Why is slavery wrong?

[headexplode]

Because to attack your point is to attack capitalism. And, as we know, to attack capitalism is to promote communism and nobody wants to be known viewed as a pinko... well, except me and my Uncle Joe.

Maybe that's the method to my madness.

[CrabR]

You don't, and I must say that I am shocked that you would have an incomplete understanding of the nuances of the Bible. You quote those out-of-context cut and paste bullets so well...

again there is nothing out of context, with your definition of context I can make Mein Kampf sound good. If they are out of context feel free to point them out for me. We can always start another thread or board, so we do not tie this one up

Likewise, in the Old Testament, there is no condemnation of slavery, but instead only rules and regulations regarding how it is practiced and banning the more extreme abuses of the day (like kidnapping).

But you could beat the Hell[pun intended >)] out of them, as long as you did not kill them, and you could kidnap foreigners[ seems you forgot my out of context verse Deuteronomy 24:7] and God did order the Israelis to do just that on many occasions

Exodus 20:21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

However, there is also nothing praising slavery either, and we can infer from other passages implicity that slavery is wrong and something we shouldn't be doing (an application of the Golden Rule gets us there, for instance).

The Golden Rule is a stretch at best. If it was wrong God or one of his prohpets would have said so. The laws he gave all gave permisson to own slaves not to to ban slave ownership. So God could have cared less about slaves, you are Just trying to read something that is not there.

As Zguy28 noted, there is an explicit example of this, which is that in the Old Testament, there are rules and regulations for how divorces may proceed, and yet in Malachi, God says that He hates divorce, so there is certainly precedent for God putting legal limits on behavior that He doesn't necessarily approve of (keep in mind that most of the passages you refer to are not directly moral laws, but rather part of ancient Israel's legal system).

methinks you are using Malicahi slighty out of context:), it is more of the a Metaphor to the Covenant. Even if it wasnt a Metaphor here he is saying he hates it, but nowhere does he say he hates slavery.

It Does not matter what kind of laws they are, God is the one who gave them to Israel [would you like the verses]

As I noted in an earlier thread, one can even argue that God is a liberal with this "if people are going to do it anyway, we might as well regulate it" mentality, and if you don't believe God is a liberal, just ask Destino about it.

Jesus was a Liberal, God was a Conservative

[sacase]

again there is nothing out of context, with your definition of context I can make Mein Kampf sound good. If they are out of context feel free to point them out for me. We can always start another thread or board, so we do not tie this one up

Likewise, in the Old Testament, there is no condemnation of slavery, but instead only rules and regulations regarding how it is practiced and banning the more extreme abuses of the day (like kidnapping).

But you could beat the Hell[pun intended >)] out of them, as long as you did not kill them, and you could kidnap foreigners[ seems you forgot my out of context verse Deuteronomy 24:7] and God did order the Israelis to do just that on many occasions

Exodus 20:21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

However, there is also nothing praising slavery either, and we can infer from other passages implicity that slavery is wrong and something we shouldn't be doing (an application of the Golden Rule gets us there, for instance).

The Golden Rule is a stretch at best. If it was wrong God or one of his prohpets would have said so. The laws he gave all gave permisson to own slaves not to to ban slave ownership. So God could have cared less about slaves, you are Just trying to read something that is not there.

As Zguy28 noted, there is an explicit example of this, which is that in the Old Testament, there are rules and regulations for how divorces may proceed, and yet in Malachi, God says that He hates divorce, so there is certainly precedent for God putting legal limits on behavior that He doesn't necessarily approve of (keep in mind that most of the passages you refer to are not directly moral laws, but rather part of ancient Israel's legal system).

methinks you are using Malicahi slighty out of context:), it is more of the a Metaphor to the Covenant. Even if it wasnt a Metaphor here he is saying he hates it, but nowhere does he say he hates slavery.

