Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 22 of 26
 [ 502 posts ] 
Slavery in the bible discussion thread
Author Message
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

MarsCydonia wrote:See the words above "[i]What benefit did the slaves have that could exclusively been provided by the Israëlites owning them?
.


benefits of becoming a slave

1 debt paid by the master, the master pays your creditors and your creditors are now happy

2 food and shelter for him and his family

3 after 6 years you can become a free man, or stay with your master (you decide)


How would being free make their life worse


1 you would still have this unpayable debt

2 starve to death

3 your creditors might kill you, kidnap you, or force you to work for him anyway, but without any regulation



for the Israëlites punishing them for their freedom?",


well if a master is going to pay for your debt, he needs a warranty that you will work for him for 6 years.




see how easy it is to answer questions directly?



at least in some cases and in some realistic scenarios of ancient Israel, becoming a slave is a good option.


sure, today we have laws, social programs, banks, etc. that would help you if you have unpayable debts, but those things where not available in ancient Israel.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:02 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

And here's the utter moral depravity and the moronic nonsense you often get from slavery apologists:
leroy wrote:
MarsCydonia wrote:See the words above "What benefit did the slaves have that could exclusively been provided by the Israëlites owning them?
.

benefits of becoming a slave

1 debt paid by the master, the master pays your creditors and your creditors are now happy

2 food and shelter for him and his family

3 after 6 years you can become a free man, or stay with your master (you decide).

Did Leroy-the-slavery-apologist miss the word "[i]exclusively" by sheer stupidity or sheer dishonesty?
1. Why would there be a for debtor to be owned as property (denied his freedom, be allowed to be beaten, etc.) for that? We have plenty of people with debt today yet none are own as property.
(We do not expect Leroy-the-slavery-apologist to back this up as the "exclusivele" possibility, he never does).

2. Amazing! I get food and shelter today! I pay for it with money my employer gives me in exchange for my work all without my employer owning me as property. Something the all-powerful and the all-knowledgeable god could not explain to the Israelites to not do to people who weren't Israelites males.
(We do not expect Leroy-the-slavery-apologist to back this up as the "exclusivele" possibility, he never does).

3. Only if the slave is an Israelite male, foreigners and women were owned forever to even be inherited as property. Once more Leroy-the-slavery-apologist shows his ignorance of the bible.

leroy wrote:
How would being free make their life worse


1 you would still have this unpayable debt

2 starve to death

3 your creditors might kill you, kidnap you, or force you to work for him anyway, but without any regulation

Did Leroy-the-slavery-apologist cut the sentence in two and omit by sheer stupidity or sheer dishonesty? except for the Israëlites punishing them for their freedom

1. See 1 above.

2. See 2 above.

Right, Leroy-the-slavery-apologist just blatantly admitted that the life of slaves were made purposefully worse by slavemasters by refusing to treat them as employees as opposed to property.

This is the complete immorality condoned by Leroy. I'm at still amazed how slavery apologist will abandon all human decency to make excuse for the bible condoning slavery?

leroy wrote:
for the Israëlites punishing them for their freedom?",

well if a master is going to pay for your debt, he needs a warranty that you will work for him for 6 years.

see how easy it is to answer questions directly?

at least in some cases and in some realistic scenarios of ancient Israel, becoming a slave is a good option.

sure, today we have laws, social programs, banks, etc. that would help you if you have unpayable debts, but those things where not available in ancient Israel.

And here we have it, again, how "someone becoming owned as property is a good option for them" but that "option" is good only when there is no other option: when you are poor in an immoral society that condones and practices slavery.

Because "laws, social programs, banks, etc ... where not available in ancient Israel." because apparently, the Israelites were so morally depraved that they could not come up with something the rest of society today could.

This despite having the word of an all-powerful and all-knowledgeable god that was apparently so powerless and idiotic that he had to let the Israelites keep the immoral practice of slavery.

The Israelites were not doing this for the slaves benefit. Nothing that they were doing couldn't have been accomplished without owning people as property.

