Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never said it was a direct point to point comparison. My point is that there are different forms of "slavery", but your side refuses to acknowledge this because you NEED the Bible to look bad.
Course no doubt, if this had happened, you would be hear blaming God for all the blood shed and death caused by suddenly destroying the institution.
Not sure what your Twelve Oaks bit means, but it doesn't sound nice. Don't you get tired of hating on Christianity and the Bible every single day?
We are well aware that slavery was a human convention. We don't deny that the OT verses sought to legislate. What we don't get is why you try to make it look like it wasn't ownership of people by other people.
You talk of having to do a job of work for money as though it is the same thing. It isn't. Slavery of the Biblical kind is different today and is ilegal and considered immoral. Working for a wage isn't.
Nor is Biblical slavery a kind of temporary servitude to get over a period of debt (I've sometimes though that might not be a bad idea ) it was ownership of other people your whole life and you could pass them to your children. There was a get out for Hebrew slaves, yes but you could still own them for half a dozen years and knock them about, too. Foreign slaves got no such escape clause. They were property for life.
This was Slavery Jeff, and don't think it was anything less.
So the only thing to look at is whether God was acting justifiably in regulating it rather than replacing one of the commandments about worshipping Him and nobody else with one about not owning other human beings.
And in the New testament, Jesus seems ok with the institution of slavery. When he's healing a slave, he never suggests giving the fellow his freedom. Paul at least says 'obey your masters'. Jesus (or rather the Paulinists who write Jesus script) may say the same. Why? Because God appointed these people to be their masters. While writing about how women should behave in Church Paul might have been better in reporting God's views about owning people. If he had been talking to God, of course.
My disgust with your attitude toward slavery has nothing to do with proving or disproving the bible. It is a disgust with you seemingly excusing the owning of other people.
Perhaps you should look up Twelve Oaks as related to slavery.
I don't hate christians...in general. Know lots of them. Friends with lots of them. But when I read the kind of posts you make, my disdain for the religion only grows.
There really does not seem to be a limit to how low some will sink in order to delude themselves that God is good.
And I'm disgusted with your lies about my faith and God's word. The Bible does not support slavery and if you are too stubborn to admit you are wrong then there is no point in EVER wasting my time with your posts again.
Your posts reeks of hatred for my beliefs so don't play the denial card.
Wow we can choose to not have to pay the IRS? I don't think they would agree with that one. If slaves were only seen as property in the Bible then why does it command that they be given freedom after working off their debt and even more bizzare, many slaves chose to not leave. Doesn't sound like property to me. Property has no rights.
" If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today. But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you, ... "
Funny that atheists are so passionately against slavery in the Bible yet have no qualms about owning animals as pets and treating them as property. And since we are nothing more than animals in the atheist world then it is a fine example of atheist hypocrisy. Along with visiting the zoo.
Hebrew slaves. Jeff. It doesn't apply to NON Hebrew slaves. That is the part of the passage that is never looked at by the God -apologists. And really because slavery was only temporary that makes it ok? And you really want to say that having a pet as damn near a pampered family member is equivalent to Slavery? You are grabbing at truly flimsy straws, Jeff..
And let's look at where you cut the quote off....
16 And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;
17 Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.
And I'm sure there were several slaves in the Biblical era that were treated as family members and had a high standard of living.
Oh I have no doubt some slaves were treated better than others. But that does not negate the differences I pointed out at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
If you OWN a dog then you refer to it as "my dog". That's property.
Linguistically that is not a valid point at all. I have two children. I call them "my son" and "my daugther" too. I call my girlfriends "my girlfriends". And I call my parents "my parents". None of them are property either. So you are talking nonsense here and changing the realities of language to suit yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
They aren't even allowed to roam freely in many cases.
Nor are children and - quite often - mentally impaired adults. You know what that is don't you? Concepts like age of reason, ability to consent, and more. Adult human slaves have their ability to consent removed from them. Animals, pets, children - never conceptually had it in the first place. See the difference yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
But I agree that it is massively different. Because humans are not animals.
