@Dafunkdoc_Unlimited, why do you condone slavery in the bible?

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Jewish law was barbaric about women in general.

As were the laws in Egypt, Assyria, Akkad, Ugarit, Babylon, Rome, etc. 2,000+ years ago .

Do I have to explain how stupid this whole thing is to people capable of critical thought?

'Slavery' in the Ancient Near East was NOT a single system like that which was created in the Colonial period, and encompassed a variety of different situations that, today, would be no more than a marriage, adoption or a desk job.

Comparing the two is a retarded argument of desperation fueled by ignorance of history and used by people with an agenda born of 'White Supremacy'.​

 

[The Real]

As were the laws in Egypt, Assyria, Akkad, Ugarit, Babylon, Rome, etc.
2,000+ years ago
.​

​

Sure, but the tu quoque isn't relevant here. No one looks to Akkadian morality anymore. Yet people still twist themselves in knots to justify the barbarism in the Abrahamic texts.
​

'Slavery' in the Ancient Near East was NOT a single system like that which was created in the Colonial period, and encompassed a variety of different situations that, today, would be no more than a marriage, adoption or a desk job.

I'm only talking about the kind of servitude outlined in the Torah and updated in the Talmud. It includes elements of what we would now define as slavery, including sex without consent with certain kinds of captive women and children being born into a state of servitude. I'm not comparing its overall injustice to that of chattel slavery. I'm just calling it barbaric.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Sure, but the tu quoque isn't relevant here. No one looks to Akkadian morality anymore. Yet people still twist themselves in knots to justify the barbarism in the Abrahamic texts.​

​

That isn't what's happening in this thread. What's happening in this thread is a false equivocation.
​

I'm only talking about the kind of servitude outlined in the Torah and updated in the Talmud.

I just finished explaining that there wasn't just ONE kind. This is why this thread is stupid.​

 

[King Kreole]

First it's "Christians don't have to follow the OT...and we should ignore the NT verses that condone slavery"

This statement wasn't stated by me......ever.​

Evidence:

Yeah, except Christians don't follow Mosaic Law. It 'expired' (for them) when Jesus was executed.

and when the NT slavery verses were brought up, you said they were put in there as instruction of what not to do...even though they were being specifically advocated for by a central and authoritative member of Christianity... that was perhaps the most brazen juke attempt i've seen since Barry put on the Honolulu Blue

Then it's "well biblical slavery wasn't as bad as modern slavery...and that, for some reason, makes it ok to own another human being"

Another statement not made by me.​

Evidence:

The problem is YOUR definition of slavery is not what is used in the text you cite.

As I posted earlier, 'slave' was a term in the Ancient Near East which didn't necessarily entail ownership of another human being.

In Colonial America, that's ALL it meant.

You didn't follow any of these statements up with any sort of rebuke of the "soft" Biblical slavery. In fact, when you were called out on this, you went on to say that there were even laws against maltreatment of slaves.

Then it's "well, what do you expect, biblical times were less civilized than modern times...but that, for some reason, doesn't mean we should stop appealing to a biblical age text for moral instruction"

Yet another statement not made by me.

Evidence:

(in response to @Napoleon saying the problem is owning human beings, period)

That's only an issue now and the United States owns more slaves, now, than any other nation on the planet.

and then, in response to @resurrection saying Christians clinging to their moral superiority is disgusting, given all the shytty things the bible promotes, you say:

Actually, what's 'disgusting' is the fact that without religion, you wouldn't know what 'morals' are in the first place.

Then it's "...well the Constitution is just as bad!"

Not what I stated. I stated the Constitution LEGALIZES slavery.​

Yeah, this is called the fallacy of relative privation, and is used to change the terms of an argument to make it more favourable to a bad opinion. What point is being served by bringing up how bad the Constitution is in an argument about you condoning biblical slavery?

 

[The Real]

​

That isn't what's happening in this thread. What's happening in this thread is a false equivocation.​

I just finished explaining that there wasn't just ONE kind. This is why this thread is stupid.