You have to be a moral-degenerate to defend this. And the christians here do.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:03 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1334Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

All the supposed problems the slavery apologist had with those slavery-condoning tracts in the 'holy' scriptures... *poof*... gone in the blink of an apologetic backflip, double tuck, and yogic roll.

Creationism is like gurning of the brain.

Image

No wonder most Christians think Creationists are fanatics.

Both Islam and Christianity need to step up and expunge these fanatical and ignorant interpretations of their scripture. Some of the earliest Christian writers saw the problem of abject fucking idiots professing to answering in the name of Christianity, when all they end up doing is making Christianity look like a doctrine of counter-factual, morally depraved lunacy.

St. Augustine wrote:Usually, even a heathen knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.


It could have been written specifically for LEROY.


When people like LEROY and the asshat who started this thread, whose name I have happily forgotten, profess to be here representing Christianity to the infidel, all they manage is to make Christianity appear a dangerously deranged mind-virus that causes both self-damaging behavior and nigh sociopath disregard for fellow humans.

It's sad on many levels, because while I am not a Christian, I have many admirable Christian friends with a faith that does not eviscerate their minds, does not induce them to go and talk bollocks to people who know better, does not make them engage in slavery-condoning, or misogyny, or racial supremacist bollocks.

The Christianity I don't believe in is a very different Christianity to the one the two supposed Christians condoning slavery here present. I don't really recognize LEROY's endless blagging and baiting on this forum as having anything to do with Christianity, and he's repeatedly been shown to possess neither relative knowledge of the Bible, nor any behavior relevant to the aspirational Christ figure. LEROY's Christianity is just a convenient front - a smoke screen of smugness that he can tap into to act the asshat with strangers for whatever demented kick it provides him. With neither knowledge nor compassion, I can't see what use he is to anyone, and I can't imagine many Christian sects would consider him representative of their faith.

James 1:26 wrote:If any man among you seem to be religious and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:39 pm
Bango SkankUser avatarPosts: 173Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:15 amLocation: Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

My faith to humanity crumbles as i keep reading this topic. Fuck, we are insane species. Maybe we deserve to go extinct.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield, and those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced, but one is less unwise."
Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:09 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1334Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Bango Skank wrote:My faith to humanity crumbles as i keep reading this topic. Fuck, we are insane species. Maybe we deserve to go extinct.


The mere fact that you can think that suggests that humanity could be so much more. Given the short period of time we've existed as a technological species, and setting aside the problems that has caused, it's pretty remarkable how many people today share your perspective on nutters like this.

A century or two ago, and it would have been you who'd have been the nutbag.... five centuries, and you'd probably already be dead, either by disease (thanks to the pre-scientific era) or because these nutbags were in power and would have hurt you to silence you.

Dramatic progress has been made, and it really shows when compared to the morally stunted, self-deceiving tool who plagues this forum.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:11 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3318Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

leroy wrote:benefits of becoming a slave

1 debt paid by the master, the master pays your creditors and your creditors are now happy

2 food and shelter for him and his family

3 after 6 years you can become a free man, or stay with your master (you decide)


It still amazes me that someone can be skeptical of the divinity of the Bible and have the moral standing to realize that slavery is wrong, yet still defend it in the Bible. What kind of cognitive dissonance must be going on? However, what else would one expect for someone that posits divine command as a form of morality?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:31 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1334Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:42 pm
CollecemallPosts: 339Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

leroy wrote:


at least in some cases and in some realistic scenarios of ancient Israel, becoming a slave is a good option.


sure, today we have laws, social programs, banks, etc. that would help you if you have unpayable debts, but those things where not available in ancient Israel.



The problem isn't that this is what it was like for ancient Israel. It's that this is the best the omnipotent super bestest greatest super being could come up with. He could have just as easily said. "All this shit is bad. Take care of each other. Oh, and quit treating women like property. That's repugnant." Punting to the behavior of the times as if it should be some hindrance to gawd is ridiculous in the extreme.
"Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time."
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ~~Voltaire
Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:39 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1334Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Collecemall wrote:The problem isn't that this is what it was like for ancient Israel. It's that this is the best the omnipotent super bestest greatest super being could come up with. He could have just as easily said. "All this shit is bad. Take care of each other. Oh, and quit treating women like property. That's repugnant." Punting to the behavior of the times as if it should be some hindrance to gawd is ridiculous in the extreme.