Except yes they are - and thinking they are not is just a failure on your part to understand the definition of the word "animal".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Such as? They have just as much right to freedom as we do.
No. They do not. The distinction on concepts like sentience and consent are not things you can ignore when inconvenient to your narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Just because we have bigger brains doesn't make us any more special or important in wacko atheist land.
Words like "wacko" show that you have no intention of offering the respect you moan others are not showing you or your beliefs. Remember that next time you - and not people like me - are whining about respect.
But brain size has nothing to do with anything and I never said it does - so it is unclear what or who you are pretending to be replying to here. Certainly not me. Elephants have larger brain than us for example. I would draw absolutely zero conclusions from this fact. So why pretend I would?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Why do you make comments like this with NOTHING to back it up? What do I get wrong exactly?
The way conversation should work is people say things and if there is something you want backed up or elaborated on or evidenced - you can ask. Alas when I ask you for evidence for things like the existence of a god - you do not respond.
I explained what you got wrong. What you get wrong is the words "nothing more than" when you are pointing out that we claim humans are animals. The "nothing more than" suggests no distinctions of note between animals as if they are all the same in every way.
They are not. Some appear to be near devoid of anything we would call sentience for example, like amoebas and ants. OThers have a lot of it relatively speaking. Apes, Dolphins. And we have it as our predominant feature of distinction between us as the rest of the animal kingdom.
Ask yourself a simple question. If you were retreating from a burning building and you had the chance to save one and only one animal and your choices were spider, dog, chimpanzee - what order would you prioritize them and why. They are all animals. But saying that are all "nothing but animals" ignores the distinction you would likely use - if you are like most other humans - to answer that question.
But since you are so adamant to claim we are not animals here is a quote directly from a dictionary -
"a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli."
- by all means tell me in your opinion where we fail to meet that definition? If you can find a failure in the definition above - I will instantly stop calling humans animals. Promise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
And what if there are equal pros and cons that are all valid?
Too vague a question to answer - plus it is a fantastical rhetorical question given I can not think of a single time it has _Ever_ happened and can not even imagine how it would. But you brought up "pot" not me and right now the "cons" I have heard are either lies, errors, or cons that only exist because it is illegal.
It's not doing the atheist cause any harm at all " (have to scrabble back on -topic) when Jeff scrabbles around for absurd strawman arguments that he tries to foist on us, when anyone with their minds unlocked can see that humans are smarter animals than honey badgers, just as Honey Badgers are smarter animals than starfish.
Oh I have no doubt some slaves were treated better than others. But that does not negate the differences I pointed out at all.
Wrong as usual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
Linguistically that is not a valid point at all. I have two children. I call them "my son" and "my daugther" too. I call my girlfriends "my girlfriends". And I call my parents "my parents". None of them are property either. So you are talking nonsense here and changing the realities of language to suit yourself.
Not the same thing. Your children are biological part of your being. They didn't get to choose you as a parent, just like the dog didn't get to choose his owner and the slave as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
Nor are children and - quite often - mentally impaired adults. You know what that is don't you? Concepts like age of reason, ability to consent, and more. Adult human slaves have their ability to consent removed from them. Animals, pets, children - never conceptually had it in the first place. See the difference yet?
Dogs are quite capable of roaming and surviving on their own. How cruel is it when they desperately pull at the leash aching to run free. Slavery of animals. Just like the zoo. Do you support the zoo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
Except yes they are - and thinking they are not is just a failure on your part to understand the definition of the word "animal".
Sorry but just because you claim they are doesn't make it so. There is a laundry list of distinct differences between man and animal. Even the fact that we have such a wide array of physical differences within our own species is a strong point of evidence against your claim.