It Does not matter what kind of laws they are, God is the one who gave them to Israel [would you like the verses]

Jesus was a Liberal, God was a Conservative

I am quoting you since I can't find Techguy's post. I find it funny that he takes the least harsh version of the bible translation. For example he says that if he gets up after a day or two....wrong...if he survives for a day or two. If you think about it gets up doesn't make sense. What would it matter if it took the slave 10 days to get up as long as he survived?

With reguards to kidnapping, the only ones who were protected by that law were fellow israelites. You could kidnap as many foreigners as you like and make them slaves.

[Zguy28]

You could kidnap as many foreigners as you like and make them slaves.

No you couldn't. You could buy them as in they had sold themselves into slavery because of debt or other reasons. But they could not be kidnapped. Kidnapping or man-stealing of any kind, even foreign slaves was an offense punishable by death.

"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. ~ Exodus 21:16 ESV

[CrabR]

No you couldn't. You could buy them as in they had sold themselves into slavery because of debt or other reasons. But they could not be kidnapped. Kidnapping or man-stealing of any kind, even foreign slaves was an offense punishable by death.

"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. ~ Exodus 21:16 ESV

When Israel invaded other countries and conquered all the other "ites" did they not enslaved the ones they did not kill ? To take someone against their will is called Kidnapping

and put this with Exodus 21:16 and apply context

Deuteronomy 24:7

If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.

[Zguy28]

When Israel invaded other countries and conquered all the other "ites" did they not enslaved the ones they did not kill ? To take someone against their will is called Kidnapping

In the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. ~ Deut 20:16-18

So, if they did take captives from the Canaanites and others in the prmoised land, it wasn't at God's command.

and put this with Exodus 21:16 and apply context

It is. But to satisfy you.

15 "Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death. 16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.

17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. ~ Exodus 21:15-17

Deuteronomy 24:7

If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.

Common sense tells me that this just reinforces Ex 21:16.

Its like saying, if you murder somebody you will go to jail.

Then saying, if you murder an American citizen you will go to jail.

If you murder an illegal from Mexico, will you not still go to jail?

[techboy]

again there is nothing out of context, with your definition of context I can make Mein Kampf sound good.

You just don't get it, do you? You have it exactly backwards...

If I wanted to make Adolf Hitler and Mein Kampf sound good, I could take individual snippets of Hitler's writing, and concentrate on those. I could focus on quotes about restoring Germany's pride, and the economy, or whatever, simply by focusing on individual sentences. This is what you do with your cut and paste shenanigans.

On the other hand, if I had you read all of Mein Kampf, along with a history of Hitler's rise and treatment of the Jews, Gypsies, and others, so that you really understood the full context, there's no way I could spin it. You'd know the truth about Hitler. This is the approach of deeper understanding and meaningful dialogue. This is the approach you don't take.

See, instead of just cutting and pasting one verse bullets out of context, full understanding requires more. We need to know what other parts of the writing say. We need to know the history. We need to understand the translation. Anyone can prove anything with out of context quotes. This is what I've been trying to get through to you, and what you don't seem to understand.

But hey, thanks for helping me make my point...

If they are out of context feel free to point them out for me. We can always start another thread or board, so we do not tie this one up

The context can, at least in part, be found in my response to you regarding other passages that can be read as condemning slavery as well as the fact that there are areas that God allows as a matter of legal regulation, even if He does not necessarily approve of them.

I also address how you repeatedly, disingenously, and wantonly mislead and create wrong impressions about the Bible and God using your out of context quotations in this post.

I am quoting you since I can't find Techguy's post.

Zguy28 and I are two different people, you know...

Anyway, if you're trying to find my posts, just use a length filter. I can be a smidge wordy... :doh:

[Jumbo]

"I also address how you repeatedly, disingenously, and wantonly mislead and create wrong impressions about ....."

You just decribed 70% of the tailgate regs :laugh:

[Zguy28]

Since the topic here is slavery... the movie Amazing Grace came out this week.

Got it today, gonna watch tonight.

[techboy]

"I also address how you repeatedly, disingenously, and wantonly mislead and create wrong impressions about ....."

You just decribed 70% of the tailgate regs :laugh:

Indubitably...

[CrabR]

You just don't get it, do you? You have it exactly backwards...

