Interview: What Is Your Moral Philosophy?

MayCaesar

Shadowtongue said:

@MayCaesar

Now we seem to be coming to a curious point in the conversation. Much of what you said about happiness and misery is true indeed in regard to the human condition. Now, when you say that beings should then behave in accordance to achieving individual happiness, couldn’t striving for individual happiness mean that one would then be in the right, in terms of consistency with your line of reasoning, to exploit or outright harm others if it solely benefits them in turn for their individual happiness? How does one objectively decide that their happiness is of more gravity than another’s happiness?

To your second paragraph, do you recognize that saying that individualism is the logical choice to make moral systems off of is now asserting objectivity into the moral conversation when you recently stated that there are no universal metrics by which morality can be constructed? You on one hand say individualism is the logical choice but then say it’s not the only valid path, isn’t the logical path the valid path? Also, how can you determine what is or isn’t a valid moral foundation if, again, you stated before that morality is relative to the individual and not something that can be assessed universally?

On your point about collectivism versus individualism, both can result in unresolved discrepancies because, like a collective, individuals can also use their will to try to force their ways upon another, and that’d be logically consistent in a purely individualistic system, so this is not at all a problem unique to collectivism. Also, wouldn’t it be far more likely that people could attain individual happiness, a thing which you herald, if they work together in some sort of fashion to bring about protection and advancement to one another, rather than sole individualism?

As for your point on respect, you’re just simply not correct here. Respect is either deep admiration for something or the consideration or regard for something. You’re not taking someone into regard, consideration or admiration if you’re outright opposing them. Opposition and respect are clear antonyms.

On your point on voluntary versus coercive harm. I know what both mean, but you seemed to miss the heart of my question. If morality is purely relative to the individual, how are you being logical when you react to involuntary harm but do not react to voluntary harm? In the case of your moral philosophy, it doesn’t matter if one signed up to be harmed or not, both types of moral scenarios should, logically speaking, be of equal weight in your eyes if there is no means of universal moral criticism.

For your final point, wouldn’t you say that people agreeing to exchanges and mutually benefiting from one another is them following a collective code of conduct by virtue of them agreeing to engage in the same ways with one another? Also, your proposal would lead to an absurdity because, while you want people to be peaceful and find mutual happiness, if also people were accepted by your society to get whatever they wanted for their happiness, this could also include things like coercive harm and thus go against your original aims.

Absolutely: it is, in principle, quite possible that, for a given person, the way to achieve maximum happiness involves gravely harming others. In that case they would be right to pursue it, and those negatively affected by it would be right to fight back as necessary.
My voluntarist views express my own version of happiness; other people may have other versions.

There can be multiple logical paths and multiple valid paths to choose from; logic does not always allow us to narrow down the list of paths to one. As for individualism, it simply derives from the fact that every person has their own version of happiness; this is something that I see as objective truth, and while it does not have to necessarily lead to individualism in principle, I have a hard time reconciling collectivism with it.
I would say that morality can be assessed on the individual basis; moral systems do have some basic criteria, such as, for example, some level of consistency. Many people do not have solid moral foundations and switch their stances as convenient, and that is a good sign of a faulty system.

Bear in mind that individualism does not prohibit cooperation between individuals; in fact, its point is to make sure that all cooperation is voluntary. The problem with collectivism is that the collective becomes a force in itself and gains coercive powers over the individuals, preventing them from pursuing their own version of happiness in an unrestricted manner.
Individuals indeed can try to force their ways on each other, and they will, both in collectivism and individualism. However, they still remain individuals.

I disagree that opposition and respect are antonyms. When I play a chess game against a very strong opponent, I highly respect that opponent, and yet I am in opposition to them. "Respect" means, in simplified terms, taking someone seriously and deeming them worthy of attention and effort; it does not necessarily mean admiring someone. I have a certain wicked form of respect to Hitler for managing to subdue an entire nation so quickly, but I certainly do not admire him. You could say that I admire some very specific parts of him, but overall - not in the slightest.

But in case of voluntary harm the individual makes a choice, while in case of involuntary harm they are deprived of a choice. I oppose coercion, not harm. Harm in itself does not prompt me to react in any way, albeit I might help people in need for my own reasons.

Well, my final point was concerning the hypothetical situation in which absolutely everyone lives by my morals; obviously it is unlikely to ever be the case in reality. In that hypothetical situation people likely would not even need a code of conduct, as they would already be on the same page. Coercive harm would not exist there.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ....

You apparently subscribe to some type of objective morality with the Christian deity as a basis.

This is so indicative of your poor comprehension.  NO!  I do not subscribe to anything of the kind.  I adhere to the Christian faith as taught by Christ in the Gospels.  There is no closer adherence to Christianity than that, nor is my faith an arms-length objective faith either.  It is highly personal and deeply spiritual.  So how did you get it so wrong, given I have made this more than obvious in a multitude of posts to you, including citing the Ten Commandments, monogamy, keeping holy the Sabbath, making a financial sacrifice to educate my kids in private Christian schools, etc. 

You got it so wrong, because you simply focused on a single word in my previous post, "objective" and took it entirely out of context.  I said that this DISCUSSION must be objective  - not target those who have posted their moral codes simply because of  their moral code, yet that is what you did.  The commenters should not be the focus, the moral codes presented should be.  You follow up with ...

I pointed out that this deity is known through 'revelation', and this method of acquiring knowledge leads to "facts" which are contradictory.  This is evidenced by the many interpretation of the Bible and the tens of thousands of Christian sects all claiming to be following the will of the same god. 

As I've opined many a time, Atheists love to set themselves up as experts and believe they can critique Christianity with authority.  There is no demographic which portrays a greater ignorance of it than atheists do, the reason they do  reject it - a consequence of that very ignorance.  It is apparent from your above statement, that you don't understand what defines a Christian.  ALL  of the Christian faiths share a solid belief in all  of the primary doctrinal precepts, its law, the divine mysteries and the definition of Christ Himself, His mission, His core teachings,  the moral codes and the Triune Christian God which Christ gave Christians knowledge of.  The differences are primarily limited to the politics of religion, the pettiness of man in other words, and are of little interest to God with any major consequence.. Then you write ...

As already stated, (assuming revelation is real and not imagined) this points to one inconsistent source or many sources. If you prefer a less specific criticism, it can be simply said that revelation/faith (regardless of the claimed deity) leads to dissonant conclusions. This is an objective observation of the basis of the moral philosophy you subscribe to. How do you overcome this?

If your above claims in that last statement were actually factual, then there would be something to worry about and something to overcome, but they're not factual and that's the quintssential problem with the arguments always advanced by atheists.   They are not based on any factual knowledge or understanding of Christianity itself, the reason having a discussion about Christianity with atheists is a bit like this ...

Sure that's ridicule.  Your very persistent doggedness always in the same vein begs it. You must surely be aware by now, given my repeated info', that the Christian faith did not begin with "revelations" even if it is part of it, but evidence supports it.  It began  with a very real historical figure in the flesh and blood of a man, teaching the people, just like a kid going to school is taught about the Big Bang.  If you want to claim that Christianity is based solely  upon "revelations", then you will also need to concede that Science is likewise, if you are to be consistent.  Christianity has more material evidence of its God through many historical records, than major theories of science can lay claim to in support of a common ancestor, of Evolution and of the Big Bang theories. There is no hard evidence  available to support any one of these, only conjecture.

