can i own slaves according to the bible?

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

01.31.2020 12:41PM

-->

@ethang5

I'm asking you if you think t would have stopped slavery. Can you answer?

So you're asking me if a verse that isn't in the bible would have prevented something that happened, a lot, and was perpetuated BY BELIEVERS USING THE BIBLE AS SUPPORT? I'm not sure it would have stopped it everywhere for all time as the bible doesn't apply to everyone at every time according to some of your arguments, but for the sake of brevity, I'll say "probably not." But again, the verse "Don't own slaves" isn't in any of the 60+ books of the bible, so there's little to dispute here.

Where does this verse, which I've responded to in the quote, say "anyone"? It says "Israelite."

Deut 24:7 - If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.

And selling who you kidnapped. Lol. The verse doesn't say what he wants. Was it not you asking for a verse prohibiting owning a human being?

It doesn't prohibit slavery, I'm sorry. This would be a very easy argument for you if, among the hundreds of prohibitions in the bible, slavery was actually called out as wrong by name and never contradicted within the bible, you know. "Don't kidnap and sell people" =/= "Don't own anyone." It simply isn't, that's not how words work, partner.

That's new! It's in the bible, written by an Apostle, saying slavery is wrong, but it's only the writer's opinion. Hee! Hee!

THe passage isn't attributed to Jesus or God, so what else would it be? A letter, written by a regular old person, unless you want to demonstrate otherwise, is just one man's opinion. Timothy doesn't make commandments, right?

The thread is about whether Christian doctrine allows slavery, not whether the Bible is written the way you like. In dodging my question, you've asked me 5 frivolous ones.

Cool, because it clearly does!

What part of, "treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you." do you not understand?

THe part that says "don't own slaves," because it isn't in there. The slave owner isn't mentioned, for example...but the kidnapper is. That is how English words. If that said slave owner, you'd have no argument, and slavery, at least the brand propped up in America by Christian values which have already been quoted, wouldn't have had god on its side for so long.

You keep making the same mistake. Look here what you quoted, but didn't cite:

If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves.

To whom does this verse apply? I'll give you a hint. I bolded it.

#32

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

01.31.2020 05:25PM

-->

@ethang5

ethang5,

YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE IN POST #24: “ No. That is your argument you wish to substitute for mine. The thread is about whether Christian doctrine allows slavery, not whether the Bible is written the way you like. In dodging my question, you've asked me 5 frivolous ones.”

Conversely, why are you “dodging” my biblical passages within this thread, and in the New Testament, that promotes slavery, when you stated at the onset that the bible doesn’t promote slavery?

Here, for your conveniance once again, the link below explicitly shows that your biblical ignorance is without bounds!

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3626/can-i-own-slaves-according-to-the-bible?page=1&post_number=18

I am sorry that you had to report the truth about your MO on DEBATEART, in that I was told by a moderator not to use the correct term relating to you of "perpetual RUNAWAY" anymore when addressing you. Furthermore, I cannot show the truth of you not addressing the fact that you haven't posted a new thread upon your own in ONE YEAR AND 24 DAYS! This embarrassment of you is now removed by me. LOL

#33

Barney

Debates: 50

Posts: 2,935

Barney

01.31.2020 06:57PM

-->

@BrotherDThomas

Saying the correct term for someone is [insult you were specifically warned against using], you are continuing to use the insult.

Just imagine the bad stereotype of a racist police officer pulling over a car for having a black driver, and explaining to said driver that sensitivity training now prohibits him from calling the driver an [expletive] but that doesn't mean the driver is not an [expletive]. He's still used the exact curse in regards to the driver.

What's more, the description of runaway seems an ill fit. For all of Ethang's faults, he's feverish in his determination.

#34

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

01.31.2020 07:32PM

-->

@Barney

Ragnar,

YOUR QUOTE: "Saying the correct term for someone is [insult you were specifically warned against using], you are continuing to use the insult."

Correct! It is my "going away party of not being able to use that appropriate quote again, but only to use it today and stopping it in the future!" The irony of which, is the fact that the insults are blatantly true regarding ethang5! lol

YOUR QUOTE REGARDING ETHANG5: "What's more, the description of runaway seems an ill fit. For all of Ethang's faults, he's feverish in his determination."