That doesn't engage the problem at all. The problem is that the text endorses barbaric practices of the same nature, if not the same intensity, as chattel slavery, such as lower status and fewer rights based on ethnic background, forced sex, and birth into servitude. As such, caping for it if you are a descendant of chattel slaves is c00ning. It doesn't matter if there's more than one form of servitude described as long as the relevant barbaric practices are endorsed by the text in at least one context, which they obviously are.

@Napoleon , whatever his faults, didn't say the two were exactly the same in his opening post, only that people dishonor their slave ancestors by caping for Biblical slavery. And that's true, unfortunately for the apologists here.

 

[DonKnock]

: "I am Emperor of Denialafornia, @Dafunkdoc_Unlimited Watch as I deny the exact premises I just spewed out of the unfortunate hole in my face and then post a sleeping emoji, while in reality I am actually crying that people on the Internet won't cave to my ignorant propaganda"

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Evidence:

LOL, where's the part where I said to ignore anything? Nowhere, since I didn't say it.​

and when the NT slavery verses were brought up, you said they were put in there as instruction of what not to do...even though they were being specifically advocated for by a central and authoritative member of Christianity... that was perhaps the most brazen juke attempt i've seen since Barry put on the Honolulu Blue

It would seem that way to someone with an agenda that isn't working, but the fact of the matter is the text advocates FREEING people from bondage. That's one of the themes prevalent throughout the entire text. Since you pick-and-choose what to pay attention to, you haven't actually read the text all the way through to get that point.
​

You didn't follow any of these statements up with any sort of rebuke of the "soft" Biblical slavery. In fact, when you were called out on this, you went on to say that there were even laws against maltreatment of slaves.

Re-read the first post I made in this thread. You can't 'call me out' for something I ALREADY did.​

Yeah, this is called the fallacy of relative privation, and is used to change the terms of an argument to make it more favourable to a bad opinion.

That's what this WHOLE thread is since my first post clearly outlined the differences between what the T/S was trying to say and what HISTORY states. 'Slavery' in the Ancient Near East and Colonial America are fundamentally different. A comparison is only superficially possible, but ultimately stupid.
​

What point is being served by bringing up how bad the Constitution is in an argument about you condoning biblical slavery?

What's wrong with people getting married and adopting children? Nothing. What's wrong with keeping people for life just because of their shade of skin? Everything. That's the point.


​

 

[No Sleep]

Dudes still trying to use the weak arugment of slavry in the bible.

Is it not?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

That doesn't engage the problem at all. The problem is that the text endorses barbaric practices of the same nature, if not the same intensity, as chattel slavery, such as lower status and fewer rights based on ethnic background, forced sex, and birth into servitude.​

False. The text reports what transpired over 2,000 years ago among a group of people in the Ancient Near East. I keep saying it has no theological significance to me, but that point keeps getting overlooked by people with an agenda.
​

As such, caping for it if you are a descendant of chattel slaves is c00ning. It doesn't matter if there's more than one form of servitude described as long as the relevant barbaric practices are endorsed by the text in at least one context, which they obviously are.

First and foremost, nowhere did I say the text 'endorsed' anything. It reports what transpired as ALL historical documents do. I give the text no authority, therefore, there is no 'c00ning' being done by me. Those of you who wish to do away with 'Black' history contained in the text are the only 'c00ns' in this thread.
​

@Napoleon , whatever his faults, didn't say the two were exactly the same in his opening post, only that people dishonor their slave ancestors by caping for Biblical slavery. And that's true, unfortunately for the apologists here.

Yet another false accusation easily dismissed due to bias. 'Slavery' in the Ancient Near East bore no resemblance to the institution created in Colonial America. This is a simple fact of history as documented by the Department of Labor and every archaeology department in every institution of higher learning worldwide. The only people dishonoring their slave ancestors in this thread are the atheists and critics who don't know history and/or twist it to suit their agenda fed to them by 'White people'.​

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

LOL, where's the part where I said to ignore anything? Nowhere, since I didn't say it.​

It would seem that way to someone with an agenda that isn't working, but the fact of the matter is the text advocates FREEING people from bondage. That's one of the themes prevalent throughout the entire text. Since you pick-and-choose what to pay attention to, you haven't actually read the text all the way through to get that point.
​

Re-read the first post I made in this thread. You can't 'call me out' for something I ALREADY did.​

That's what this WHOLE thread is since my first post clearly outlined the differences between what the T/S was trying to say and what HISTORY states. 'Slavery' in the Ancient Near East and Colonial America are fundamentally different. A comparison is only superficially possible, but ultimately stupid.
​

What's wrong with people getting married and adopting children? Nothing. What's wrong with keeping people for life just because of their shade of skin? Everything. That's the point.