*gasp*

What are you saying?

That God is just a projection of the values, norms, and prejudices of the people of those times?

;)
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:07 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 765Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

leroy wrote:depending on your answer I will make a reply.

Do you grant the exístanse of objective moral values?

That'd depend on what you mean by "objective moral values". But instead of asking you that (you've probably explained it somewhere previously) I'll answer anyways giving an answer to both relevant meanings.

If you mean that there are some moral values that come from outside humanity (lets not bring possible aliens into this), I do not grant the existence of those. Not only superhumanity objective moral values have not been shown to exist, they have not been shown to be possible to exist.

If you mean that moral values can be derived independent of a singular human opinion then yes, objective moral values exist and can be derived with logic and reason from a few basic premises.
Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:15 am
SparhafocPosts: 1334Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

I grant the existence of objective morals insomuch as they're subjective.

In reality and without being morally and philosophically blinkered: morality is necessarily, definitionally, intrinsically intersubjective because it is about behavior with other agents.

This is what human morality is about, and it's one of the primary reasons why any singular god cannot possibly be the font of all morality, nor can its morality be objective. Agents must interact for morality to occur or fail to occur.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:15 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

MarsCydonia wrote:
2. Amazing! I get food and shelter today! I pay for it with money my employer gives me in exchange for my work all without my employer owning me as property.



well is your employer willing to pay for all your debts? (in cash, immediately) I am sure he is not.


at most, if you are lucky, he will offer you the money to pay for your debts in exchange of a contract that forces you to work for him for so many years, until the value of your works covers the value of the money that you received in advance.

you are free to accept his offer and sign the contract or to reject his offer.

I would argue that the employer is not doing anything morally wrong. and deep inside I am sure that you would agree.


Ancient Israelites had 2 options
1 Pay the debt with their own resources

2 sale yourself as a slave and let your master pay for your debt.


it is better to have both options 1 and 2 than having just option 1



Right, Leroy-the-slavery-apologist just blatantly admitted that the life of slaves were made purposefully worse by slavemasters by refusing to treat them as employees as opposed to property.


again, masters wont pay their employees debts but they would pay for their slaves debt.





Because "laws, social programs, banks, etc ... where not available in ancient Israel." because apparently, the Israelites were so morally depraved that they could not come up with something the rest of society today could.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

sometimes I forget that I am talking to you.


the lack of social programs, credit, banks etc. was due to the fact that this systems are complex and not viable for an ancient tribe.

it has nothing to do with immorality.

.
The Israelites were not doing this for the slaves benefit. Nothing that they were doing couldn't have been accomplished without owning people as property.



again, if you are an employee you will receive small amounts of many every week, if you are a slave you will receive a significant amount of money instantly.

it is better to have both options than having just one option.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Last edited by leroy on Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:30 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Visaki wrote:
leroy wrote:depending on your answer I will make a reply.

Do you grant the exístanse of objective moral values?

That'd depend on what you mean by "objective moral values". But instead of asking you that (you've probably explained it somewhere previously) I'll answer anyways giving an answer to both relevant meanings.

If you mean that there are some moral values that come from outside humanity (lets not bring possible aliens into this), I do not grant the existence of those. Not only superhumanity objective moral values have not been shown to exist, they have not been shown to be possible to exist.

If you mean that moral values can be derived independent of a singular human opinion then yes, objective moral values exist and can be derived with logic and reason from a few basic premises.


are moral truths, true independently of opinions? that is what I mean.


for example to say that it is wrong to torture a child for fun


is that objectively true? in the same way it is objectively true that 1 x 2 = 2

or is it just an opinion (a nearly universal opinion if you what) like chocolate smells better than trash.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:42 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

leroy wrote:well is your employer willing to pay for all your debts? I am sure he is not.

at most, if you are lucky, he will offer you the money to pay for your debts in exchange of a contract that forces you to work for him for so many years, until the value of your works covers the value of the money that you received in advance.

you are free to accept his offer and sign the contract or to reject his offer.