Conversely, ethang5 is feverish in his running away from my direct post to him within this thread regarding my post #18. Subsequent to this post in question, and at the time of this post, ethang5 has posted 5 TIMES to other members, and as usual, taking heat for what they state in kind to him. In ethang5 ignoring my post #18 that explicitly shows his biblical ignorance is without bounds relative to slavery was promoted in the New Testament, of which ethang5 says it wasn't.

Mr. Ragnar, I have removed my "ethang5, the perpetual RUNAWAY," at the beginning of my statements to him, and my statement of ethang5 not posting a thread of his own in "ONE YEAR AND 24 days " because I was told by drafterman to calm down my posts to this pseudo-christian. Therefore, at what point do the moderators within this forum want to remove a member's "colorful MO," to make this forum sterile, benign, humdrum, and dull? :)

Listen, my extreme MO on this forum is vouchsafed by Jesus' inspired words, to wit: "Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. (2 Timothy 4:2) Look up the meanings, and who are we to say that Jesus was wrong within said verse that I am following?

Seemingly, you should be happy that I am not acting like our Jesus did in the following instance where Jesus went bezerk, where we cannot question His actions because He is God! "In the temple courts He found men selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and money changers seated at their tables. So He made a whip out of cords and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle. He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those selling doves He said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn My Father’s house into a marketplace!” (John 2:14-16)

#35

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

02.01.2020 04:37AM

-->

@Zaradi

My only thought in opposition to it is that it could be too broad of an example and that itd need to be focused down more into lawful killings and unlawful killings before it could really be applied to the same lines of reasoning as your example of war.
Thoughts?

You mistake what I'm saying.

I've found that in the context of morality, dealing with underlying principle is better than just focusing on individual actions. With individual actions, we can "what about" them forever.

The OP implied that having rules and regulations for a behavior meant that the rule maker condoned the behavior. Is this true or not? If this principle is true, any instance of it will also be true.

In response, he asks a disingenuous question, "So God instructs us how to partake in sin?" When we must first assume his claim is true for his subsequent question to make sense.

But it is only him who has accepted that the bible has no verses prohibiting slavery.

So no, I do not need to focus down more into lawful killings and unlawful killings before it could really be applied to the same lines of reasoning as your example of war.

The UN charter is attempting to govern war, not killings specifically. So the principle is the same as the Bible having rules for behavior concerning servitude.

This will probably be viewed as confrontational, given what subforum we're in, but I'm actually genuinely curious.

Your wording was intelligent and polite, only an idiot would view it as confrontational. I hope I addressed what you meant.

#36

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

02.01.2020 05:34AM

-->

@ludofl3x

So you're asking me if a verse that isn't in the bible would have prevented something that happened, a lot, and was perpetuated BY BELIEVERS USING THE BIBLE AS SUPPORT?

You said it should be there. Did you have a reason for saying so?

I'm not sure it would have stopped it everywhere for all time as the bible doesn't apply to everyone at every time according to some of your arguments,...

Lol. I've never said that the bible doesn't apply to everyone at every time, but that's part of the kitchen sink so we'll shelve it for now.

...but for the sake of brevity, I'll say "probably not."

Thank you. Was that difficult? Now, if you agree it would not have stopped slavery, why do you think it should be there?

But again, the verse "Don't own slaves" isn't in any of the 60+ books of the bible,

Sure it is. It just isn't in the word sequence you personally deem acceptable. To that I say, "so what?"

..so there's little to dispute here.

Funny then that you're multi-posting and dodging verses*. There is a dispute here, and you're losing.

It doesn't prohibit slavery, I'm sorry.

It prohibits taking people by force, and prohibits selling them as a slave, and prohibits even treating them as slaves, calling slavery an "evil" that must be purged, yet you say it doesn't prohibit slavery?

How is slavery possible if kidnapping, selling, buying, and treating people as slaves is prohibited? I always say, being an anti-theist should not mean one has to abandon intellectual integrity.

THe passage isn't attributed to Jesus or God, so what else would it be? A letter, written by a regular old person, unless you want to demonstrate otherwise, is just one man's opinion. Timothy doesn't make commandments, right?

Well then I fail to see what your issue is here. Did Moses make commandments? Something written by a regular old person, is just one man's opinion. Are you telling us how you think some regular old person's opinion should have been worded? Really?