No. They do not. The distinction on concepts like sentience and consent are not things you can ignore when inconvenient to your narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
Words like "wacko" show that you have no intention of offering the respect you moan others are not showing you or your beliefs. Remember that next time you - and not people like me - are whining about respect.
But brain size has nothing to do with anything and I never said it does - so it is unclear what or who you are pretending to be replying to here. Certainly not me. Elephants have larger brain than us for example. I would draw absolutely zero conclusions from this fact. So why pretend I would?
I am never given respect here so why should I respect your posts? I don't. You have complained about me ignoring your posts. Here I take time to respond and all I get is the typical rudeness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
The way conversation should work is people say things and if there is something you want backed up or elaborated on or evidenced - you can ask. Alas when I ask you for evidence for things like the existence of a god - you do not respond.
I explained what you got wrong. What you get wrong is the words "nothing more than" when you are pointing out that we claim humans are animals. The "nothing more than" suggests no distinctions of note between animals as if they are all the same in every way.
And yet I seem to be the only one backing up my points with links and quotes. A complete waste of time though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
They are not. Some appear to be near devoid of anything we would call sentience for example, like amoebas and ants. OThers have a lot of it relatively speaking. Apes, Dolphins. And we have it as our predominant feature of distinction between us as the rest of the animal kingdom.
Ask yourself a simple question. If you were retreating from a burning building and you had the chance to save one and only one animal and your choices were spider, dog, chimpanzee - what order would you prioritize them and why. They are all animals. But saying that are all "nothing but animals" ignores the distinction you would likely use - if you are like most other humans - to answer that question.
The only distinctions have to do with human perceptions. People place more value on things that have a pleasant physical appearance so naturally the spider would lose. That doesn't negate that the less attractive creatures have any less right to exist. Yet if u blew up insects to the size of a human being, I bet it wouldn't be so easy to just kill them on sight.
Two wrongs don't make a Right, Jeff. At one time, Slavery was considered ok. Later on it was seen as Not ok. And it was Not religion that led the way there, but human conscience. Now Zoos have been seen as infringing animal rights, whereas in living memory it was considered Ok. I don't recall any Bible -based Animal rights activism, but as an extension of Human empathy.
As to Dogs, they are like kids. What is better, that they be allowed to run free, having no training in what traffic can do to you or put them on a leash. How is that to be equated to slavery?
And why do we need to search for quotes and sites? We can do very well with the ones that you post. We just have to read them, which you evidently don't do.
Finally...The basis of human morality is the welfare of humanity. When it is that, or instituting mass genocide of Bubonic plague bugs, I am afraid Jeff, that it's no contest. The same applies to mosquitoes and any kind of bug that makes it an 'us or them' choice.
And the Bible hasn'teeven looked at the question (remarkably, Startrek has, several times). and would not even see it as a question to be asked. Animals atr THINGS to be used as the Lord empowered man to do. He didn't even pause to think before washing out all creation as collateral damage in getting shot of humanity that offended Him with their content all night partying.
It is Human morality that stopped to ask 'What do the animals think about it?'
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-03-2019 at 04:02 PM..
No. Please don't be rude and tell me what I believe. I said that truth is relative to many people. It's simply what feels good.
Ask anyone here if there is such a thing as absolute morality. Go ahead.
What does the truth have to do with absolute morality? Killing someone results in their death, that is a truth. 8s it moral, depends on the situation or your sense of morality. Someone shoots an intruder who broke into their detached garage, moral or not? The person should dead is dead is a truth and that is not relarive, unless they are only mostly dead Re Princess Bride.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) it was ownership of other people your whole life and you could pass them to your children. There was a get out for Hebrew slaves, yes but you could still own them for half a dozen years and knock them about, too. Foreign slaves got no such escape clause. They were property for life.
(have to scrabble back on -topic) when Jeff scrabbles around for absurd strawman arguments that he tries to foist on us, when anyone with their minds unlocked can see that humans are smarter animals than honey badgers, just as Honey Badgers are smarter animals than starfish.