I would argue that the employer is not doing anything morally wrong. and deep inside I am sure that you would agree.

My employer is willing to pay for all my debts. That is what paying a salary in exchange for work is. He pays me money in exhcnage for work, money which is used to pay my mortgage.

And somehow, if my mortgage and credit card were to become so unmanageable that I would not pay them, anyone here except the morally-degenerated-slavery-apologists can guess what would not happen:
My employer would not attempt to buy me from the bank so I'll be their slave, owned as property without any independence, without compensation for the fruit of my labors, to be beaten to inches of my life at their whim, and this for the rest of my life because... Can you guess? The bank would not take possession of my being as their property to be owned and sold.

Our economic system has check and balances and we have laws against slave ownership: isn't it amazing what we accomplished all without the help of an all-powerful and all-knowledgeable god?

You have to wonder why morally-degenerated-slavery-apologists never wonder why the Israëlites couldn't do it either. See the following:

leroy wrote:Ancient Israelites had 2 options
1 Pay the debt with their own resources

2 sale yourself as a slave and let your master pay for your debt.

Right, here it is again: the ancient Israëlites had no other choice but to be slavemasters... Because...? Well, not expecting any sensical argument here or it would have happened in one of the last 21 pages of comment.

leroy wrote:it is better to have both options 1 and 2 than having just option 1

Can I pull a Leroy-the-slavery-apologist?
It is easy to say but can you prove it?

leroy wrote: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

sometimes I forget that I am talking to you.

the lack of social programs, credit, banks etc. was due to the fact that this systems are complex and not viable for an ancient tribe.

it has nothing to do with immorality.

I am not sure what confuses Leroy-the-slavery-apologist:
- I oppose slavery
- Leroy-the-slavery-apologist makes excuses for it.

Again, not expecting Leroy-the-slavery-apologist to make any sensical support about why some ancient tribes managed to do without slavery while the Israëlites simply had to be slavemasters despite being the chosen people of an all-powerful and all-knowledgeable god.

Apparently, not being morally-degenerated slavemasters was not one of the perks of being god's chosen people.
Nor does being a christian give the perk of not being a morally-degenerated-slavery-apologist

leroy wrote:again, if you are an employee you will receive small amounts of many every week, if you are a slave you will receive a significant amount of money instantly.

it is better to have both options than having just one option.

Leroy-the-slavery-apologists fails to understand what slavery is here:
It isn't getting "a significant amount of money instantly", it's losing everything: your ability to decide your own actions, protection of the law from being physically beaten, your very freedom and that for the rest of your life.

Or for only 6 years if you were a male hebrew....
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:22 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1334Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Are we still in the fictional world where the slavery in the Bible is only debt slavery?

We're still ignoring the murder of entire villages of people including infant male children and the capture of virginal girls to be granted to the conquerors as spoils of war?

We're still not yet addressing those foreign slaves which could be owned for life, and inherited upon their owner's death?

Have we yet talked about how the children of a deceased debtor could be forced into slavery to pay off their father's debt?

Naahhh, let's stay in the fictional world where Biblical slavery was sugar and spice so our resident troll doesn't ever have to engage in reality.
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:03 am
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[

That orbit is not based on anyone's opinion, it is just a simple fact of our universe. Do you have anything equivalent to that with morals?


.


are you implying that moral values are not "true / real" in the same way the earth orbiting the sun is true?


this is an honest question, in previous comments you seemed to believe that moral truths are objectively truth in the same way the earth orbiting the sun is objectively true but know you seem to disagree,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:30 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

MarsCydonia wrote:
leroy wrote:well is your employer willing to pay for all your debts? I am sure he is not.

at most, if you are lucky, he will offer you the money to pay for your debts in exchange of a contract that forces you to work for him for so many years, until the value of your works covers the value of the money that you received in advance.

you are free to accept his offer and sign the contract or to reject his offer.