...wouldn't have had god on its side for so long.

They never did have God on their side, as evidenced by it being Christians using the bible who successfully rolled back slavery in England and America.

Look here what you quoted, but didn't cite:

I cited it earlier.

To whom does this verse apply?

So we are agreed that the bible opposed some slavery. That is still a defeat for the OP.

Now that you've admitted that the bible does prohibit some slavery, consider the verse you've been dodging.*

Where does this verse, which I've responded to in the quote, say "anyone"? It says "Israelite."

The verse you're dodging says "anyone".

Exodus 21:16 - Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether

the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

The slave owner isn't mentioned, for example...but the kidnapper is.

1 Timothy 1:10 - for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

You can bend yourself into any kind of contortion you like, the fact remains that the bible clearly views slavery as an evil contrary to "sound doctrine".

You are emotionally invested in the bible advocating slavery because your worldview is built on that urban myth. I get it. But saying that these verses do not prohibit slavery is ludicrous.

...at least the brand propped up in America

When the bible was written, American slavery, where a human being was viewed as owned by another human being, was thousands of years in the future.

The Bible is referring to indentured servitude, where a person voluntarily sold his service, and was not owned and not to be treated as a slave.

In cases where the person was taken against his will to be kept or sold as a slave, the bible clearly calls that wrong and gives a verdict of death.

Dishonest anti-theist equivocate on the word "slavery" and use the emotional baggage Americans carry with that word to imply that the bible is talking about, and condones old south slavery.

Interesting fact. When bibles were finally given to slaves in the American south, they had removed several verses calling slavery wrong and evil.

Facts remain facts no matter how much you dislike them Ludo. Obstinacy will not win arguments.

#37

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

Trump At The March For Life

02.01.2020 05:53AM

-->

@BrotherDThomas

I was told by a moderator not to use the correct term relating to you of "perpetual RUNAWAY" anymore when addressing you.

Do you know why?

Furthermore, I cannot show the truth..

Why not?

...of you not addressing the fact that you haven't posted a new thread upon your own in ONE YEAR AND 24 DAYS!

Politics

Published: 7 days ago; Last update: 1 day ago

Current events

Title 9 Is Dead

Published: 11 days ago; Last update: 11 days ago

Current events

Test Your Morality

Published: 19 days ago; Last update: 4 days ago

Philosophy

My Must Read Members List

Published: 1 month ago; Last update: 17 days ago

People

UK Conservatives Win

Published: 1 month ago; Last update: 3 days ago

Current events

The Emperors New UBI?

Published: 1 month ago; Last update: 1 month ago

Economics

What Makes A Movie Great?

Published: 1 month ago; Last update: 1 month ago

Lol. Maybe the mods have a thing for honesty and truth? They can be worrisome that way, Dee Dee.

But telling us PM's of how the mods admonish you doesn't make you look particularly good Dee Dee. Keep those things to yourself.

A word to the wise....

#38

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

02.01.2020 05:58AM

-->

@Barney

For all of Ethang's faults,....

Huh? What faults? ; )

...he's feverish in his determination.

I prefer "steadfast". Better fit and all that.

#39

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

02.02.2020 10:22PM

-->

@ethang5

ethang5,

No, no, no, no, keep it correct and don't crawl away from the true topic at hand again, understand?

I stated it is now ONE YEAR, 6 MONTHS, AND 2 DAYS since you have even "tried" to post a topic by yourself in the RELIGION forum, get it?

That was a nice try to try and save face by stating that you posted some more vain attempts in those other forums, but again, the subject was this forum because of the dates shown of your last post in the religion forum. Understand English 101? I know, to try and prove yourself you forget all about logic 101, tsk, tsk, tsk.

#40

Tradesecret

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

Tradesecret

02.02.2020 11:22PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

i'm not aware of any verses that forbids slavery. but i can find some that allows it.

Leviticus 25
"44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

if you look earlier in the chapter, the above is basically words from the Lord through Moses.

so why can i or can't i own slaves, according to the bible?

on a side note. ive heard people say the bible only allows servants from people who owe you money. but the above sounds like slaves for the sake of slaves.

on another note, some people say the above verse is only God permitting or allowing slavery, not condoning it. the most straightforward way of reading it though is it sounds like it's condoning it. if you want a slave, go ahead and get one.

but i'm more interested in this thread of knowing if i can own a slave, according to the bible.

hi there,

I think it is an interesting question but one that misses the larger context of history.