If I wanted to make Adolf Hitler and Mein Kampf sound good, I could take individual snippets of Hitler's writing, and concentrate on those.

I believe I said just Mein Kampf not other writings. Same applies to the bible. Remember the bible is the INSPIRED words of God not other works. When you want to apply culture to how it affected the writers of the Bible then you admit it was man inspired and not God inspired. You cannot have you cake and eat it to

I could focus on quotes about restoring Germany's pride, and the economy, or whatever, simply by focusing on individual sentences. This is what you do with your cut and paste shenanigans.

I do not, they are completely in context. Sometimes the Bible means just what it says. And when it repeatedly states the same nonsense over and over it should raise a red flag. Just as reading Mein Kampf raised a Red flag to anyone who actually read it. Again feel free to point out how my shenanigans does not mean what they say, besides I usually have verses to back them up. I am not a one paste wonder

On the other hand, if I had you read all of Mein Kampf, along with a history of Hitler's rise and treatment of the Jews, Gypsies, and others, so that you really understood the full context, there's no way I could spin it. You'd know the truth about Hitler. This is the approach of deeper understanding and meaningful dialogue. This is the approach you don't take.

I could also do as you do and put Hitler into the context of his time and Justify his actions. Many Things he did were justifiable to many people. He used Martin Luther as one of his reason for Hating Jews. Makes you wonder what Martin Luther had a church named after him and he wanted to exterminate the Jews also..... go figure

Again if you read just Mein Kampf you will have an understaing of who HItler really was, but alas most people never read it becasue it was boring, same applies to the OT, most xians never read it for the same reason, thus miss out on the good stuff.

apply that to the Bible. are you saying things outside of the Bible influnced how the Bible was written and not the work of God ?

Exact appraoch you take

sorry I know the cultures and the history as well as other cultures and religions of the time, and when you do it is painfully obvious where the Jewish god came about. The only approach I take is try to confine you to GODS words and not others words. Wither God inspired the bible or the surrounding men and cultures did.

See, instead of just cutting and pasting one verse bullets out of context, full understanding requires more. We need to know what other parts of the writing say.

Other parts of the writings mean nothing if they are not in the same context

again I quote within the context of the passage, and 9 times out of 10 I have back up passages. I never try to deceive anyone, many times teh one liner is all you need for the context, if that were not true then the Christians wopuld never use just one verse cut and pastes

We need to know the history. We need to understand the translation. Anyone can prove anything with out of context quotes. This is what I've been trying to get through to you, and what you don't seem to understand.

I know the history I know the cultures, I try to read about all cultures and religions of ancient history. Again they are not out of context and again feel free to point out what God was really trying to say. Either God inspired the Bible or man and the culture inspired it. Again if they are out of context fell free to point them out so others may learn. It is easy to always yell out of context and another to show them out of context. Most Christian are like you, they want to deny or avoid or make excuses about the bad things in the Bible.

B

But hey, thanks for helping me make my point...

Your point is lopsided ,if you want to included History then look how the Jews incorparated other religions into the Bible. Look how you try to make it look like God did not approve of slavery. THe bible teh culruyre teh history all say it was accepted and approved of, yet you live in a state od denial. You make teh bible say what you want it to say, not what it means.

You view of history and culture is formed by your belief in the Bible being some unique inspired writing for the one and only God. YOu make excuses for anything that does not fit your scenario

The context can, at least in part, be found in my response to you regarding other passages that can be read as condemning slavery as well as the fact that there are areas that God allows as a matter of legal regulation, even if He does not necessarily approve of them.[,QUOTE]

Show me where God says he does not approve of slavery. You can't so instead you try to avoid it by saying it could mean this pr it may mean that,etc. Try sticking to what he said about it

You use the golden Rule as God being against slavery, then apply the Golden Rule to Hell, I am sure you will justify it

I also address how you repeatedly, disingenously, and wantonly mislead and create wrong impressions about the Bible and God using your out of context quotations in this post.

I answered it

Zguy28 and I are two different people, you know...

