Though I certainly understand why a staunch moral relativist beholden to a purely subjective morality would take issue with my “puerile…moralizing.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I am also trying to get you to admit that…
[/quote]
What you’re trying to do is force people into a position where they have to, you hope, “defend” slavery so you can either:
- Take the moral high ground.
Or
- Say that God is immoral.
It’s a puerile tactic, very much a staple left-wing phoney moralising position, and it’s logically inconsistent on a number of levels. And it’s fundamentally a false premise because slavery in and of itself is not “good” or “bad”. It’s neutral; it can have good aspects and bad aspects like most things(or like all things according to the Taoist dualism of yin and yang) and there are kinds and degrees of slavery. You have no moral high ground whatsoever and I suspect you know it.[/quote]
My friend, smh, you are a worthy adversary most of the time on PWI but you have no chance of out maneuvering this one.[/quote]
As are you my friend, and as is SM. But I don’t see anything to fight off. Slavery is not in and of itself immoral? I have no chance against that?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sorry, Varq, you are a friend and a brother but this is weak sauce.[/quote]
All right. Then I offer you the same challenge I gave SexMachine.
Name for me one undeniably evil action that is NOT prohibited or condemned in the Bible.
If you can do that, then explain to me how you know it is immoral, if God is the source of all morality, and the Bible is his comprehensive Word.
And then tell me whether you think slavery is moral, immoral, or (as SexMachine puts it) neutral.[/quote]
Push can answer for himself for what he believes but I’ve already stated that I believe man intuitively knows right from wrong. He perceives morality as it were. He senses it.[/quote]
This will have to be among my last posts for a while (for which I apologize: work and all).
Let’s take this definition of morality, because it is as good a definition as I can come up with.
I perceive the owning of a person to be immoral. Particularly the owning of a foreigner who was forced into slavery and then bought by a Jew. Particularly the owning of a foreigner who was born to someone who was previously forced into slavery and bought by a Jew.
Does anyone here not perceive this to be immoral?
Does anyone here not perceive man to have a natural right to liberty and self-sovereignty?
I’m talking about what we perceive, not what we can prove.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You don’t like what’s happening because your position is uncomfortable or untenable. That’s not my problem.
[/quote]
I’m not uncomfortable at all. In the real world where there are consequences for telling the truth I might feel uncomfortable but certainly not on an Internet forum. And it is your position that is untenable as I have shown in a couple of paragraphs.
I’m giving an opinion about something. I don’t need to appeal to an “authority”. Especially something like this. You are in an untenable position because you have chosen a silly moralising tactic. Again, slavery in and of itself is not good or bad but neutral. This is self evident and requires no appeal to authority. In an era where there were no prisoner of war camps nor any means to hold large numbers of prisoners, to be spared and sold into slavery or kept as a slave is a not immoral act on the part of the party doing the sparing and enslaving. For one thing, you might have on your hands a prisoner of war who recently invaded your territory with an army and plundered and pillaged your village. You have no means to hold him as a prisoner. If released he might kill people from your tribe or rejoin the enemy army that’s invading your land. Under such circumstances the only course of action would be to kill him. If he was amenable to serving you or labouring in the fields or whatnot then you would be acting in a perfectly reasonable way in sparing him for service. These are not “good” or “bad” decisions. They’re neutral given the alternatives, circumstances and environment.
Please. You know what I believe already. All my life I have believed in a single universal, objective moral order. If such did not exist there would be no right or wrong. And that’s the position you find yourself in. You can construct your own ethical system but the underlying motivation and purpose is not there because you don’t believe in anything.
I notice you haven’t disagrees though have you? You haven’t disputed that it’s better to live in a hut and work in the fields for food and keep - hopefully get reasonable treatment; the possibility of advancement and maybe emancipation - than to have a loincloth, a club and never ending internecine tribal war living on the edge of existence in the state of nature. And the state of nature in the Congo of all places. Where people are still hacking each other to pieces with machetes as an everyday event. Through means that we may not entirely understand, and which may entail great suffering and hardship and “unfairness” along the way, African-Americans now find themselves in a far better place than had they stayed in West Africa. You don’t dispute any of this yet you challenge my contention that it’s a gray area and ask on what authority I make such a statement. The reason above. That’s one of the reasons I say it’s a gray area and you haven’t disputed any of it.