At the time the OT was written and also the NT, every nation in the world without even one exception practiced slavery. In other words, it was well before the modern moral / ethical norm of anti-slavery as a moral norm. What is significant about the laws in the OT and the NT is that Israel and then Christianity embraced regulations and principles that were far less cruel than the states and nations around them. They were a sanctuary and people from other lands would come to Israel and know they would be treated with a dignity far above what they might expect elsewhere.

Kidnapping was prohibited in Israel. Hence, the common practice everyone else practised was forbidden in Israel. The Israelites did take captives from kingdoms that fought with them. I suggest a captive in war is to be distinguished from kidnapping.

In Israel, the Jubilee Laws were at least in principle a short term fix in relation to debts. Hence an Israelite, if necessary could sell himself by way of debuncture for 7 years at which time he was to be released from all debt. It is kind of like our mortgages in our times from the bank, although we often have 25 years or more - and can never be released until we pay the debt. In OT it was called slavery. Today we would probably call it somethinge else.

The context of history also reveals that slavery only really started to be seen as something immoral after the advent of Jesus. Hence why Christianity is often seen as the primary driver against slavery. Now of course many others make the same claim - though none with the same force. It is notable that the modern anti-slavery movement was championed by an English Christian gentlemen, Wilberforce who based his arguments on the Bible and his faith.

Of course, the Civil War in America provided fodder for and against slavery by Christians. There were many good men and women and indeed slaves on both sides of the argument. The reason because not all slave-owners were evil people. Some slaves loved their masters.

I think the real question of importance is ownership. Can a person own themselves? We all talk about it sometimes when we discuss abortion, euthanasia or capital punishment. For some reason when it comes to slavery, however we look the other way and avoid the topic.

If we own ourselves, then we ought to be able to kill ourselves, or part of our body. After all if we are property, then we have property rights. Interestingly, in many places in the world, we don't have these rights, because we don't actually own our selves. The question of course is who does own us? States would say no one, yet this is clearly untrue because these rights exist or are exercised by something. Hence it is probably correct to say we are owned by the State. It alone has the right to put us to death - or to imprison us - or to tax us - or to tell us how to live.

It is ironic to say we can kill ourselves - we can abort parts of our bodies - but we CANT sell ourselves. Why is this property right excluded? It is in my view the essence of ownership - indeed of freedom that we own our selves. Yet if we don't have the freedom or the right to sell ourselves then do we really have true freedom? And I would say NO.

Now don't misunderstand me. I am not advocating slavery. But I do advocate freedom. If I can't sell myself, why not? Is it because I am not property and therefore don't have such existential rights or is it because someone else owns me and determines what rights I will be able to exercise?

#41

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

02.03.2020 12:12PM

-->

@BrotherDThomas

I stated it is now ONE YEAR, 6 MONTHS, AND 2 DAYS since you have even "tried" to post a topic by yourself in the RELIGION forum, get it?

I get that you're being dishonest. Here is what you said in post #32

Furthermore, I cannot show the truth of you not addressing the fact that you haven't posted a new thread upon your own in ONE YEAR AND 24 DAYS!

You said nothing about the religion forum. You posted this repeatedly, in several threads, you never once mentioned a particular board.

That was a nice try to try and save face by stating that you posted some more vain attempts in those other forums, but again, the subject was this forum because of the dates shown of your last post in the religion forum.

Lol. How is not posting in tje religion forum a shame? You are ashamed now because your falsehood has been exposed, and are trying to save face.

Don't worry. Not posting is nothing to be ashamed about. Making multiple idiotic posts is what should be shameful.

Understand English 101? I know, to try and prove yourself you forget all about logic 101, tsk, tsk, tsk.

Lol. I posted your claim. It was false. Now you want to qualify it. At the time, I asked you if you knew why the mods were cautioning you about it, you did not answer.

Perhaps you have an idea now? It's silly Dee Dee. You haven't posted in the Economics forum, many people haven't posted in the politics forum, so what? It's all pointless stupidity. The shame is only in you being clueless enough to think it's shameful.

Thanks for the lolz.