Anyway, if you're trying to find my posts, just use a length filter. I can be a smidge wordy... :doh:

I know very well on both accounts

[techboy]

I believe I said just Mein Kampf not other writings.

What are you talking about? My point was to demonstrate that using just individual lines from Mein Kampf (parallel: you using just individual lines from the Bible) I could make Hitler look good, but that if I show the full work in its appropriate historical context the truth comes out (not you ). There is no way in proper context to make Hitler look good.

I have no idea why you're talking about "other writings". What does that have to do with anything?

Same applies to the bible. Remember the bible is the INSPIRED words of God not other works. When you want to apply culture to how it affected the writers of the Bible then you admit it was man inspired and not God inspired. You cannot have you cake and eat it to

What, so you think that divine inspiration means that God wrote everything Himself, using the authors as puppets with no will of their own? Like automatic writing?

You are more of a rigid fundamentalist than any fundie Christian I've ever met, and I've met some doozies.

Besides, I'm not necessarily saying that culture influenced the Biblical authors (though saying so would not kill the idea of inspiration by any means), but rather that we need to understand the culture that the Biblical authors were addressing.

I do not, they are completely in context.

This statement just shows that you have no clue what the word context means.

Anyway, I'd address the rest of your post, but I'm not going to wade through all of your typos in an attempt to try to reconstruct your points. If there was something in particular you'd like me to address, let me know.

[TriangleSkinsFan]

Except for Predicto's response I just went through 10 pages of people injecting either race or religion into a discussion where it never should have been.

To the original question from the OP....It is wrong based only on a couple of basic assumptions. 1st that all people have some basic rights, 2nd is that everyone's rights extend only to the point where they infringe on someone else's rights. Personally, I find that these two assumptions are required to be true by anyone who thinks, and has any sort of sense of fairness... which I believe to be important. For more information read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" a detailed discussion that begins with; everyone has unlimited rights but that everyone must be willing to accept limitations to these rights in order to exist among others.

Equally as important to the what is the why...For me, the why comes from human being's ability to rationalize...that is to think. It does not come from emotion or a religious belief. I say this next point only since I believe the OP was trying in some way to determine this at large..not just for the collection of individuals who posted here. In short..one can have morality without religion. Through life I have seen too many examples of religion acting in place of people thinking for themselves ( this is not the case always or for everyone so don't reply to me in some way that pretends I said that). For those who are unable to do this thinking, I guess it is better than nothing. For those who make the choice, that is fine..it's your choice to make. Just don't act like I couldn't be a completely moral person without religion. I don't mean Christianity exclusively, all of them emulate this behavior.

If you weren't going this direction then sorry for movign it that way, but everything I said is still true in my opinion.

[sacase]

No you couldn't. You could buy them as in they had sold themselves into slavery because of debt or other reasons. But they could not be kidnapped. Kidnapping or man-stealing of any kind, even foreign slaves was an offense punishable by death.

"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. ~ Exodus 21:16 ESV

Deuteronomy 24:7 "If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you

[alexey]

To the original question from the OP....It is wrong based only on a couple of basic assumptions. 1st that all people have some basic rights, 2nd is that everyone's rights extend only to the point where they infringe on someone else's rights. Personally, I find that these two assumptions are required to be true by anyone who thinks, and has any sort of sense of fairness...

These asumptions may be necessary if you're analyzing the relationship between the government and the governed. However, you may have a hard time expanding that all the way to "required for any sense of fariness" (unless you mean something very specific under "fairness")

[TriangleSkinsFan]

It has nothing to do with the government or the governed. It is more basic. The relationship of people to people.

Fairness specifically as the equal distribution of only the most basic form of simple liberty.

[alexey]

It has nothing to do with the government or the governed. It is more basic. The relationship of people to people.

Fairness specifically as the equal distribution of only the most basic form of simple liberty.

You suggest John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" as a reference yet claim this has nothing to do with the government or the governed. :whoknows:

[Prosperity]

Umm, not exactly. Sure God can be arbitrary. But He also has a particular nature which has certain attributes. For instance He is Holy, Just, Compassionate, Merciful, Loving, and Wrathful. He will violate His own nature.On the contrary, I believe God created man in His image. It doesn't matter where he's from or what he looks like.

