preferable to starvation for the majority of people. Few people committed suicide rather than face slavery, and I would not be the one who sent people to their deaths unnecessarily. You would?

achristianbeliever

This answer is so unbelievably easy for the Christian. This question makes the mistake of equating mandatory with permissible. But this is not the case. Clearly the Bible doesn't make it mandatory for one to have slaves it merely made the action permissible. So when does it stop being a moral good? When the earthly laws say so. Remember Romans 13 to obey your government? So since I have a responsibility to obey my government and since slavery is not a mandatory action just a permissible one and our government chose to outlaw it I should have no problem with that.

But jemand makes the same problem that so many of those critical of the Bible make. They assume that if a Christian finds something justifiable in one event they have some sort of obligation to find it justifiable in every other circumstance. But this is an irrational demand. I consider the Americans dropping the bomb on Hiroshima justifiable. But that doesn't mean I must consider it justifiable if America drops it in another circumstance.

Sven

:huh: Since when does the government determine what is moral? :huh:
You are not making sense.

Just that I don't misunderstand you: If the law did not say that slavery is illegal, you woul slavery consider not to be immoral? Did you really mean this?

Gullwind

What context would that be? You said that my statement was untrue. I showed how it wasn't. What are you talking about?

Gullwind

Talk about missing context. From the same passage:

Notice the "if you buy" part? That's called slavery.

Notice the "if a man sells his daughter as a servant" part? That's called slavery also.

Notice the "his male or female slave" part? That means slavery is allowed. Also notice that you can beat your slave, and it's okay as long as he gets up after a day or two.

Don't even try the "slave can also mean servant" defense, because verse 21 is quite clear that the person in question is the other's property. Servants aren't property, slaves are. And as if that isn't clear enough, verse 26:

Notice here it talks about letting them go free. You don't let hired servants go free, you let slaves go free.

figuer

The "provisional" set is used to structure current social interaction, and remains valid until social opinion determines that social interaction benefits from a change in values.

The consequences tell. If something advances human happiness, it is evolving positively, if something augments unhappiness it is a degeneration.

Sauron

1. It's not obvious at all. In fact, the record of the OT suggests that non-combatants were enslaved by the Israelites on a regular basis.

2. You have not demonstrated that the only option besides slavery was death. Did you plan to do that anytime soon?


You've presented no evidence that a lack of slavery would cause such a regression. Therefore, the false dilemma you're tossing out serves only as a failed attempt to distract.

Would you care to try again?

Sauron

Sorry; that's just a handwave that skips the question. The question was about morally good or not. You do understand the concept of eternal morals vs situational ethics, right?

Your handwave is another way of saying that the bible did not see slavery as a morally reprehensible act. Your religion isn't advanced enough to recognize that slavery is a basic crime against humanity, just like rape or murder is. No, that enlightened viewpoint would come about centuries later, from the reasoning of ordinary humans, not from the bible.

You continue to miss the point deliberately.

Given the obvious moral problems with slavery, the fact that the bible *fails* to rule out slavery on moral grounds is a ringing indictment of the bible.

But that is precisely what one would expect, when dealing with a text that is not divinely inspired, but is instead a collection of bronze-age stories and poems.

Sauron

No one is ignoring your argument. In point of fact, your "argument" consisted of a string of assertions, and now you're being asked to support those assertions with something a little more substantial.

You've simply shoved a bunch of assertions into the game like a handful of I.O.U.'s, and now the time has come to make good on those IOUs.

But instead, you are backpedaling. Unable to support these IOUs, you are pretending to have already answered the question, when in fact you have never come even close to doing so.