Christ Himself is Christianity's hard evidence, He a well-documented historical figure in the flesh.  Apart form the miracles he performed - testimony of which goes way beyond and well-outside of Biblical texts - testimony documented by a Roman governor and Roman historians, all pagans is relied upon. Eye witness accounts from Roman soldiers who guarded His tomb, likewise.  Eyewitness accounts of individuals who were extremely close to Christ, whose own existence has been proved, including historical accounts of their own persecution and deaths at the hand of pagans. Sumerian clay tablets signed by the Patriarchs, Adam through to Jacob, also. History provides factual evidence not only of Christ's crucifixion, of His burial, His subsequent empty tomb and resurrection, but also of a multitude of 500 who saw the resurrected Christ to whom He gave a sermon. They saw his wounds, all on the historical record, provided by the Roman Governor of the time, Pontius Pilate, in his Acta Pilati, (Acts of Pilate) + archaeological confirmation simply abounds in testimony of the accuracy of the Biblical texts.

Then you write ...

Notice, I've still told no lies, hurled no insults, made no personal attacks.

Great and witness now how the discussion can progress on-topic. Another point is that you must surely know that none of the Christian Biblical texts present any major deviations from one another, either.

If you'd like to discuss issues you perceive with utilitarianism rather than being 'vilified' by criticism of an ideology (not your person) - feel free.  I'm game. 

Great again! But please note I already gave you enough to get going on that. Instead you switched it to a critique of Christianity and of me personally.  So let's start afresh.  My opening critique of Utilitarianism was as per the below quote.  I also added later, that if it were a practical philosophy then it would be incorporated into law, as five of the laws of Christianity have been, in addition to the law of monogamy, enshrined in our Marriage Act.

@SkepticalOne - I don't disagree with the premise per se  of Utilitarianism, namely batting for the team which believes in taking action only where it brings happiness and no unhappiness, however at the same time I recognize its nature is actually highly impractical and hardly a viable utility at all, making it a rather paradoxical idealogue, but philosophers are full of such waffle, so no surprises there.  Its major flaw is that it fails to acknowledge the real world, a world created by less-than perfect beings with no clue as to how to preserve and protect  a logical social and moral construct with any enduring  commitment.  Collectively society always chooses the low bar.

Utilitarianism is simply too purist.  It ignores the paradox of life itself.   Such high idealism is bound to fail in a flawed and imperfect world and it does.  An example can be found in the axiom, "It is sometimes necessary to be cruel to be kind", or similarly it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice a minority in order to rescue the majority and so on.  That's realism and nothing else will ever nor ever can serve us so well.

SkepticalOne

@Grafix

Well, that escalated quickly, and can be addressed easily: historians do not endorse a man named Jesus rose from the dead and was the son of god. Accepting the words of the Bible uncritically is necessary for that, and some of the authors write that they were 'inspired by god' to write the words. (That would be revelation as I understand it). Regardless, even if Jesus was a diety and this is verifiable as you say, people believing in him still hold very different views of morality, and "real Christians accept X moral code" is a no true scotsman fallacy, so please don't take that route.

I'm sure you could make the argument that in general Christians accept the 10 commandments. I would accept that to a certain extent, so long as we agree they don't necessarily revere all 10 equally. Nonetheless, I think you would have difficulty explaining how we might arrive at, say, "slavery/rape is wrong" using the Bible. Plus, how do you address modern or future problems not mentioned in the Bible, for instance, dumping trash into space?

As for your repeated challenge to utilitarianism, that has been addressed. 

"The fact of the matter is perfection and absolute certainty is not required to know some actions are better than others especially where human well-being is concerned. For example, it doesn't take an omniscient being to know chopping someone's head off is bad for their well being or that vaccinations (while causing pain) are beneficial to human life. Of course there are more nuanced problems out there, but just as our accumulated knowledge tells us the better course of action in the examples above it guides us in these scenarios too."

If you don't understand what I have said or have questions, by all means, ask! There's no need to repeat your challenge. That keeps us at square 1.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ....

@Grafix - Historians do not endorse a man named Jesus rose from the dead and was the son of god.

You're half right.  Historians look to the Biblical texts with great respect for its historical accuracy on events, from wars to famines, to conquests of civilizations, the movement of peoples, chronology of rulers, place names, kingdom names, historical leaders, trades, routes, borders and governments, occupations, cultures, dialects, maps, customs and a faithful record of origins of ancient tribes and societies.  That is the stated position of scholarship.  As to their acceptance of the divinity of the text's primary subject, there is no requirement for historians to express any opinion on that at all and no-one expects that they should, so why did you find it necessary to invent a rebuttal to an argument that does not exist.  You do so habitually  

Christians accept the historical facts  simply as they stand, but unlike non-Christians, also accept them as evidence  of their Christian God by also accepting that the Biblical record is the explanation behind those facts.  Between the two there is no disagreement. The facts on the public record, not disputed by Scholars or historians and which are outside of the Biblical texts are listed below. (All from sources hostile to Christianity)

1.  Christ is a well-documented and famous historical figure, who was born sometime between 1 AD and 2 AD in Bethlehem; that His birth was hailed by many as that of the Messiah. His parents were Mary and Joseph both of the House of David, (meaning descendants of or relatives of King David).  No-one had surnames in those days, the parental House merely recorded.  (The Herodian Record & Register of the Protectorate.)

2.  Christ was a preacher and claimed to be the Son of God. (Sourced from ancient scrolls, inscriptions, Jewish Antiquities, letters to Rome from Pilate and recorded in Pilate's Acts - Acta Pilati).

3.  Christ had twelve disciples who followed Him. (Revealed in the same records noted in Item 2).

4.  Christ was outspoken against the Jewish leaders in the synagogues, condemning them for hypocrisy and false teachings.  (Jewish Antiquities and Acta Pilati).

5.  There was enmity between the Jewish High Priests, (The Sanhedrin) and Christ for this reason.  Pilate expressed concerns about civil unrest, given the size of the crowds that Christ's sermons drew and His growing following.  (In Pilate's letters to the Emperor, Tiberius, in Acta Pilati and also recorded by historians,Tacitus and Josephus Flavius). 

6.  The Jewish Sanhedrin, (the High Priests' of the Jewish governing Council), did not accept Christ was who He claimed to be, i.e., the Messiah,  (Jewish Antiquities record and Pilate's letters to Rome.).

7.  Due to the rising numbers in Christ's following, the conversions of Jews to Christianity, the fact that Christ claimed to be the Son of God, the Messiah and the King of the Jews, the Sanhedrin considered He was a threat to them, a divisive figure, a threat to their position of authority and to the Jewish Council's authority, including a threat to Judaism itself.  They sought to have him condemned by Pilate.  (Recorded by Pilate - Acta Pilati.)