Are you on dope?

This lack of respect for the God who created you is imo evil and its theodicy. If you were honest with yourself you'd realize your mistake and stop judging God based on man's standards.

I believe in God, not your God, there is a difference, my God would never order genocide, and would never condone slavery. Your God would, has, and can in the future because he is the all mighty creator and he transcends morality, even the one he posits to you.

That is ultimately what the two threads I have been responding to you comes to.

(Oh and I have been using the word evil is strictly the ethical sense of not Good, and not perfectly neutral, I am not saying you are what I consider a bad person, I am sorry I haven't made that clear earlier)

[TriangleSkinsFan]

It is a large piece of work, all of it doesn't have to be included in this specific discussion in order to take something valuable and true from it. Not picking what is or isn't true, only what is pertinent to this question. Mill's discussion includes individual liberties and government grows from that basis.

To me it's like putting the cart before the horse. Yes the cart is pulled by the horse butt he cart is not relevant to the discussion of horse biology....as an example.

You could have liberty or slavery either in the presense or absence of a government. You don't have the governed without a government and the presense of a government is not required for there to be concept of fairness.

[Zguy28]

I believe in God, not your God, there is a difference, my God would never order genocide, and would never condone slavery. Your God would, has, and can in the future because he is the all mighty creator and he transcends morality, even the one he posits to you.

That is ultimately what the two threads I have been responding to you comes to.

(Oh and I have been using the word evil is strictly the ethical sense of not Good, and not perfectly neutral, I am not saying you are what I consider a bad person, I am sorry I haven't made that clear earlier)

First, where do you get your concept of good and evil? What defines it?

Second, must evil be punished?

I'm not talking degrees here, just yay or nay. Does evil deserve punishment?

[TriangleSkinsFan]

First, where do you get your concept of good and evil? What defines it?

I still say that human beings in general have the ability to develop a concept of good and evil through thought, religion..or a belief in a god...is not a requirement.

Second, must evil be punished?

I'm not talking degrees here, just yay or nay. Does evil deserve punishment?

If you must be binary about it, then it should be prevented vs being punished, if there is a lack of prevention, then yes punishment. But, again you were the one who removed degrees...

[Zguy28]

I still say that human beings in general have the ability to develop a concept of good and evil through thought, religion..or a belief in a god...is not a requirement.

That's fine if you want to believe that. But, I wasn't really asking you.

If you must be binary about it, then it should be prevented vs being punished, if there is a lack of prevention, then yes punishment. But, again you were the one who removed degrees...

Prevention doesn't even enter into the parameters of the question.

You sound like Obama trying to answer Wolf Blitzers question about illegals getting licenses.

[The_cavalierman]

I still say that human beings in general have the ability to develop a concept of good and evil through thought, religion..or a belief in a god...is not a requirement.

Agreed...

The golden rule of treating others the way you would want to be treated does not have any religious requirement what so ever. If the slave masters simply applied the golden rule their would not have been any slavery.

I find it comical to listen to people trying to insert religion as the cornerstone for moral/ethical behavior when all that is needed is common sense.

[TriangleSkinsFan]

That's fine if you want to believe that. But, I wasn't really asking you.

aren't you the OP? You should stop starting threads if you don't people to respond to you.

Prevention doesn't even enter into the parameters of the question.

True, but it certainly doesn't derail the question or the answer.

You sound like Obama trying to answer Wolf Blitzers question about illegals getting licenses.

Wrong, Obama rambled like he just got socked in the nose. I actually answered your question and in very few lines.

Prevention of evil is better, but in the absence of prevention...yes, punishment of evil is the answer. This is clear and concise.

[Zguy28]

aren't you the OP? You should stop starting threads if you don't people to respond to you.

Its fine if you want to comment on slavery and/or human rights and address the OP. I was merely saying that my question in post #170 was not for you. It was for Liberty.