#42

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

02.03.2020 03:07PM

-->

@ethang5

ethang5,

Parsing words so tight to try and weasel out of your embarrassing situation may work with your equally bible ignorant fools, but not with me, sorry. The simple math of the time period deals with the Religion Forum, try and understand simple logic for at least one time, okay?

You're excused once again.

#43

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

02.03.2020 03:30PM

-->

@BrotherDThomas

The simple math of the time period deals with the Religion Forum...

You never said that Dee Dee. But even if we grant you that, there is nothing shameful about not posting in some forum or other. That is just silly. It is childish.

You were trying to goad and taunt, but you were doing it with something totally senseless. I would guess the majority of members here have a board they have never posted to.

And then you decided to take the silliness higher by posting a running update. Hilariously saying you were "embarrassing" me.

You're excused once again.

Do you mean I'm excused only on the religion board? Cause you again aren't qualifying your comment. I'm just trying to save you the embarrassment later of having to explain how the "simple math of the time period deals only with the Religion Forum".

Lol!

#44

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

02.03.2020 06:56PM

-->

@ethang5

ethang5,

Nice try, but again, no cigar! Listen, some of us obviously know that you have a hard time with reading comprehension of the English language, of which I have had to school you often, but once again, it took you how many days to come up with this new and current ruse of yours by adding other posts in different forums? Why didn't you come up with this insidious notion at the onset, but only bring it forth now to try and save face once again? It is because of your normal MO of grasping for those straws that aren't even there to begin with! ROFLOL!!!!

Not only do you have reading comprehension problems, but you also have terrible math skills, insomuch that you understood that the time period that I gave everyone, which currently is ONE YEAR, 6 MONTHS, AND 3 DAYS, was related to your Religion Forum non posting!!! H-E-L-L-O, anybody home again? NOT!

When you have absolutely NOTHING to gain from posting to me, but knowingly just further embarrassment, therefore I suggest that you just don't post! Don't you get it yet? You are done!

NEXT?

#45

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

02.04.2020 06:45AM

-->

@BrotherDThomas

Why didn't you come up with this insidious notion at the onset,..

Because it was too silly. I didn't know you would escalate the silliness by coming up with a running update.

...it took you how many days to come up with this new and current ruse of yours by adding other posts in different forums?

Many posts are older than a month Dee Dee. And if that was the case, why would I not just add posts to the religion board?

You are being silly. There is nothing wrong about not posting to any board. Why you think there is something wrong with that is locked in your confused mind.

You posted repeatedly that I had not made a post. I showed you were lying. You now want to amend what you said. I didn't make you post such silliness. I didn't make you post it repeatedly. And I didn't make you elevate it to a running update. All that petty silliness was your doing.

the time period that I gave everyone, which currently is ONE YEAR, 6 MONTHS, AND 3 DAYS, was related to your Religion Forum non posting!!!

You said nothing about specific board Dee Dee. You just blabbered that I had not made a new post in your peculiar broken English.

And still, so what? You've made no post to boards too, so what? It is silliness Dee Dee. You thought the childish goading would make me post. But I have been professionally trained.

I knew there was nothing wrong by not posting, and taunts and goadings don't work on me. Much less childish silly ones.

When you have absolutely NOTHING to gain from posting to me,

You always post to me first, but it is for people like you that I'm here. I was trained for posters like you. I like posters like you.

...therefore I suggest that you just don't post! Don't you get it yet? You are done!

Lol. Now you're tired of the attention Dee Dee? I first ignored you, thinking your ridiculous shtick was not worth my time. But then you started posting to me, thinking I was like your normal target. And to your surprise, your silly antics did not move me, and I burned you.

This confused and incensed you. Your all caps, bolding, underlining, and exclamation marks increased. Your posts became more and more incoherent and bizarre.

Till the mods had to step in and try to calm you. Now, angry and frustrated, you think latching on to this silliness of "no new post" will somehow make you seem relevant.

You wanted me Dee Dee. Now you have me. I reject your "suggestion" that I just dont post. Wasn't it you posting a running update of my not posting and calling it shameful?

Burned now, you want me to stop posting? Whiplash much? No Dee Dee, I am not done. I've got much more.

NEXT?

You're next Dee Dee. The attention you sought is now on you. Enjoy.

