The Problem of Slavery in the Bible

[fOx]

No, you don't understand, because I am neither of those things.

Why would you create a topic about slavery in the bible if you aren't even interested in nuanced discussion on the subject? Was this topic just bait so that you can label people who don't share your beliefs?

Not at all. The only person who I've taken umbrage with is you. There has been no "nuanced discussion." When asked about the morality of foreign slaves, you're response was "too bad for them," and that it wasn't immoral. In the case of Israeli slaves, you described it as a net positive, as it was neither neutral nor negative.

Declaring that slavery is "social welfare" is a somewhat outlandish take, you must concede.

As for the age of consent, that's been argued into the ground at this point. But the impression I got is that you thought it was complete BS.

 

[fOx]

Cathlic or Protestant?

Protestant, though I would probably call myself non denominational.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Protestant, though I would probably call myself non denominational.

Hhm, I would have guessed Catholic.

 

[Houseman]

Hey, tell me, is it possible to enslave somebody in self-defense?

If you can predict the future, possibly. If the situation were "These people will become strong and will attack you and annihilate you within two generations, unless you subjugate them". But beyond that, no, I wouldn't think so.

There has been no "nuanced discussion."

Have you tried?
All you did was ask me for my opinion."Is it immoral?" and then when I answered you stuck a label on me.

Wow I wonder whose fault it is that there hasn't been any nuanced discussion between us? The person who honestly answers questions when asked, or the person who smugly sticks inaccurate labels on people?

But the impression I got is that you thought it was complete BS.

That's because you're bad at labeling people and should stop.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

Have you tried?

Have you? If you're so annoyed people slap supposedly inaccurate labels on you it might help to give answers more than a few words long, you know? Seems a whole lot of this playing the victim could be avoided if you took your own advice and didn't assume people could read your mind

 

[Houseman]

Have you?

Yes, I've done my part. I explained my viewpoint and answered every question he asked of me.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

Yes, I've done my part. I explained my viewpoint and answered every question he asked of me.

With an abundance of single sentence or even single word answers where you don't expand upon your points. The majority of your posts I can quote put far more effort into complaining about how you're not being understood than they do into trying to get people to understand you in the first place. Why is it up to everyone else to expand their premise in their questions but not you to expand in your answers?

 

[Houseman]

With an abundance of single sentence or even single word answers where you don't expand upon your points.

If you (or fOx) want better answers, ask better questions.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

If you (or fOx) want better answers, ask better questions.

No no no, you're the one complaining about being misunderstood and mislabelled. You're the one who's got a problem here, you're the one who needs to take steps to correct it. Instead of demanding everyone else fit a set of standards, apply them to yourself first

 

[Houseman]

No no no, you're the one complaining about being misunderstood and mislabelled. You're the one who's got a problem here, you're the one who needs to take steps to correct it. Instead of demanding everyone else fit a set of standards, apply them to yourself first

So you're a victim blamer? I understand, thank you.
See, I've just labeled you.
Now you need to take steps to correct being misunderstood and mislabeled, because this is all your fault, apparently.

That's how it works, right? The person who feels insulted by being mislabeled needs to make changes and do all the work to clear their good name?

No, I don't think that's how it works at all.

fOx jumped to conclusions instead of trying to understand. That's his misunderstanding. I'm done with this meta-discussion.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

So you're a victim blamer? I understand, thank you.
See, I've just labeled you.
Now you need to take steps to correct being misunderstood and mislabeled, because this is all your fault, apparently.

That's how it works, right? The person who feels insulted by being mislabeled needs to make changes and do all the work to clear their good name?

No, I don't think that's how it works at all.

fOx jumped to conclusions instead of trying to understand. That's his misunderstanding. I'm done with this meta-discussion.