8. The circumstances surrounding the arrest of Christ, Pilate's statements that Christ was innocent, was aware of the miracles Christ had performed, including the letter sent to Pilate written by his wife and delivered to him, urging he have nothing to do with the trial of Christ, occasioned Pilate to publicly "wash his hands of the matter" and turn the decision over to the shouting, militant crowd. Pilot feared that if he did not there would be an uprising or a public revolt.  (Acta Pilati, Jewish Antiquities, letters to Rome written by Pilate, Josephus and Tacitus)

9.  Joseph of Aramathea, recorded as "a devout man with an official status", approached Pilate to take possession of the body of Christ, to remove it from the crucifix and lay it to rest in a tomb which was among several that his family had purchased and owned.  Pilate gave his consent to that. (Protectorate's public record, Jewish Antiquities)

10.  Pilate in his Acts of Pilate, (Acta Pilate),  together with the writings of the ancient historians, Tacitus and Josephus Flavius, all attest that miracles were attributed to Christ.  Their records attest to the empty tomb, as well. The testimony of the Soldiers who guarded the tomb, reveals they did not roll back the stone, while reporting the tomb to be empty, the body no longer there.  Their testimony states the Sanhedrin bribed them to go out in public and claim that Christ's followers had stolen the body, whilst they were asleep.  (Protectorate's public record and Acta Pilati) 

11.  Various historians, modern and old, have written long dissertations concerning these facts and what to make of them, analysing and researching all of the evidence in detail.  The most salient conclusion which is relevant here, is that scholars and historians agree, if the Roman soldiers were asleep when the body was supposedly stolen, then they could not know who stole it, nor even if it was in fact stolen.  The Jewish record of the testimony of the soldiers does not admit to the bribery, but it does admit that the soldiers reported to them what they had seen, including the risen Christ.  The soldiers' testimony alone reveals they were bribed.  

12.  The soldiers' testimony also records that some women came with spices to the tomb to anoint and embalm the body, which is when the soldiers discovered the tomb was empty and is when they saw that the stone was rolled back, but they say not by them.  They do not say who rolled it back.  Historians agree this suggests that they did not know who rolled it back.  (The Biblical text states that an Angel of the Lord rolled it back when he appeared to Mary Magdalene, one of the several women, and told her "He is not here.  He has risen".)

13.  Reports that the sun was blacked out and there was an earthquake at the very second Christ exhaled his last breath.  The earliest report comes from Thallus, a Roman historian, hostile to Christianity.  He wrote:

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down." (Quoted by Julius Africanus in his Chronography, 18:1 and dated 52 AD, the only surviving record of Thallus' writings.)  The great library of Alexandria was destroyed, razed to the ground by Islamic armies during the Golden Age of Islam.  The most authoritative writings by ancient historians, attesting to Christ's life history and ministry, including the events surrounding his death, were held there. 

14.  Phlegon the ancient Roman historian is quoted by Origen (an early theologian and scholar, born in Alexandria).   Origen wrote: “Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14). 

15.  Phlegon observed that the Roman pagans did not ascribe inexplicable events surrounding Christ to any attributes of divinity, including the following event:  “And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appeared and was crucified, and the great earthquake which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)

16.  Origen again quotes Phlegon:  “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)

17.   Pliny the Younger, (61-113AD) in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the legacy of Christ and the birth of Christianity as follows::

“They [the Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food — but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

From this last passage, it is obvious that Christs teachings of the Ten Commandments were the over-riding influence.  On your remarks about slavery and rape, Genesis prohibits sexual intercourse outside of marriage.  It records the very first institution of Marriage and how God sanctified the gift of copulation and creation in marriage when He joined Adam and Eve as man and wife, instructing them  ... "Let no man put asunder what God hath joined together".  Sexual intercourse outside of marriage is verily condemned throughout the Biblical texts, defined as, "fornication".  It is ridiculous to pretend it is not - condemned in over a thousands references, which clearly includes rape.  Slavery, rape and any subjugation by one against another are all condemned by the Commandment, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

On applying the Scotsman fallacy to Christianity, the rebuttal is very simple.  The actions of any individual cannot and never have defined a philosophy, especially not when those actions repudiate its very definition. The philosophy itself stands extant from our actions, unadulterated and pure, even if we are not.  Why atheists cannot grasp that undeniable fact completely flummoxes me.  I could be a faithful adherent to Christianity, yet still be sure to break its laws, for the reason I am flawed.  Does that make the philosophy flawed?  Not at all, yet Atheists persistently claim it does.  It's lunatic logic.

Your paragraph on Utilitarianism doesn't meet the challenge at all.  I've already rebutted those remarks and await your rebuttal to my post in reply.

.

Dee

@Grafix

*****Slavery, rape and any subjugation by one against another are all condemned by the Commandment, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Hilarious .......Jesus and your god totally approved of slavery denial of such is typical but expected .

Regards the No true Scotsman Fallacy you keep saying it doesn’t apply as that’s the fault of men and not the teachings , yet the teachings and Jesus fully supported slavery , maybe read a bible mate?

From Evil Bible ......

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.’  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave.  What kind of family values are these?

The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery.  How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

So these are the Bible family values!  A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and has sex with them!

What does the Bible say about beating slaves?  It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.(Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Grafix

@Dee -

Christ wasn't born at any of those times you quote.  Neither was Christianity, so please show me where Christ approved of slavery or that even Christianity did in the New Testament or the Gospels..You quote early Hebraic texts. How many times do I have to point that out.  I love the way atheist-know-it-alls think that "text proofing" the Bible out of context is "knowledge" and some kind of understanding of it.  It's not and it is forbidden by Christianity to do so, unless appropriately quoted in the correct context.  It is also abhorred by scholars of the Biblical Texts, whether Christians or otherwise, because the text is written as a complete composite, every chapter reliant upon an understanding of the previous chapter.  Show me an atheist who has that understanding.  There isn't one.  If they possessed such understanding they would no longer be an Atheist.  This is what the blind ignorance of atheism cannot grasp for the reason it IS ignorant.  Ignorance is circular, just like everything else is.

Instead atheists think "text proofing" is clever and try to pull apart and demean these holy books but God will smite their text into uselessness every time, for little do they understand that nowhere will God allow his very own words to be used against Him.  And here's the kicker.  Because you do not understand the terminology of the era you misunderstand the words you quote.  In error you conflate the word servant, or a Servant's Indenture, (contract over a period of time), with slavery.  Typical of lying Satanic blowhards, but what more could we expect.  Their intent is evil and will be duly struck down and annihilated.  Fools.  Fools.

Dee

@Grafix

***** In error you conflate the word servant, or a Servant's Indenture, (contract over a period of time), with slavery.

Right so selling your daughter into sex slavery is really a “servants indenture “ Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

  ****Typical of lying Satanic blowhards, but what more could we expect. 

Every time your nonsense is challenged you resort to attack mode , you’re a very angry young man does your religion not give you peace?

BTW I still don’t believe in Satan 

 ****Their intent is evil and will be duly struck down and annihilated.  Fools.  Fools.

Right so here is Jesus talking about how one should treat their property ..... The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

But of course it’s only nasty Atheists slurring his good name , got ya 

Dee

@Grafix

***** In error you conflate the word servant, or a Servant's Indenture, (contract over a period of time), with slavery.

Right so selling your daughter into sex slavery is really a “servants indenture “ Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

  ****Typical of lying Satanic blowhards, but what more could we expect. 

Every time your nonsense is challenged you resort to attack mode , you’re a very angry young man does your religion not give you peace?