I would argue that the employer is not doing anything morally wrong. and deep inside I am sure that you would agree.

My employer is willing to pay for all my debts. That is what paying a salary in exchange for work is. He pays me money in exhcnage for work, money which is used to pay my mortgage.

And somehow, if my mortgage and credit card were to become so unmanageable that I would not pay them, anyone here except the morally-degenerated-slavery-apologists can guess what would not happen:
My employer would not attempt to buy me from the bank so I'll be their slave, owned as property without any independence, without compensation for the fruit of my labors, to be beaten to inches of my life at their whim, and this for the rest of my life because... Can you guess? The bank would not take possession of my being as their property to be owned and sold.


well pretend that you are a free servant, you earn $1 USD a day + food and shelter. Then pretend that you have an unpayable debt of $365




your employer tells you that he can pay your debt if you sign a contract where you warranty that you will work for him for 365 days for free, you keep your food and shelter, but you wont get that $1 USD. If you take the money and run away from your employer you will face legal problems (obviously)

you can freely decide if you what to accept the offer,




is the employer doing something morally wrong?




in ancient language you would be called a slave


It isn't getting "a significant amount of money instantly", it's losing everything: your ability to decide your own actions, protection of the law from being physically beaten, your very freedom and that for the rest of your life.


that is not true, in most of the cases (including ancient Israel) slaves had rights.


“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth
Exodus 21:26-27
.


in other words, borrowing from last analogy, if your employer strikes you, you can go home and keep your 365USD.

leroy wrote:
it is better to have both options 1 and 2 than having just option 1


MarsCydonia wrote
Can I pull a Leroy-the-slavery-apologist?
It is easy to say but can you prove it?


what am I suppose to prove,? it is always better to have 2 option that just 1 option. If there where other 100 options you where free to choose from any of those 100 alternatives, selling yourself was just an other option. It is always better to have an additional option.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:03 pm
leroyPosts: 1744Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

Sparhafoc wrote:Are we still in the fictional world where the slavery in the Bible is only debt slavery?

We're still ignoring the murder of entire villages of people including infant male children and the capture of virginal girls to be granted to the conquerors as spoils of war?

We're still not yet addressing those foreign slaves which could be owned for life, and inherited upon their owner's death?

Have we yet talked about how the children of a deceased debtor could be forced into slavery to pay off their father's debt?

Naahhh, let's stay in the fictional world where Biblical slavery was sugar and spice so our resident troll doesn't ever have to engage in reality.


correct Sparhafoc, we are not addressing any of that yet. until Mars grants that at least in some scenarios owning a slave is not necessarily morally wrong (as in the example that I proved in my last post) we can move on to those kind of details.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:19 pm
Steelmage99Posts: 165Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

leroy wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:Are we still in the fictional world where the slavery in the Bible is only debt slavery?

We're still ignoring the murder of entire villages of people including infant male children and the capture of virginal girls to be granted to the conquerors as spoils of war?

We're still not yet addressing those foreign slaves which could be owned for life, and inherited upon their owner's death?

Have we yet talked about how the children of a deceased debtor could be forced into slavery to pay off their father's debt?

Naahhh, let's stay in the fictional world where Biblical slavery was sugar and spice so our resident troll doesn't ever have to engage in reality.


correct Sparhafoc, we are not addressing any of that yet. until Mars grants that at least in some scenarios owning a slave is not necessarily morally wrong (as in the example that I proved in my last post) we can move on to those kind of details.


What a load of rubbish!
Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:29 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Slavery in the bible discussion thread

leroy wrote:well pretend that you are a free servant, you earn $1 USD a day + food and shelter. Then pretend that you have an unpayable debt of $365

your employer tells you that he can pay your debt if you sign a contract where you warranty that you will work for him for 365 days for free, you keep your food and shelter, but you wont get that $1 USD. If you take the money and run away from your employer you will face legal problems (obviously)

you can freely decide if you what to accept the offer,

is the employer doing something morally wrong?

in ancient language you would be called a slave

Is this the best that Leroy-the-slavery-apologist can come up with?
"In ancient language you would be called a slave"?