As I said, I suspect you already do accept that slavery is not black and white; that it’s a gray area and that forms and kinds and degrees make it so. I think any rational person would have to accept that.
[quote]
You may take issue with my argument. Specific issue. Otherwise, what are you trying to say? That you agree with me? That on Christianity, slavery is not immoral? Good, I’m glad we agree. (Don’t we?)
Edited to make the quotation exact.[/quote]
Silly games. What do you gain exactly by forcing me to say something that sounds controversial without qualifications and explanation? You get to point your finger and say he’s the bad guy? And what does that make you? The good guy? Sorry, just doing my Tony Montana impersonation there.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sorry, Varq, you are a friend and a brother but this is weak sauce.[/quote]
All right. Then I offer you the same challenge I gave SexMachine.
Name for me one undeniably evil action that is NOT prohibited or condemned in the Bible.
If you can do that, then explain to me how you know it is immoral, if God is the source of all morality, and the Bible is his comprehensive Word.
And then tell me whether you think slavery is moral, immoral, or (as SexMachine puts it) neutral.[/quote]
Push can answer for himself for what he believes but I’ve already stated that I believe man intuitively knows right from wrong. He perceives morality as it were. He senses it.[/quote]
This will have to be among my last posts for a while (for which I apologize: work and all).
Let’s take this definition of morality, because it is as good a definition as I can come up with.
I perceive the owning of a person to be immoral. Particularly the owning of a foreigner who was forced into slavery and then bought by a Jew. Particularly the owning of a foreigner who was born to someone who was previously forced into slavery and bought by a Jew.
Does anyone here not perceive this to be immoral?
Does anyone here not perceive man to have a natural right to liberty and self-sovereignty?
I’m talking about what we perceive, not what we can prove.[/quote]
This post of yours proves my point about degrees and kinds and circumstances. You are laying out a particular scenario: a foreigner, purchased by a Jew and so on. That is a particular kind and form of slavery isn’t it? And another kind would be what I described before: an invading enemy soldier captured; no means to hold prisoners of war. After assessing him(you really don’t want to have to execute him), you realise he’s not really loyal to the enemy. He just joined their army for food and the chance of booty. So you tell him he will work your fields for ten years and if he serves you well you will release him. You treat him well and keep your word releasing him after ten years. This is another kind of slavery isn’t it? As I said, it clearly isn’t black and white which is why you were forced to start describing a particular form of slavery and the circumstances.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sorry, Varq, you are a friend and a brother but this is weak sauce.[/quote]
All right. Then I offer you the same challenge I gave SexMachine.
Name for me one undeniably evil action that is NOT prohibited or condemned in the Bible.
If you can do that, then explain to me how you know it is immoral, if God is the source of all morality, and the Bible is his comprehensive Word.
And then tell me whether you think slavery is moral, immoral, or (as SexMachine puts it) neutral.[/quote]
Push can answer for himself for what he believes but I’ve already stated that I believe man intuitively knows right from wrong. He perceives morality as it were. He senses it.[/quote]
This will have to be among my last posts for a while (for which I apologize: work and all).
Let’s take this definition of morality, because it is as good a definition as I can come up with.
I perceive the owning of a person to be immoral. Particularly the owning of a foreigner who was forced into slavery and then bought by a Jew. Particularly the owning of a foreigner who was born to someone who was previously forced into slavery and bought by a Jew.
Does anyone here not perceive this to be immoral?
Does anyone here not perceive man to have a natural right to liberty and self-sovereignty?