#46

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

02.04.2020 04:48PM

-->

@ethang5

ethang5,

!!!!! ROFLOL !!!!!

Oh my, you try so hard to weasel out of your embarrassing predicament. You agreed with the date of how many years, months and days it was pertaining to the RELIGION FORUM, substantiating yourself that it referred to this forum. LOL!!!

YOUR QUOTE: "Hey genius. If you're going to update us every few seconds, then update us with the minutes and seconds too."

Now, to get back to what we are all here fo in this particular forum, it was refreshing to see you post in my latest thread of "When Christian children do not obey their parents, PART 3! " Therefore I posted to you in this thread to have a discussion regarding the topic at hand. I look forward to discussing with you what Jesus proposed and condoned, okay?

See you in my thread, I can't wait!!!

#47

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

02.04.2020 04:53PM

Can you guys both go start your own board, or maybe just email each other the useless crap posts so we don't all have to read them? Nothing's more annoying on this board than getting an interesting topic, and interesting discussion, only to know you guys are going to get into a tiff over who's the toughest poster in history. It's fkng tedious.

#48

Debates: 2

Posts: 2,140

https://www.debateart.com/participants/ludofl3x

02.04.2020 05:37PM

-->

@ludofl3x

ludofl3x,

You know what is more annoying than ethang's biblical ignorance as shown by me relative to slavery, is the fact that you have absolutely NOTHING on your bio page! When this is vacant of answers to simple questions that DEBATEART put forth for a reason, in knowing the person in question, then this can only preclude that you are to embarrassed to tell us about yourself!

#49

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

02.04.2020 06:05PM

-->

@BrotherDThomas

uh, okay? I guess I'm so busted!

#50

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

02.04.2020 09:27PM

-->

@ludofl3x

Can you and Dee Dee both go start your own board, or maybe just email each other the useless crap posts so we don't all have to read them? Nothing's more annoying on this board than getting an interesting topic, and interesting discussion, only to know you guys are going to get into a tiff over who's the toughest poster in history. It's fkng tedious.

#51

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

02.04.2020 09:34PM

-->

@BrotherDThomas

Dee Dee, really when you have nothing to say, don't make a post.

Your obsession causes you to think you must post even when you have nothing to say. You really don't have to.

I look forward to discussing with you what Jesus proposed and condoned, okay?

No you don't. You just want to interact with me because you're an attention addict. Your addiction will be satisfied.

Aren't you glad that I didn't take your "suggestion" that I stop posting Dee Dee?

Lol!

34 days later

#52

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

03.10.2020 01:46PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

Let us simply remove the word slavery from the equation. What the bible prescribes in the passage you have quoted is that you can buy (non Jewish) people whom you will then own as property which can be passed down to your descendants as inheritance. There are other passages which concerning the ownership of people including the more temporary ownership of (Jewish) people, the guidelines for how to trick a (Jewish) person into being owned on a more permanent basis and guidelines on how severe a beating you are permitted to administer to the people you own.

If these pronouncements are contradictory to some other passages in the bible then we are left with an unclear picture of what the biblical stance on owning (non Jewish) people actually is at best.

Now it is up to you do you define slavery as the ownership of people as property that can be passed down to your descendants? If so then yes the bible has passages that specifically condone that. If you feel that this practice is better described by a word other than slave that is also alright but I find the practice of owning others to be immoral regardless of the label being applied to the practice.

#53

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

03.10.2020 05:58PM

-->

@secularmerlin

What the bible prescribes in the passage you have quoted is that you can buy (non Jewish) people whom you will then own as property which can be passed down to your descendants as inheritance.

Untrue. You buy their service. You buy their debt. You can pass down that service debt. You assume they are buying the person. Why? Jews did not believe humans could own another human.

There are other passages which concerning the ownership of people including the more temporary ownership of (Jewish) people,

Untrue. Besotted by the legacy of American slavery, you have a tendency to see everything through the lens of slavery.

The passages concern the ownership of a dept, not a person.

...guidelines on how severe a beating you are permitted to administer to the people you own.

No sir. People indebted to you. There were no police or jails back then. Justice was local. So the law was not how severe a beating you were permitted to administer, but how severe you were NOT permitted to administer to people you did NOT own.

Why would a man be punished for beating his property if he owned the slave? Think.