Well pretend this instead:
You are free, you earn $1 US à day. Somehow, for some reason that Leroy-the-slavery-apologis will never include in his scenario, you end up with an unpayable debt of 365$.

Since you're unable to pay, the bank takes possession of your life. You're stripped of your rights, denied your freedom, and loose all capacity to direct your own life, for the rest of your life.

The bank can also legally sell you to another owner, which it does, to a company which can legally beat you to an inch of your life if you do not do as much work as they demand of you, without any punishment because you're property after all, and the company can decide what it does with its property.

Is the bank or the employer doing something morally wrong?

This is what slavery is, this is what is condoned in the bible and this is something that Leroy-the-slavery-apologist will never call wrong.

And of course, you see the dishonesty where Leroy-the-slavery-apologist still has to change what slavery is to make it more acceptable, refusing to deal with what the slavery actually condoned in the bible.


leroy wrote:It isn't getting "a significant amount of money instantly", it's losing everything: your ability to decide your own actions, protection of the law from being physically beaten, your very freedom and that for the rest of your life.

that is not true, in most of the cases (including ancient Israel) slaves had rights.[/quote]
Did they have their freedom? No
Could they act differently from their slavemaster's commands? No
Did the law protect them from being beaten? No
Could they leave from the above at any point in their life by their own will? No

The rights Leroy claimed they have yet does not name did not include freedom, protection from being beaten, etc.

So his "not true" is in fact completely true and the morally-degenerate-Leroy is still lying again, attempting to change the slavery condoned in the bible for something it isn't.

leroy wrote:
“When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth
Exodus 21:26-27.

in other words, borrowing from last analogy, if your employer strikes you, you can go home and keep your 365USD.

And Leroy-the-slavery-apologists tries to justify slavery again but fails to make an important distinction:
It isn't if "if your employer strikes you", its "if your employer cripples you".

The difference is clear:
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave survives after a day or two, since the slave is their property".
Exodus 21:20-21
Not to be punished, it isn't clearer than that. At least, it is for the rest of us, Leroy-the-moronic-slavery-apologist:
If your employer strikes you, you do not get to go home and he isn't to be punished as the slave is their property.

Plus, since Leroy-the-lying-slavery-apologist quoted Exodus 21:26-27, let's keep going up to it with 21:22-25:
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise".

Let's repeat this:
"life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise"

But if you're a slave and you lose your eye or tooth, it isn't "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", it's as Leroy-the-slavery-apologist put it, "you can go home and keep your 365USD":
- If a slavemaster takes out the eye of another man, he will lose his own eye
- If a slavemaster takes out the eye of his slave, the slave will be freed, the slavemaster's only loss being his monetary investment, not his own eye.
So there we have it, showing once more there was a different set of rule for slaves than for Israëlites. Perhaps we should thank Leroy-the-slavery-apologist for bringing this up.

leroy wrote:what am I suppose to prove,? it is always better to have 2 option that just 1 option. If there where other 100 options you where free to choose from any of those 100 alternatives, selling yourself was just an other option. It is always better to have an additional option.

By this logic, "Living happily" isn't better than "living happily or living horribly as slave" because "it is always better to have an additional option".

That is some completely stupid logic to try to make excuses for slavery but not unexpected from a slavery apologist. So it still fails completely to prove that "being a slave is the better option", even in a fantasy world that Leroy-the-slavery-apologist describe where Israëlites owned people as property because it was their bestest choice.

So pages of comments in, Leroy-the-slavery-apologist is still trying to invent a different slavery than the one condoned in the bible and yet, still cannot demonstrate that his fantasy-version of slavery within his fantasy world is morally acceptable.

There is no depths that a slavery-apologist will not go to once his morality has degenerated so because of his fanatical beliefs.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Last edited by MarsCydonia on Thu Sep 14, 2017 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:48 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 22 of 26
 [ 502 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
cron