I’m talking about what we perceive, not what we can prove.[/quote]
You are laying out a particular scenario: a foreigner, purchased by a Jew and so on. That is a particular kind and form of slavery isn’t it?[/quote]
Yes. Is it a kind you think immoral? I’m asking this question seriously.
[quote]
And another kind would be what I described before: an invading enemy soldier captured; no means to hold prisoners of war. After assessing him(you really don’t want to have to execute him), you realise he’s not really loyal to the enemy. He just joined their army for food and the chance of booty. So you tell him he will work your fields for ten years and if he serves you well you will release him. You treat him well and keep your word releasing him after ten years. This is another kind of slavery isn’t it? [/quote]
Not really. You are simply playing with the limits of the definition of “slavery.” An invading enemy soldier? “Work for ten years and I won’t kill you, and if you do a good job I’ll set you free?” This is more like a sentencing for a wrong done. A sentencing to a work prison.
[quote]
As I said, it clearly isn’t black and white which is why you were forced to start describing a particular form of slavery and the circumstances.[/quote]
No. You are making it gray by making it less and less like slavery. This is classic sophistry.
You have hinted a few times that you think slavery not to be immoral because there are worse alternatives. Logically, this ends here: Nothing is immoral but the worst possible thing. Nothing, literally.
Natural right to self-sovereignty, to liberty* – yes, or no?
And if this question seems unfair to you, you don’t have an argument.
- (About which right much has been written vis-a-vis the incarceration of, for example, a rapist – and this is perfectly analogous to your “invading soldier sentenced to ten years” scenario. The principle withstands the necessities of justice and punishment.)
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Yes. Is it a kind you think immoral? I’m asking this question seriously.
[/quote]
Of course there are forms of slavery that are immoral. And there are also forms of slavery in circumstances where it’s not necessarily immoral. It’s not in and of itself immoral.
Not at all. In fact this is was a very common way that slaves were acquired in the ancient world and we’re talking about the ancient Israelites.
And it very much would’ve been understood as “slavery” in the ancient world. In fact, when the Hebrews invaded Canaan they were tricked into sparing the Gibeonites who then became their slaves. This is how slaves were acquired much of the time. They didn’t go into Africa with nets and round up some natives. That’s something the Arab slave traders and the European slave traders of the 19th Century. As I keep saying, there are different kinds of slavery and the kind I mentioned was common in the ancient world.
I’m not doing that at all. This is how slavery was understood in the ancient world. Plutarch was a “slave” - that’s what they called him. That was his position on the social structure. These are the sorts of societies we’re talking about when we talk about slavery in the bible. By contrast, the Carthaginians for example had huge numbers of Numidian slaves and ran vast grain plantations on slave labour in North Africa. That was a kind of slavery more like the antebellum South. The Egyptians also employed field slaves on grain plantations and household slaves and construction slaves and so on. This is precisely my point. I’m not “changing the definition of slavery”. It is you who have chosen a broad term which is why you cannot paint it in black and white terms. There were and are many different forms of slavery and degrees of “ownership” and confinement and maltreatment and good treatment. And you’re trying to condemn a set of laws mandating good treatment of slaves. You have no moral high ground as I’ve said already.
[quote]
You have hinted a few times that you think slavery not to be immoral because there are worse alternatives. Logically, this ends here: Nothing is immoral but the worst possible thing. Nothing, literally.[/quote]
I didn’t “hint” at it. I said, if the only alternative is to execute a prisoner of war and the prisoner of war then it most certainly is not a black and white issue of slavery being “bad”. And of course the Israelites believed that God “owned” everyone and that they did not “own” their slaves’ lives. They could not murder their slave. And they did not “own” their soul either. You’re trying to load the term “own”.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Yes. Is it a kind you think immoral? I’m asking this question seriously.
[/quote]
Of course there are forms of slavery that are immoral. And there are also forms of slavery in circumstances where it’s not necessarily immoral. It’s not in and of itself immoral.
Not at all. In fact this is was a very common way that slaves were acquired in the ancient world and we’re talking about the ancient Israelites.