If these pronouncements are contradictory to some other passages in the bible...

Untrue. And you have never shown a contradiction. You simply assume the passages are about owning people and then claim they contradict other passages.

...but I find the practice of owning others to be immoral regardless of the label being applied to the practice.

Which is why you want to place your own label on it. It is not owning people.

There are verses that say only God can own people, verses that call owning or selling people an abomination, verses that admonish the Israeli to banish the evil that is slavery from among them, verses that say the penalty for slavery is death.

You ignore all of this, because you wish to hang on to your bias. Your worldview is built upon anti-theism, your view on slavery in the bible is formed by your bias, not what the bible actually says.

#54

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

03.10.2020 06:04PM

-->

@ethang5

your view on slavery in the bible is formed by your bias, not what the bible actually says.

Irony alert! Let's play a quick game. Which one of these actually appears IN THE BIBLE?

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

"Thou shalt not own slaves."

#55

Debates: 0

Posts: 7,093

03.10.2020 06:14PM

-->

@ethang5

You assume they are buying the person. Why?

I am in fact only taking the passage at face value. I am assuming that if a passage of a book which is being used as a moral pronouncement states that you can own people as property that it means you can own people as property.

Why would a man be punished for beating his property if he owned the slave?

Why would a person be punished for abusing a dog that they ostensibly speaking owns? The answer is that it is because it is against the law of the society in question.

If these pronouncements are contradictory to some other passages in the bible...
You have never shown a contradiction.

You will notice my use of the word if. If these pronouncements are contradictory. I will thank you not to put words in my mouth.

only God can own people,

I consider owning people as property to be immoral regardless of who does the owning.

#56

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

03.10.2020 06:27PM

-->

@ludofl3x

Both are in. Both are in the bible.

Christianity is a nonviolent religion. Slaves are not encouraged to harm their masters. The verse is not condoning slavery but telling Christians that obedience to God is superior value to freedom.

It is this philosophy that MLK used to defeat slavery in America.

#57

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

03.10.2020 06:31PM

-->

@ethang5

If you think MLK defeated slavery, you have much different definition than everyone else.

And please give me the verse where the bible actually SAYS ""Thou shalt not own slaves." Because here's what you said:

your view on slavery in the bible is formed by your bias, not what the bible actually says.

And when we're looking at what the verse actually SAYS, as you insist, Ephesians does not in fact say "The verse is not condoning slavery but telling Christians that obedience to God is superior value to freedom." It says "Slaves, obey your masters." That's what it says. Your bias is making you want to interpret it in some other way, but that's not what the words actually are. Right? Those aren't the words used in that verse. The verse simply says obey your masters, slaves. I bolded it because Christians have a real problem picking up on irony, so I'm trying to help.

Does the bible actually say "Thou shalt not own slaves" in the text somewhere? Where?

#58

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

03.10.2020 06:36PM

-->

@secularmerlin

I am assuming...

Good that you know you are assuming.

that if a passage of a book which is being used as a moral pronouncement

What the book is being used for might be different from the authors intent in writing the book.

states that you can own people as property that it means you can own people as property.

But that is not what it says. That is what you assume it says because you are American who finds it almost impossible to think of slavery in a non old american south way.

Today we talk of owning and selling atheletes. I bet you aren't confused when you read that a soccer player has been sold.

There are even verses that say when a debt is bought, the person should not be made a slave.

I will thank you not to put words in my mouth.

This isn't the first time we've talked secmer. You have never shown a contradiction in the bible. You have shown contradictions between your assumptions and the Bible. But I don't care about those.

I consider owning people as property to be immoral regardless of who does the owning.

Our debate is not about what you consider to be immoral, but whether the bible condones slavery. Your opinion is immaterial.

#59

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

03.10.2020 07:18PM

-->

@ludofl3x

Does the bible actually say "Thou shalt not own slaves" in the text somewhere?

Yes.

Where?

Everywhere. Here are a few.

Deuteronomy 24:7 "If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you."

Exodus 21:16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

Deuteronomy 23:15 "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master."

16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

Leviticus 25:39 “If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves."

And as for the verse in your post, this verse explains it.

Timothy 6:1 "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered."

1 Corinthians 7:21 "Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so."

It is clear that the bible condemns slavery.

#60

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008