BTW I still don’t believe in Satan 

 ****Their intent is evil and will be duly struck down and annihilated.  Fools.  Fools.

Right so here is Jesus talking about how one should treat their property ..... The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

But of course it’s only nasty Atheists slurring his good name , got ya 

Grafix

@Dee - Your claim of sex slavery is just so way off, it is dangerous. The law you cite - incorrect translation, by the way - does not mean what you think it does.  Remember too Christ condemned many of the old Hebraic laws and customs, the reason the Jewish High Priests appealed to Pilot to condemn Christ and have him crucified for heresy. The heresies were in fact theirs, not Christ's - abolished by the New Testament.

Understanding the customs of the era is so  imperative.  It was usual for a man to pay to a young woman's parents a "dowry" in exchange for her hand in marriage. .At the time "a price" was put on a woman's chastity. All marriages were arranged.  There was no such thing as falling in love or the freedom for a young lady to say 'No". If the parents and the future husband reached an agreement then a Contract of Marriage was drawn up and signed between the future husband and THE PARENTS. The future bride had no part in it because the dowry was paid to her parents, not to her, hence the saying, "sold into marriage."  

Woe to those who alter the intended meaning of God;s words.  I don't know who compiles the NLT but I would burn it, if I were you.  The correct record from the earliest English translation, directly from the Latin Vulgate and it directly from the Greek and, in turn, it from the Hebrew of the Old Testament, is as follows:

Exodus Chapter 21

 [7] If any man sell his daughter to be a servant, she shall not go out as bondwomen are wont to go out. [8] If she displease the eyes of her master to whom she was delivered, he shall let her go: but he shall have no power to sell her to a foreign nation, if he despise her. [9] But if he have betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. [10] And if he take another wife for him, he shall provide her a marriage, and raiment, neither shall he refuse the price of her chastity.

Verse 7 is actually referencing a father "selling" his daughter into marriage, same terms as explained above, at a dowry price for her chastity, the dowry paid by the future husband to her parents. It sounds dreadful, I know, but that is how it was and this custom is still practised today in Indian and Asian cultures - a dowry extracted from future husbands as a price for the daughter's chastity and an arranged marriage entered into with a Marriage Contract signed.  That is precisely the reason Verse 7 says she cannot "go out as bondwomen"  may do, meaning she cannot leave the master, her husband, as a servant could at the end of a Servant's Indenture, because a Contract of marriage has no expiry date, unlike a Contract of a Servant's Indenture, which does.  The first phrase in this Verse also forbids fathers from selling their daughters into work, as servants - can only be as a bride.

In Verse 8, if the husband is granted a divorce this law prevents ex-husbands from selling their ex-wives into marriage to other cultures, such as to pagan men, lest they be taken into a pagan harem, but why would ex-husbands do that?  Why not arrange another marriage for an ex-wife to another Hebrew man for a dowry? Hebrew law forbade husbands to collect a dowry for ex-wives, however the pagan cultures did not. Subsequently, this law PREVENTED husbands from selling an ex-wife into sex slavery to the pagans.  Instead, a Hebrew must let her go free for no price   We know that marriage is being discussed in Verse 7, due to the words which follow in Verse 10, i.e. "... if he take ANOTHER wife ...", meaning a wife to replace the wife he divorced and he must pay a dowry for her too, just like he had to for his first bride.  All of this is in the context of monogamous marriage laws, which God is laying down.  Prior to this, the Hebrews were polygamists, like all of the other pagan cultures.  So it was all very new and strange to these people.

I'll deal with your passages from the New Testament in a separate post.

.

Dee

@Grafix

***** Your claim of sex slavery is just so way off, it is dangerous. 

Nonsense , why is it when confronted with unpalatable passages from the Bible christians do this pathetic dance of claiming “ well it doesn’t really mean that “? It actually does mean what it says as your Christian ancestors in the U S along with Christians worldwide used these very same verses to justify slavery do you dispute this?

Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?

Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property? Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?

Jesus told how one could beat his slaves as they were your property do you deny this?

Grafix

@Dee - Now you go on the attack against Christians again, because you can't admit your error.  The interpretation I give is the correct one and has been for eons the correct one stated by theologians.  No other interpretation has ever been given to it in the history of Christian theology.  I cannot speak for the ignorant interpretations, if any, espoused by nobodies on the Internet.  It takes the cake when Atheists come along and attempt to pervert our holy books and then claim they  are the experts.  Yeah right.  The passages themselves DEMAND  this interpretation by their very own words.  Let me show you why.

Verse 7 clearly states that a father cannot sell his daughter as a bondwoman.  That means into work as a servant with a Contract for a Servant's Indenture to work for a master. (The definition of "bondwoman" or "bondman"): So if a Hebrew father is forbidden from arranging for his daughter to enter a Servant's Indenture, what then can it be referring to?  Obviously, there is only one other way a father could accept money in exchange for his daughter's servitude - marriage - and that is precisely what the words in this passage dictate as the only possible interpretation.

Then we see in Verse 10 that it refers to the ex-husband taking ANOTHER wife, for whom he must provide properly and pay a dowry in the same way that he did for his first wife. This is all in the context of the laws of monogamy.  Why would Verse 10 suddenly switch to talking about ANOTHER WIFE if Verse 7 were merely speaking of a servant / employer relationship?  It would not make any sense at all, would it? .... because the two are unrelated.  

Again, your little rant does not quote passages which I can respond to.  For all I know,  they are just more of the same from you, flawed interpretations from bad versions of the text, which are numerous and harmful.
.

Dee

@Grafix

Your attempts to avoid answering questions is typical do you want to try a again answering the questions you ignored? You may get help if you wish.....


Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?

Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property? Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?

Jesus told how one could beat his slaves as they were your property do you deny this?

Grafix

@Dee - I have already said I will deal with your New Testament quotes in a separate post.  I am not avoiding anything.  If you would just calm down, and let me read them from MY TEXTS, rather than trust the obviously flawed NLT version that you rely on, I will get to it.  I also have other interruptions to attend to.  All in good time and quit demanding your needy "instant gratification" atheism slouch.

Dee

@Grafix

****  - I have already said I will deal with your New Testament quotes in a separate post

Maybe deal with the Old Testament ones first as your latest excuses smack of desperation

.****  I am not avoiding anything.

Yes you are , you always do so after I correct you 

  ***If you would just calm down, and let me read them from MY TEXTS,

I’m perfectly calm though you’re not as I and others keep pointing out your angry use of bold text demonstrates 

*****rather than trust the obviously flawed NLT version that you rely on, I will get to it. 

Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

**** I also have other interruptions to attend to.  All in good time and quit demanding your needy "instant gratification" atheism slouch.

Again all in your mind I never asked for nor would I expect “instant gratification “ as in your case you need several hours to type a novel in response to the simplest of questions 

Grafix

@Dee - How you just prattle on with no content beneficial to the debate.  No self-restraint and look at all of the space your spread-out text uses up.  These forums would be half as many pages, if you just refrained from that childish layout, alone, reducing scrolling and number of pages. Why must you lay out your posts like that?  We aren't children here and so many posts for what could be just one? Never heard of an edit?