And it very much would’ve been understood as “slavery” in the ancient world. In fact, when the Hebrews invaded Canaan they were tricked into sparing the Gibeonites who then became their slaves. This is how slaves were acquired much of the time. They didn’t go into Africa with nets and round up some natives. That’s something the Arab slave traders and the European slave traders of the 19th Century. As I keep saying, there are different kinds of slavery and the kind I mentioned was common in the ancient world.
I’m not doing that at all. This is how slavery was understood in the ancient world. Plutarch was a “slave” - that’s what they called him. That was his position on the social structure. These are the sorts of societies we’re talking about when we talk about slavery in the bible. By contrast, the Carthaginians for example had huge numbers of Numidian slaves and ran vast grain plantations on slave labour in North Africa. That was a kind of slavery more like the antebellum South. The Egyptians also employed field slaves on grain plantations and household slaves and construction slaves and so on. This is precisely my point. I’m not “changing the definition of slavery”. It is you who have chosen a broad term which is why you cannot paint it in black and white terms. There were and are many different forms of slavery and degrees of “ownership” and confinement and maltreatment and good treatment. And you’re trying to condemn a set of laws mandating good treatment of slaves. You have no moral high ground as I’ve said already.
[quote]
You have hinted a few times that you think slavery not to be immoral because there are worse alternatives. Logically, this ends here: Nothing is immoral but the worst possible thing. Nothing, literally.[/quote]
I didn’t “hint” at it. I said, if the only alternative is to execute a prisoner of war and the prisoner of war then it most certainly is not a black and white issue of slavery being “bad”. And of course the Israelites believed that God “owned” everyone and that they did not “own” their slaves’ lives. They could not murder their slave. And they did not “own” their soul either. You’re trying to load the term “own”.[/quote]
That your scenario was ‘understood as slavery in the ancient world’ is irrelevant so long as my example was also ‘understood as slavery in the ancient world’ and consistent with the slavery allowed on Biblical morality. My argument requires only it.
I notice that you didn’t say whether or not you perceive it to be immoral. Do you?
So, yes, the ancients practiced some “slavery” with which I don’t have much of a problem. But then I refer to those things not as slavery, but as work-imprisonment or indentured servitude or punishment or whatever (just like what was called science in the past is no longer called science today).
But enough with the semantic argument. The form of slavery I’m talking about, and have been talking about since the beginning, and specifically invoked throughout. Your opinion of its morality.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
No? Name something undeniably evil that is NOT condemned in the Bible.
I
[/quote]
Sex with infants?[/quote]
You’re right. The Bible does not condemn the practice of adults having sex with children.
In fact, the Talmud permits it, going so far as to specify the monetary value of a little girl’s hymen if a grown man ruptures it during penetration, either with his penis or with “a piece of wood”.
“Little girl” defined as “less than three years old”. Which I suppose could include infants.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
So, yes, the ancients practiced some “slavery” with which I don’t have much of a problem. But then I refer to those things not as slavery, but as work-imprisonment or indentured servitude or punishment or whatever (just like what was called science in the past is no longer called science today).
[/quote][
What you call it is neither here nor there. We are talking about “slavery” as it was understood over 2000 years ago. Aren’t we? We’re talking about slavery in biblical times and I also made some extrapolations to 19th Century slavery to show it neither was nor is black and white. And that there are many different forms of slavery.