Victim blaming implies you are the victim and not, as is more accurate, entirely at fault. If you’re going to give answers like “yes”, “no” or “it’s alright” you are in no position to complain about people mislabelling you because what have you given them to go off? You can’t demand other people expand on their points and at the same time give single word answers as responses. If you spent less time complaining about being misunderstood and more time actually explaining what you mean you’d feel misunderstood far less

 

[Kwak]

It's only a 'problem' if you give any moral weight to a historical document of ancient human society that is replete with barbarism.
Grow the fuck up and think for yourself.

 

[Satinavian]

Protestant, though I would probably call myself non denominational.

That might be the problem.

Catholics interpret the bible in the context it was written in. And such have no problem with bible passages about treating slaves morally written in the context of slave holding societies while still condemning slavery as an institution in the present.

Similar with things like marriage and family life. Catholicism can recognize that Jesus version basically is a push to make womens position stronger than before instead of insisting that Jesus meant that women should be in a weaker position than in modern society.

Or with monarchy. The bible has a lot of content about kings (and some about emporers as well). But that it doesn't have much to say about other gouvernments (because they were less relevant at the time) does not make them morally wrong.

 

[Trunkage]

Victim blaming implies you are the victim and not, as is more accurate, entirely at fault. If you’re going to give answers like “yes”, “no” or “it’s alright” you are in no position to complain about people mislabelling you because what have you given them to go off? You can’t demand other people expand on their points and at the same time give single word answers as responses. If you spent less time complaining about being misunderstood and more time actually explaining what you mean you’d feel misunderstood far less

Someone has gone full Sam Harris. Never go full Sam Harris

 

[Agema]

Why is it up to everyone else to expand their premise in their questions but not you to expand in your answers?

Without going into any specifics of this thread's particular squabble...

It strikes me that one of the most common reasons for unconstructive discussion is some form of dislike for the other people in debate, so in that sense it's consistent to both spoil the discussion and then attack those others for it going downhill.

 

[Buyetyen]

Declaring that slavery is "social welfare" is a somewhat outlandish take, you must concede.

It's actually a very common rationalization in white supremacy. Many slave owners tried to paint themselves as magnanimous in comparison to the most overtly cruel ones as a way of squaring the cognitive dissonance. You can find these sorts of apologetics for slavery all over the Enlightenment and well before. The hot take of calling it "social welfare" is, I believe, a rhetorical flourish of 20th century white supremacists and seems to be making a comeback under Trump.

 

[happyninja42]

None of which really fucking matters, since the supernatural entity that all this debate is centered around, can't be proved to exist, so why should anyone give a damn what a tribe of bronze age shepherds and nomads thought about how to justify their owning of other people they didn't like for their own cultural profit, under the auspice of their particular flavor of invisible sky daddy? A version that the plethora of variations of religions that say they worship the same being, can't seem to agree on at all, as far as what he actually wants for his people to do, how to get into heaven, what is right/wrong, and in what context, or any of it. None of them can agree on pretty much anything, and yet I'm supposed to take the debate seriously?

It's an outdated piece of garbage, that has no place in a modern world's society.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

None of which really fucking matters, since the supernatural entity that all this debate is centered around, can't be proved to exist, so why should anyone give a damn what a tribe of bronze age shepherds and nomads thought about how to justify their owning of other people they didn't like for their own cultural profit, under the auspice of their particular flavor of invisible sky daddy? A version that the plethora of variations of religions that say they worship the same being, can't seem to agree on at all, as far as what he actually wants for his people to do, how to get into heaven, what is right/wrong, and in what context, or any of it. None of them can agree on pretty much anything, and yet I'm supposed to take the debate seriously?

It's an outdated piece of garbage, that has no place in a modern world's society.

What has changed about humanity that has made religion outdated?

 

[happyninja42]

What has changed about humanity that has made religion outdated?

You're kidding right?

 

[ralfy]

Does the Bible Support Slavery?

Here we’ll handle a classic moral objection: the Bible is an evil book because it supports slavery (thus disproving Christianity and theism by implication).

www.catholic.com