Before going to those New Testament quotes of yours,  I want to demonstrate how context is so important, using the last quote from Exodus that you posted. Below is an image from the Douay Rheims text, (the first and oldest translation in English), with the Verses before and after Verses 20-21, quoted by you, concerning punishing a servant - not a slave, by the way ....

It's important to understand that all through the Biblical Texts it is stated repeatedly that the Abrahamic God is a just God, but that his wrath is to be feared when abominations are too great.  Where lesser crimes occur, which man himself can deal with, then God leaves it up to his people to mete out the punishments for those and so he gave them laws to enforce to provide a just, safe and harmonious community.  Chapter 21 is all about justice, all about ensuring that every punishment is  just and balanced and that it fits  the crime.  This is the whole point of this Chapter, to ensure no-one is unjustly or unduly punished, nor anyone let off, either.

So let's start with Verse 17.  It says that he who curses his mother or his father will die THE death. No mention is made of a crime nor what the punishment should be.  What does THE death mean?  It means there need be no civil law imposed for this. We know it breaks the Commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother".  So it is not a civil  crime but a sin.  Interesting it's given prominence here.  THE death is God's punishment, God's Judgement, to die the eternal death.  No redemption.  No after life.  Condemned to stay dead forever without the opportunity to be resurrected on Judgement Day and enjoy eternal life in the flesh on the face of this earth in God's Kingdom.  That's not to say we cannot repent while living in the now and redeem ourselves.  We can. The punishment of eternal death is for those who are unrepentant.

Now let's get to the Verses you quoted - 20 & 21.  Look at their context in conjunction with Verses 18 and 19.  Why do you think in those two verses the one who struck his neighbour must pay restitution and damages, while the employer who struck and injured his own servant, (or employee, same thing), in verses 20 and 21 is not required to do the same?  It's because it is understood that if the employer wishes that employee to be useful to him for the remainder of his Indenture, then he is compelled to see to his good health in order that he can return to work and be productive and useful.  In that way the employer IS compelled to pay for his employee's physicians's expenses and restitution, anyway.  Also the days the servant is ill away from work due to his injuries, have already cost the employer losses.and these are precisely what the phrase "because it is his money"  means. Thus the employer's punishment is equal to the punishment required and described in Verses 18 and 19, after all.  So, contrary to your flawed interpretation, the employer did not get off with no punishment at all.  He paid his dues.

Verse 24 spells this out with the widely known axiom of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, etc."  Everything must be equal.  God is saying that is how justice must be served.
.

Dee

@Grafix ;

***** How you just prattle on with no content beneficial to the debate.

You mean like asking you to defend your ?

  ****No self-restraint and look at all of the space your spread-out text uses up.  

Ah “self restraint” says the rage filled Christian , you hate that I address each of your points instead of writing novels in response 

***These forums would be half as many pages, if you just refrained from that childish layout, alone, reducing scrolling and number of pages. 

Right so my short to the point answers are too difficult for you , yes I get that. You print on average 350 line rage filled responses to the simplest questions 

****Why must you lay out your posts like that?  

For clarity 

****We aren't children here and so many posts for what could be just one? Never heard of an edit?

I actually think you are and a very st-pid one at that . In no way have you answered even one of my questions as yet , do you want to get help or just continue B Shi-ting?


Questions you keep running from and instead resorting to B Sh-ttting .........

Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?

Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property? Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?

Jesus told how one could beat his slaves as they were your property do you deny this?

Grafix

@Dee - Sheesh.

If you want to think of servants and employees as the same as slaves then go right ahead, and keep you blind faith in your blind bigotry which prevents you from positing any kind of sanity, let alone a rebuttal.

There is a plethora of evidence in the Biblical texts which shows us that people were PAID during these six-year term contracts, that they were merely contracts of employment for that period.  They could not obtain employment without signing an Indentured Agreement of service for that term.  It was the custom.  It was usual.  It was the tradition.  You have to pull your head out of the sand, open your mind, your eyes and ears and  exercise some effort to try to understand that usage of terms changes over millennia.  They were called servants because the document of Indentured Service, says exactly that - "Service" - Terms of Service in other words and from the word Service, we get "Servant".  That's all it means, an employee under an indentured contract.  In other words a servant. 

You can run around with your head stuck up your arse and think you know everything about the Biblical texts and the cultures it describes, but you know sweet fanny all.  That's more than obvious.  So can we quit with the insults, quit with the prattle and just have a civil discussion with you showing some respect for the business of becoming informed patiently?  If you are not prepared to do that, Dee, then I am not prepared to respond further.  I will now turn my attention to your New Testament quotes.  So far you have yet to make a rebuttal to either of my last two posts. Denials are not rebuttals. Go right ahead and please focus on the content ONLY.

Dee

@Grafix

Questions you keep running from and instead resorting to B Sh-ttting .........

Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?

Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property? Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?

Jesus told how one could beat his slaves as they were your property do you deny this?

Grafix

So far I've gone through your original post methodically, addressing the Biblical passages you quoted.  As for the rest of your , I don't even read 90% of it, because it says nothing, contributes nothing and just hurls verbal vitriolic invective which I am not interested in.  When you have rebutted my posts that are in reply to your original and only rebuttal on this page, then I will take notice.  Until then, I'm not interested in empty, vacuous prattle. 

By the way.  Your claims about being "concise" are also fake.  I counted the lines of text you have typed since your post dated March 10 and you are on about ten lines more than my text, so all that to say what exactly?  Empty noise.  Whereby 90% of what I type is on-topic and informative debate.  So pack up your Miss-I-am-so-concise, pithy , given you've typed more than I have from that post right down the page.
.

Dee

@Grafix

*** So far I have gone through your original post methodically, addressing the Biblical passages you quoted.  

So why have you failed to address them?

Questions you keep running from and instead resorting to B Sh-ttting .........

Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?

Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property? Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?

Jesus told how one could beat his slaves as they were your property do you deny this?

****As for the rest of your , I don't even read 90% of them, because they say nothing, contribute nothing and just hurl verbal vitriolic invective which I am not interested in.

I haven’t fired one insult at you whilst the reverse is the actual truth , I’m quoting the Bible at you and you call it B S I agree

  ****When you have rebutted my posts that are in reply to your original and only rebuttal on this page, then I will take notice.  Until then, I'm not interested in empty, vacuous prattle.  

Translation......You’re still running 

****By the way.  Your claims about being "concise" are also fake.  I counted the lines of text you have typed since your post dated March 10 and you are about ten lines ahead of me, so all that to say what exactly?

 

  ***Empty noise.  Whereby 90% of what I type is on-topic and informative debate.  

Not according to every rational member on here who also claim you never debate but hurl off insults and accusations 

****So pack up your Miss-I-am-so-concise, pithy , given you typed more than I have since from that post down the page.

So still no defence ? I had a feeling you would chicken out , so tell me now you’re finished throwing a tantrum can you try answer my questions? 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix So if you don't read 90% of what anyone else says, why should anyone read anything you say?