​

It doesn't advocated freeing people unilaterally.

It is composed of mechanism that advocate the beating, selling, and management of SLAVES. Period. I don't care if it scales from being a forced nanny to a field worker.

If a text is contradictory, then you can't say it speaks in one direction or the other valuably.

 

[DonKnock]

@Napoleon This dude is trying to get you to kick a field goal into the hole on a Par 5

 

[10:31]

@Napoleon breh


He's over


You've finished him already

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

False. The text reports what transpired over 2,000 years ago among a group of people in the Ancient Near East. I keep saying it has no theological significance to me, but that point keeps getting overlooked by people with an agenda.
​

​

First and foremost, nowhere did I say the text 'endorsed' anything. It reports what transpired as ALL historical documents do. I give the text no authority, therefore, there is no 'c00ning' being done by me. Those of you who wish to do away with 'Black' history contained in the text are the only 'c00ns' in this thread.
​

Yet another false accusation easily dismissed due to bias. 'Slavery' in the Ancient Near East bore no resemblance to the institution created in Colonial America. This is a simple fact of history as documented by the Department of Labor and every archaeology department in every institution of higher learning worldwide. The only people dishonoring their slave ancestors in this thread are the atheists and critics who don't know history.​

This is again, false.

It speaks to the highest degree of naivety to suggest that quote the most violent practices in human history was actually not that violent and limited to certain demographics and geographies.

All you've done is cherry picked one incidence of a Form of servitude and try to related to how it clearly violates the autonomy of enslaved individuals.

And you think because of some archaeology from 2000 years ago that human history human viciousness have not involved to how chattel slavery was managed even 200 years ago?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@Napoleon This dude is trying to get you to kick a field goal into the hole on a Par 5

Now you see why I did this.

Just to point out how ridiculous this dude is

 

[The Real]

False. The text reports what transpired over 2,000 years ago among a group of people in the Ancient Near East. I keep saying it has no theological significance to me, but that point keeps getting overlooked by people with an agenda.

First and foremost, nowhere did I say the text 'endorsed' anything. It reports what transpired as ALL historical documents do. I give the text no authority, therefore, there is no 'c00ning' being done by me. Those of you who wish to do away with 'Black' history contained in the text are the only 'c00ns' in this thread.​

I never said you were c00ning. As for "reporting," as I have already stated, I am referencing Torah and Talmud law, which consists of normative statements about how people should behave. Among those statements are those that endorse the barbaric practices in question. In some cases, God himself commands the barbaric practices.

You claim the text has no theological hold on you, but it's obvious you have affinities with Christianity in particular, whether or not you identify as a Christian or as a noncognitivist. You're clearly willing to defend Abrahamic barbarism through any manner of rhetorical acrobatics available to you.

​

Yet another false accusation easily dismissed due to bias. 'Slavery' in the Ancient Near East bore no resemblance to the institution created in Colonial America. This is a simple fact of history as documented by the Department of Labor and every archaeology department in every institution of higher learning worldwide. The only people dishonoring their slave ancestors in this thread are the atheists and critics who don't know history and/or twist it to suit their agenda fed to them by 'White people'.

Literally every sociological and historical survey of slavery and servitude worldwide includes chattel slavery and Abrahamic slavery in its surveys. There isn't a single, unbiased scholar anywhere who thinks there is no connection whatsoever between them. That doesn't mean all the forms are the same. It means they share enough similarities to be grouped together. Even your Dept. of Labor link says nothing contradicting this (in fact, it contradicts you, since it explicitly calls both American and the much less intense Brazilian servitude slavery).

All forced labor and trafficking in human beings share fundamental similarities, regardless of whatever other differences exist between them. No one but you seems to think otherwise.