spirituality forum

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Kidnapping is usually involved as being a slave is generally not something a person would choose to do voluntarily, but it is not a part of the definition of slavery.

I repeat, nowhere in the bible is slavery (the ownership of one human being by another) stated to be wrong. Kidnapping is a method by which slaves are obtained, it is not a part of s ...[text shortened]... t it is illegal to own a human being regardless of the method by which you come into that state.

Kidnapping is a method by which slaves are obtained, it is not a part of slavery per se.

So was Paul encouraging Christians to participate in this integral part of the slave trade or discouraging it ?

Sounds like he is discouraging kidnapping and thus chattel slavery via kidnapping for forced labor.

To be fair one entire book of the New Testament Philemon concerns a runaway slave becoming a Christian and a co-worker of Paul.

The Apostle treated the situation not as a social reformer or a political activist but as a Christian apostle. He sends the slave back to his master. Yet he does so informing the master that in the church they both have equal status. And he says essentially "By the way you do realize that you owe me your life. So treat this dear brother exactly as you would treat me."

He does restore the slave to his master yet in a way that heaps coals upon the master's conscience as a proper Christian realizing that he and his slave are brothers in the Christian church.

Philemon is a very short book. And it would be good if you read this short book before you commented.

In the US the Mennonites, the Quakers, and the Methodist denominations were effective at writing articles and tracts which played a big part of the abolition of forced kidnapping and slavery in America.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
PS for me. total OD. Me and my kid love kickin arse on COD. You got a problem with that? Is there something in the bible about computer games? Gimme a break

So your kid is not yours ?
Whose kid is he or she then ?

The employee is owned by the employer. It is just not such a total owning that the company or the parent can arbitrarily do anything with that human.

As for computer games, your hypothetical scenario about a believer in Christ having to accomplish some gruesome task in order to be "blessed" with a new body, was like of some dumb pop computer game.

If you don't own your kid why did you use the phrase "my kid" ?

Me and my kid love kickin arse on COD. You got a problem with that? ...

Originally posted by karoly aczel
He's excusing slavery and calling you a xbox addict.
More Christianity coming to the fore?

How can you be an adult and still think that owners of a football team own the players? I kind of feel sorry for him. Might go out and buy an Xbox this weekend, see if it's any good...

Originally posted by sonship

Kidnapping is a method by which slaves are obtained, it is not a part of slavery per se.

So was Paul encouraging Christians to participate in this integral part of the slave trade or discouraging it ?

Sounds like he is discouraging kidnapping and thus chattel slavery via kidnapping for forced labor.

To be fair one entire book of ...[text shortened]... and tracts which played a big part of the abolition of forced kidnapping and slavery in America.

I've read it. It doesn't say "thou shalt not own another human being", does it? Wouldn't be difficult. It's clearly morally wrong. More so than stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving children, I think any right-thinking person would agree. Not you though, whoa no. That book's messed up your head my friend.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I've read it. It doesn't say "thou shalt not own another human being", does it? Wouldn't be difficult. It's clearly morally wrong. More so than stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving children, I think any right-thinking person would agree. Not you though, whoa no. That book's messed up your head my friend.

Does it specifically say "thou shalt own another human being and treat them like a subhuman?" or is that what you want it to say?

By the way if your atheism is true, why would slavery be objectively wrong to start off with?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk

By the way if your atheism is true, why would slavery be objectively wrong to start off with?

Did you really just say that?!

😞

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Did you really just say that?!

😞

Sad that you can't answer my question isn't it? 😞

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Sad that you can't answer my question isn't it? 😞

A question? I thought it was just a very poor joke.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
A question? I thought it was just a very poor joke.

Why do you think it's funny that nothing is objectively wrong for an atheist? It's actually quite sad. If you disagree feel free to tell me what objective standard you use to differentiate between right and wrong.

Originally posted by sonship
So your kid is not yours ?
Whose kid is he or she then ?

The employee is owned by the employer. It is just not such a total owning that the company or the parent can arbitrarily do anything with that human.

As for computer games, your hypothetical scenario about a believer in Christ having to accomplish some gruesome task in order to be "blessed" w ...[text shortened]... uote] [b] Me and my kid love kickin arse on COD. You got a problem with that? ... [/quote][/b]

It's my kid. my sperm. I've been a single parent since he was 2.5. He has his 11th bday next week !
I dont know what you're on about but I don't feel like I own my child at all. i also have a girl who just turned 21. I considering parenting to be be one of my mos t benfecial gifts that I can possibly give...

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
How can you be an adult and still think that owners of a football team own the players? I kind of feel sorry for him. Might go out and buy an Xbox this weekend, see if it's any good...

It's all PS over here mate!

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I've read it. It doesn't say "thou shalt not own another human being", does it? Wouldn't be difficult. It's clearly morally wrong. More so than stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving children, I think any right-thinking person would agree. Not you though, whoa no. That book's messed up your head my friend.

/iI had books n people mess up my head for awhile. Then I decided to think for my self

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Does it specifically say "thou shalt own another human being and treat them like a subhuman?" or is that what you want it to say?

By the way if your atheism is true, why would slavery be objectively wrong to start off with?

Indeed not, and neither does it say 'thou shalt not torture babies for fun', but you seem to understand that that is wrong. It does say 'thou shalt not steal' however, which you've been asked about a few times but deftly dodged I note.

I don't think that my atheism can be 'true' or 'false', since it's simply a lack of belief in a god. It's not a belief that there isn't a god. Can you understand that distinction?

I have explained to you previously how it is entirely reasonable to weigh the consequences of an act or set of actions and decide if they are morally positive or negative, entirely without recourse to any imagined or learned moral absolutes. Have you forgotten that, or did you just not read it?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
It's all PS over here mate!

I couldn't do it anyway, the mrs would have a blue fit if I sat around all day playing video games.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Why do you think it's funny that nothing is objectively wrong for an atheist? It's actually quite sad. If you disagree feel free to tell me what objective standard you use to differentiate between right and wrong.

You don't need an objective standard. The consequences of torturing a baby for fun are a lot of suffering and physical injury to the baby, and a lot of suffering to the relatives thereof, plus further suffering (albeit possibly less severe) to any right-thinkikng person who becomes aware of the act. The consequences of not torturing the baby are... none of the above. The infliction of pain and suffering is not something people wish to happen to themselves. It is a simple matter therefore to conclude that it is morally preferable to not torture the baby. Do you get it now? Did you really need this spoon-fed to you?

Edit: It is also possible to apply this simple method to the theft of food in order to feed one's starving children, and quickly conclude that it is morally acceptable to do so, despite the explicit instruction to the contrary you are familiar with from your ten commandments. This then demonstrates that 'thou shalt not steal' is not a moral absolute. Which is presumably why you keep avoiding this one when asked about it.