Don't you think it is unfair to expect someone to care what you have to say if you don't care what others have to say?

Grafix

Unlike you, I do things methodically.  Work progressively down the page.  I'm still answering your first post, yet to look at your New Testament quotes.  I am not going to jump all over the place like a jumping jack fire cracker in the way your scatter brain works - nothing cohesive, hurling post after post onto the page, saying nothing, wasting other contributors' time, requiring endless scrolling to get past them and endless scrolling to go back.

You just muddy the waters, throw in red herrings, make demands like a spoilt brat, are completely disruptive.  I asked you to STFU and to be patient at least a dozen posts ago, to exercise some restraint, because I don't just sit and stare at the screen, typing my happy little arse off every second, like you do.  I have others things to do as well, so piss off and and you'll get your replies in due course, if they warrant any at all.

By the way ...

 I  H A V E   R E S P O N D E D   T O   Y O U R   C L A I M S   T H A T   T H E    H E B R E W S   U S E D   S L A V E S 

T H E Y   D I D   N O T   A F T E R   A B R A H A M ' S   T I M E

I replied to that claim of yours a few posts back.  The fact that you cannot find it amongst your junket jabber on the page, doesn't surprise me.  My next post will address your New Testament quotes.  
.

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

He’s doing the same old tired dance ignoring the uncomfortable to avoid answering a few simple questions , it’s his way and expected

Dee

@Grafix

***** Unlike you, I do things methodically.  Work progressively down the page.  

Indeed and avoid everything you cannot answer 

****I am still answering your first post.  

Maybe then you could answer these from my first post ...

Questions you keep running from and instead resorting to B Sh-ttting .........

Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?

Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property? Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?

Jesus told how one could beat his slaves as they were your property do you deny this?

****About to look at your New Testament quotes.  

You can get help if you wish

****I am not going to jump all over the place like a jumping jack fire cracker all over the place in the way your scatter brain works - nothing cohesive, hurling post after post onto the page, saying nothing, wasting other contributors' time, requiring endless scrolling to get past them and endless scrolling to go back to posts of good content.  

Right , you mean like asking you 3 simple questions and highlighting in bold? Do you need it dumbed down even more?

***You just muddy the waters, throw in red herrings, make demands like a spoilt brat, are completely disruptive.  

Like asking you 3 questions?  You’re getting very upset , don’t blame me you cannot answer 

****I asked you to STFU and to be patient at least a dozen posts ago, to exercise some restraint, because I don't just sit and stare at the screen, typing my happy little arse off every second, like you do.  I have others things to do as well, so piss off and and you'll get your replies in due course, if they warrant any at all.

Translation .......You’ve still no answers to 3 questions so instead fly into a rage 

****
By the way ...

 I  H A V E   R E S P O N D E D   T O   Y O U R   C L A I M S   T H A T   T H E    H E B R E W S   U S E D   S L A V E S 

T H E Y   D I D   N O T   A F T E R   A B R A H A M ' S   T I M E

I replied to that claim of yours a few posts back.  The fact that you cannot find it amongst your junket jabber on the page, doesn't surprise me.  My next post will address your New Testament quotes.  

Can you now answer the 3 simple questions or are you finished ranting yet?

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - That's not what I said and you know it.  I don't read or respond to Dee's prattle posts.  I AM responding to the only post she has put on the page that requires a response.  Her subsequent questions which she claims have not been answered have in part already been answered. That means she hasn't read my replies.  As for the other questions she poses, how many times to do I need to state it?  They will be addressed when I address her New Testament quotes.  How hard is this for your brain-dead heads to understand?  You just demand, demand, demand and never stop.  R E A D .  R E A D.   R E A D. what is in front of you.  You will see that I have answered in part and am getting to the last part.  Now SFU and let me get on with it and quit filling up the page with irrelevant and ridiculous claims.

SkepticalOne

Grafix said:

@SkepticalOne - You wrote ....

@Grafix - Historians do not endorse a man named Jesus rose from the dead and was the son of god.

You're half right.  

No, my statement is 100% correct. The "public record" and the words of the Bible are not agreed to as fact by historians.

Since this thread is not about whether Jesus was a god or not, I allowed this notion for the sake of the argument. (I'd be happy to address you arguments for the divinity if Jesus in a relevant thread.) That being said, we can look at the effective moral philosophy if Christian's to see if their moral views line up with yours - and they do not.

****"Sexual intercourse outside of marriage is verily condemned throughout the Biblical texts, defined as, "fornication".  It is ridiculous to pretend it is not - condemned in over a thousands references, which clearly includes rape.  Slavery, rape and any subjugation by one against another are all condemned by the Commandment, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".****

Rape:

And yet, the same deity claimed to be responsible for this commandment is also claimed to have uttered rape normative  narratives such as:

Isaiah 47

2"[...]Remove your veil, take off the skirt, uncover the thigh... Your nakedness shall be uncovered, your shame will be seen; I will take vengeance"

This language does not suggest that women are equal to men or that they have a right to control their own bodies. This passage equates a disobedient nation of Israel to a woman deserving sexual punishment because of her wrongdoing. (What wrong-doing could possibly require rape as punishment?) This language does not suggests rape is condemned, but morally acceptable. There are many passages in the Bible which supports this - from laws codifying women being forced to marry their rapists, to soldiers 'taking wives' from conquered nations, and selling daughters into sexual slavery, etc. The Bible does not condemn rape - far from it. As far as the authors of the Bible are concerned, rape is morally permissible and even morally virtuous... when the god of the Bible is the metaphorical rapist. 

Slavery:

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.

Exodus

21: 1 If you buy (B)a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. 

I noticed you pushed indentured servitude as a defense of slavery in the Bible, except the passages above show different types of slaves. Hebrews which became slaves we might call them 'indentured servants' (except for the codified beatings). However, slaves, as we commonly understand the word, were to be purchased from the surrounding nations and were, by law,  treated property and passed down to children. 

Besides explicitly codifying slavery, we have more normative language referencing slavery - even amongst the words in red:

Luke

12:47 And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will (A)receive many lashes, 48 but the one who did not (B)know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. (C)From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

The Bible does not condemn slavery - it codifies it. Parables building on slavery did not condemn it, but used it as a tool to teach superstition. (Ie. We are all slaves and the god of the Bible is the slave-owner).

****"Your paragraph on Utilitarianism doesn't meet the challenge at all.  I've already rebutted those remarks and await your rebuttal to my post in reply.

You've doubled down on the assertions that were addressed in my reply. As I said, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have, but I see little point in repetition. 

Grafix

@Dee - I have already said,  I'm answering everything in your first post dated 10 March.  It relates to the questions you keep demanding a response to.  I have told you at least five times these will be answered when I address your New Testament quotes.  What is wrong with you?  Why must I repeat, repeat,myself?  I don't think you've read my posts at all, if you had you would know that I have answered your questions already in part.  Please pay commenters the courtesy of waiting for their replies to your posts before you post again to them. It just makes the discussion too hard to follow when you do that.  How old are you?   When others reply to your posts they are actually extending to you ...

