Go back
God Condoned Chattel Slavery

God Condoned Chattel Slavery

Spirituality


Originally posted by @apathist
Yes. Mother Earth, and we live in her Book.
Worshipping the creation rather than the Creator?

Romans 1:25


Hey bro I think you forgot to send me that PM.

I'll definitely consider answering your question a second time if you ask me nicely.


Originally posted by @philokalia
Hey bro I think you forgot to send me that PM.

I'll definitely consider answering your question a second time if you ask me nicely.
The question you fled from still awaits you here Thread 175779.


Originally posted by @sonship
No digression. I am demonstrating that the comparison between millions of slaves kidnapped at gun point and sent over on ships to be worked to death is different from what the Law of Moses allowed for in the good land of Canaan for the Israelites.

Could there have been the Atlantic Slave Trade without kidnapping?

If your answer is no, then apart fro ...[text shortened]... rself to be treated."

That slave trade must have been a little different, huh?
Just a tad?
Irrelevant. When a God describes a man as another man's property it's time to find yourself a new religion.

Give Jainism a go.


Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Irrelevant. When a God describes a man as another man's property it's time to find yourself a new religion.

Give Jainism a go.
Says the guy that doesn't believe in moral absolutes. 🙄


Originally posted by @dj2becker
Says the guy that doesn't believe in moral absolutes. 🙄
Does someone have to believe in moral absolutes to know one man owning another man as property is wrong?

Your naivety is astounding (though simultaneously tedious).


Originally posted by @fmf
The question you fled from still awaits you here Thread 175779.
Could you PM me the thread link?

Thanks.

I'll consider it.

I like to keep important stuff in my inbox for 49 days then consider them.

1 edit

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Does someone have to believe in moral absolutes to know one man owning another man as property is wrong?

Your naivety is astounding (though simultaneously tedious).
Well simple logic would tell you that if there are no moral absolutes any action could be morally acceptable under certain conditions.

Your lack of logic is astounding (though simultaneously tedious). 😉


Originally posted by @dj2becker
Well simple logic would tell you that if there are no moral absolutes any action could be morally acceptable under certain conditions.
Do you believe that enslavement of human beings and slave-owning are morally acceptable under certain conditions?


Originally posted by @fmf
Do you believe that enslavement of human beings and slave-owning are morally acceptable under certain conditions?
Are you differentiating between enslavement and someone who agrees to be an unpaid servant to work off a debt or do you consider them the same thing?


Originally posted by @romans1009
Are you differentiating between enslavement and someone who agrees to be an unpaid servant to work off a debt or do you consider them the same thing?
Why would God refer to a person who 'agrees to be an unpaid servant to work off a debt' as the 'property' of the master?

Slaves are property, not unpaid servants.


Originally posted by @dj2becker
Well simple logic would tell you that if there are no moral absolutes any action could be morally acceptable under certain conditions.

Your lack of logic is astounding (though simultaneously tedious). 😉
Yes, your logic is simple.

Go annoy someone else.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Why would God refer to a person who 'agrees to be an unpaid servant to work off a debt' as the 'property' of the master?

Slaves are property, not unpaid servants.
If my memory is correct, the KJV doesn’t identify them as slaves or property in those verses from Leviticus


Originally posted by @romans1009
If my memory is correct, the KJV doesn’t identify them as slaves or property in those verses from Leviticus
Okay, here is Leviticus 25:44-46 (KJV)

'Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.'


Please explain why 'buying people' is not a facet of slavery and why 'possession' is any better than property?

Kindly address both points.


Don't worry, Romans.

FMF and Ghost of Duke will do absolutely nothing but complain when you affirm that, once upon a time, it was OK.

Just say "Yes."

What are they going to do?

They'd have to have a historical and ethical debate with me -- they bloody hate that.


All they can do then is go

"Oh WELP you're so CRAZZZZZYYYYY and I don't understand HISTORRYYY"

and then Dive & Viver will say something like

"Did this guy just justify slavery?!" ZOMG

"... Give me a yes or no answer...."
'
lol

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.