[quote]
But enough with the semantic argument. The form of slavery I’m talking about, and have been talking about since the beginning, and specifically invoked throughout. Your opinion of its morality.[/quote]
I’ll have to go back and reread your comments because as far as I remember you started out - or at least, I started in - where you were condemning the bible for “condoning” slavery(obviously you don’t believe in harm minimisation then). And I chimed in to say there were and are many different forms of slavery under many different circumstances and environments. So if we’re making proclamations mind is that you have no moral high ground; it is not a legitimate criticism that the bible doesn’t specifically prohibit slavery(as if that was even possible before the 19th Century). Therefore it comes down to degree and kind. And I say, a group of people on the edge of existence fighting for survival with no means of holding prisoners is not necessarily immoral for taking slaves. And equally, I’d say that a plantation owner who uses slaves like beasts of burden to amass wealth for himself with no consideration for the slaves’ well being beyond keeping them in physical condition - I’d say that’s immoral. So there are different forms and kinds of slavery. Your own more restrictive definition of slavery is irrelevant because that’s not what the bible is talking about when it speaks of slavery.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ll have to go back and reread your comments because as far as I remember you started out - or at least, I started in - where you were condemning the bible for “condoning” slavery(obviously you don’t believe in harm minimisation then). And I chimed in to say there were and are many different forms of slavery under many different circumstances and environments.[/quote]
It is on this very page. A Jew buys an enslaved foreigner and owns not only the enslaved foreigner but also his progeny.
[quote]
So if we’re making proclamations mind is that you have no moral high ground; it is not a legitimate criticism that the bible doesn’t specifically prohibit slavery(as if that was even possible before the 19th Century).[/quote]
It is a perfectly legitimate criticism that the Bible does not prohibit the buying of a man enslaved by foreigners and the ownership of that man and his progeny. So I do, in fact, have the moral high ground.
[quote]
Therefore it comes down to degree and kind. And I say, a group of people on the edge of existence fighting for survival with no means of holding prisoners is not necessarily immoral for taking slaves.[/quote]
We’re talking about buying slaves, not “no means of holding prisoners.”
[quote]
And equally, I’d say that a plantation owner who uses slaves like beasts of burden to amass wealth for himself with no consideration for the slaves’ well being beyond keeping them in physical condition - I’d say that’s immoral. [/quote]
And the Southern plantation owner who was nice to his human property? He’s not engaged in something flatly immoral?
[quote]
Your own more restrictive definition of slavery is irrelevant because that’s not what the bible is talking about when it speaks of slavery.[/quote]
It is, in fact. I cited such in peer-reviewed literature.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
No? Name something undeniably evil that is NOT condemned in the Bible.
I
[/quote]
Sex with infants?[/quote]
You’re right. The Bible does not condemn the practice of adults having sex with children.
In fact, the Talmud permits it, going so far as to specify the monetary value of a little girl’s hymen if a grown man ruptures it during penetration, either with his penis or with “a piece of wood”.
“Little girl” defined as “less than three years old”. Which I suppose could include infants.
[/quote]
It says nothing about a man rupturing a virgin’s hymen with a piece of wood. It says if a virgin’s hymen is broken “accidently”.
I’ll be back a bit later to reply smh. Got to go get some lunch and do a few things.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ll be back a bit later to reply smh. Got to go get some lunch and do a few things.[/quote]
Sure thing.
I will (one hopes) be fast asleep by then, but I’ll check back in tomorrow morning.
As an aside, these are chin-stroking ruminations. I don’t believe any of you to be slavers or villains.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
No? Name something undeniably evil that is NOT condemned in the Bible.
I
[/quote]
Sex with infants?[/quote]
You’re right. The Bible does not condemn the practice of adults having sex with children.
In fact, the Talmud permits it, going so far as to specify the monetary value of a little girl’s hymen if a grown man ruptures it during penetration, either with his penis or with “a piece of wood”.
“Little girl” defined as “less than three years old”. Which I suppose could include infants.
[/quote]
It says nothing about a man rupturing a virgin’s hymen with a piece of wood. It says if a virgin’s hymen is broken “accidently”.[/quote]
Having gone back and looked at the passage in question, I concede not only that it does indeed say “accidentally injured” by a piece of wood, but also that I may have overstated the point when I said that the practice of intercourse with very young girls was “permitted” by the Talmud.
More likely, the Talmud commentator was simply acknowledging the practice, and specifying the amount of money owed to the girl’s family as a result of her reduction of value due to defloration.
That amount, it seems, is 200 zuz, which works out to about $1,725.