  A      C  O  U  R  T  E  S  Y     

Now kindly extend to me the same courtesy.  Wait for my replies before posting again and again again the same thing over and over.  It is infantile and just fills up the page and makes the discussion impossible.. 
. 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix ;

Grafix said:

So far I've gone through your original post methodically, addressing the Biblical passages you quoted.  As for the rest of your , I don't even read 90% of it, because it says nothing, contributes nothing and just hurls verbal vitriolic invective which I am not interested in.  When you have rebutted my posts that are in reply to your original and only rebuttal on this page, then I will take notice.  Until then, I'm not interested in empty, vacuous prattle. 

By the way.  Your claims about being "concise" are also fake.  I counted the lines of text you have typed since your post dated March 10 and you are on about ten lines more than my text, so all that to say what exactly?  Empty noise.  Whereby 90% of what I type is on-topic and informative debate.  So pack up your Miss-I-am-so-concise, pithy , given you've typed more than I have from that post right down the page.
.

If there is another way to interpret this, I don't know what it is. How am I or anyone else supposed to interpret those statements in bold except to say that you don't care about what your interlocutors have to say?

Not very fair now is it?

Is fairness part of your moral philosophy?

all4actt

As for me I have always stuck to what's known as the "Golden Rule".

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It is the answer to most moral delimas. 

Dee

@Grafix

Right so you’re still running , deflecting and hurling off insults all in an effort to avoid answering the 3 questions which seem to get you into a rage? If the questions are too difficult for you I could ask easier ones, will I ask you easier ones?

Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?

Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property? Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?

Jesus told how one could beat his slaves as they were your property do you deny this?

Dee

@Happy_Killbot

He does all this in an attempt to cover up the fact that he has no defense to offer , it’s the same old game every time as he thinks flying into a rage and accusing his opponents of his very faults is clever in some way , it’s just shows up the fact he’s terrible at debating ........I don't even read 90% of it, because it says nothing, contributes nothing and just hurls verbal vitriolic invective which I am not interested in.......

Dee

@Grafix

***** instead you seek to use it as a vehicle to abuse and to vilify me and the Christian  philosophy in your employment of fabrications to do so, as already pointed out in my first response, as shown above.  

There you go again accusing your opponent of doing the very things you do to everyone as in a accuse them of your faults , grow up and attempt to debate

Grafix

@Dee - Below I deal with your quote from Ephesians.  Again, it is taken from the Douay Rheims, considered by theologians as the most authoritative, translated by theologians proficient in all three languages, in the Greek of the Septuagint, (the first translation from the Hebrew), proficient in the Latin of the Vulgate, (the language used to translate the Septuagint) and proficient in English, (the language used to translate the Latin Vulgate).  The Douay Rheims is the only English version which has done this - methodically cross-referencing all three, by linguistic scholars in the transitional changes over millennia regarding the full import of words, the reason The Douay Rheims is the most highly regarded translation among scholars.  It is also the oldest and the first published in English. 

If we cling to translations by those who are not scholars in these three disciplines, then this debate must end right here, for without an understanding of the transitional changes in usage of words, their loss of meaning and intent over many millennia, the discussion can only descend into an argument over the usage of the word "slave" and neither of us are remotely qualified to know, so we must defer to the experts.

The light blue highlight delineates the law.  The red outline delineates the reasoning and foundations of God's moral codes and the chartreuse green delineates the ultimate purpose and goal.  I can't see for the life of me how anyone can take issue with any of this, given that Verse 9 demonstrates that God expects from Masters (employers of indentured servants), exactly the same moral disciplines, as he does from their servants. 

The whole point of the Biblical texts is to educate the people in God's purpose, the reason for our creation and the ultimate end-game - the reward of living on the face of this earth, in the flesh in wonderful harmony, as a loving peaceful people, with a knowledge and understanding of God's Will and with the ultimate grace from Him to live by it, eat, sleep and practise it for the benefit of the entire world.  That is to be the ultimate reward, His people living as God originally intended, but which plan Satan has since worked his butt off to destroy.  Well ... in the ultimate Kingdom here on earth there will be no Satan.  No repeat performance.  Satan annihilated.

You may well wonder why God did not simply destroy Satan from the get go?  The Biblical texts explain that.  Satan was and still is God's mechanism for sorting out "the sheep from the goats", sifting out "the wheat from the chaff", for finding and securing those with the necessary will power, the determination, loyalty, love, compassion and moral fortitude to strive and put their oar in to earn the grace of God, thereby worthy to live in and enjoy the gift of the Kingdom of peace forever into eternity, which God has planned for us.  If we can't pass that test then we can't pass through "the narrow gate".  It's really so simple, so wise, so breathtaking.  These are the reasons God gave us freewill.  The right to choose - the high road which is difficult or the low road which is a cake walk and the end result is commensurate, as the passage above says.  Meanwhile, Satan intends we self-destruct.
.

MayCaesar

How to defend a holy book from criticism: claim that it promotes the opposite to what the criticism suggests, and every quoted passage in support of criticism dismiss with, "It does not really mean what it says". Voila! Christians do it with the Bible ("Beating the slaves does not really mean beating the slaves"), Muslims do it with Quran ("War on infidels does not really mean war on infidels"), and I imagine followers of other religions do the same with their books (I know there is a lot of such things with Torah, although I do not know the details).

Just watched a discussion between former and current Muslims on the Sharia law. The guy defending Islam was asked, "Should Muslim families disown children that abandon religion? Yes or no." He went on to a rant about how Islam has been misrepresented and attacked on the West. The host asked again, "So, yes or no?" The guy went on to another rant, not really addressing the question. Finally, "Last chance: yes or no?" The guy said that he has already responded and had nothing more to say.
Then, when someone else quoted a passage from Quran suggesting that such children should be disowned and asked whether the guy agrees with this passage, he said, "Well, yes, but you are quoting it out of context..." When asked what the right context is, the guy could not really say anything of substance.

Religious fundamentalism truly is dishonest, is it not? "The book was written by god, so I will follow it as a bible (pun intended), but it really does not mean what it says, so I am free to do as I please - but when someone else does as they please and I dislike it, then I will invoke the passages from my book to criticise them!"

SkepticalOne

@Grafix

*****You may well wonder why God did not simply destroy Satan from the get go?  The Biblical texts explain that.  Satan was and still is God's mechanism for sorting out "the sheep from the goats", sifting out "the wheat from the chaff", for finding and securing those with the necessary will power, the determination, loyalty, love, compassion and moral fortitude to strive and put their oar in to earn the grace of God, thereby worthy to live in and enjoy the gift of the Kingdom of peace forever into eternity, which God has planned for us.***

Sounds reasonable....except the God of the Bible is supposed to be omniscient and a process to find the righteous individuals should be unnecessary. He should already know, and the existence of an anti-god (a.k.a. Satan) as a "mechanism" to determine the good folks would argue against the god defined in the Bible. QED.

Grafix

The difference is May, that Islam, together with every other religion, apart from Christianity, has no living exemplary figure which testified to and demonstrated by giving his own life, just as Christians continue to also do, for the sake of the highest ideals espoused by their God.  These other religions have nothing, no proofs no material example of the ultimate sacrifice and the ultimate end-game by any living example.  Islam has a mere book written by frauds, a book which repudiates the very idea of a loving and peaceful world.  It is based on warmongering and conquest by subjugation under the sword.  Trying to make comparisons between it and Christianity and draw analogies from those is just ludicrous prattle, with no basis or foundation.  The fact that you find the neediness to persistently try and never give up, says all we need to know.

There is no scholarship, no evidence, no proof, no living example, no occurrences, no teachings with such wisdom proved and proved again, which can do that which they claim, apart from Christianity.  It has the toolbox, it has the authority, it has the living example, it has the evidence, it has the results already - "turn the other cheek", which 90,000 Christians do annually, slaughtered by the hand of their jealous enemy and atheism is just another jealous enemy.  Both are agents of Satan, a jealous and iniquitous foe.

Grafix

@SkepticalOne - That's a fair argument that God should already know who are the sheep in the flock and which are the wheat of the spiritual food, but then what would be His purpose if He simply pre-ordained all that is to occur by intervening in every instance using His all-knowing, all-omniscient and supernatural powers?  He would be just "playing with Himself" and our existence would have no purpose.  What God has done is design a Creation which is built to run itself, according to the absolute principles of physics and spiritual balance.  It is all about balance and He seeks to let the world prove its own balance, both in His creation of the astro-physical and material world, as well as the spiritual world, each inextricable from the other.  There is much to be learnt from the eternity of the circle, from the alpha and the omega, which Christ said He was and that everything has its opposite - hot/cold, hard/soft, dry/wet, strong/weak, etc. The fact we have discovered quantum mechanics - the knowledge that electrons perpetually change their state - is right up there with Bosun's "God Particle".

God may well know what we will ultimately choose, why and how, but He does not actually pre-ordain our future.   We actually do choose our own path.  His knowing what our choices will be in advance, is not the same as pre-ordaining our future.  I know it sounds like a contradiction in terms, like a paradoxical oxymoron, but it isn't actually and takes a bit of an intellectual work-out to understand the difference and to see its merit.

Hence, God gave we His creatures the free will to find that balance between all three sectors of His creation, with no pre-ordained path for each of us at all, just advice on our choices and the consequences.  Satan made the wrong choice.  It is certain God knew He would, but He did not influence Satan to make that choice.  It is certain God knew Satan would be cast down to earth and then engage in tempting God's other creatures to go against God, to defy the laws of physics and spiritual balance, which we do every day, whether it be slaughtering our own kind or blowing up the atmosphere with atomic bombs or destroying our very own global support systems.  Of course, God KNEW  we would be doing all of that.  The fact He already knew is proven in the prophecies, all now fulfilled, except for those in the final Chapter, Revelation, but the Bible makes it clear, He never intended, never designed, never contemplated that He should in any way interfere with the "system" that He built, once He had built it.  He intended only that the system run itself, without His interference.  That does not prevent Him from knowing the outcome.

The very deep quintessential core of the whole thing is Free Will.  The will to freely reject knowledge of our Creator and deny His existence OR the freedom to learn all that we can to understand His Will and to worship Him.
.

Dee

@Grafix

****Below I deal with your quote from Ephesians.  Again, it is taken from the Douay Rheims, considered by theologians as the most authoritative, translated by theologians proficient in all three languages, in the Greek of the Septuagint, (the first translation from the Hebrew), proficient in the Latin of the Vulgate, (the language used to translate the Septuagint) and proficient in English, (the language used to translate the Latin Vulgate).  

It’s much loved by Catholics of which I was one and who you’ve stated were not real Christians in the past but servants of Satan , amazing now you wish to use biblical interpretations when it suits , hows that work?

Another correction for you is the fact that it’s favoured by some theologians and not by others your reliance on sweeping generalizations is again remarkable.

****The Douay Rheims is the only English version which has done this - methodically cross-referencing all three, by linguistic scholars in the transitional changes over millennia regarding the full import of words, the reason The Douay Rheims is the most highly regarded translation among scholars.  

It’s still not the most highly regarded it is by some , have you taken a poll?

****It is also the oldest and the first published in English. 

If it’s so brilliant why are you not a Catholic? It’s not the oldest translation again your ignorance is abysmal you  do you not know the historicity of the Douay do you want me to educate you on such?

****If we cling to translations by those who are not scholars in these three disciplines, then this debate must end right here, 

So tell me you as an anti Catholic use this translation over any others?

****for without an understanding of the transitional changes in usage of words, their loss of meaning and intent over many millennia, the discussion can only descend into an argument over the usage of the word "slave" and neither of us are remotely qualified to know, so we must defer to the experts.

I know all about the word “slave” and it’s equivalent as in “bondsman” as used by biblical scholars you don’t unfortunately so let me further your education

Greek

1401. doulos -- a slave 

... servants (1), slave (58), slave's (1), slaves (39). bondman, servant, slave.

From deo; a slave (literal or figurative, involuntary ... 

//strongsnumbers.com/greek2/1401.htm - 7k

Strong's Hebrew

615. asir -- a bondman, prisoner

... 614, 615. asir. 616 . a bondman, prisoner. Transliteration: asir Phonetic

Spelling: (aw-sere') Short Definition: prisoners. Word ... 

/hebrew/615.htm - 6k

5650. ebed -- slave, servant

... bondage, bondman, bondservant, manservant. From abad; a servant -- X bondage, bondman,

(bond-)servant, (man-)servant. see HEBREW abad. 5649, 5650. ebed. 5651 ... 

/hebrew/5650.htm - 6k

Your lack of knowledge and denial of biblical slavery is appalling , slavery was commonplace in biblical times , your attempts to introduce the terms “servant “ or “bondsman” does not in any way take away from these facts.

You need to open a history book and do a bit of research ......

Wiki 

The Bible contains several references to slavery, which was a common practice in antiquity. The biblical texts outline sources and legal status of slaves, economic roles of slavery, types of slavery, and debt slavery, which thoroughly explain the institution of slavery in Israel in antiquity.[1] The Bible stipulates the treatment of slaves, especially in the Old Testament.There are also references to slavery in the New Testament.

Here are the questions you’re still fleeing from ........I anticipate your usual typing up of a novel that fails to address what I’ve asked 12 times now , when are you going to stop running and attempt to answer?

Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?

Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property? 

Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?

Jesus talked about how you could beat your slaves do you deny this?

Jesus told how one could beat his slaves as they were your property do you deny this?

**** You may well wonder why God did not simply destroy Satan from the get go?

I don’t actually I gave up speculating on a book that basically infantile contradictory nonsense 

*****These are the reasons God gave us freewill

I don’t believe in free will only the illusion of such 

Grafix

@Dee - You make this claim ....

It (The Douay Rheims version of the Biblical Texts] is much loved by Catholics of which I was one and who you’ve stated were not real Christians in the past but servants of Satan , amazing now you wish to use biblical interpretations when it suits , hows that work?

I said that?  Please quote me.  I've never written such a thing. The example I gave was that I could be a very devout Christian, but as a flawed man am bound to break God's laws  from time to time.  Do my flawed actions mean Christianity is flawed?  No.  It  means I am, while the philosophy of Christianity remains extant, unassailable by my actions, because my actions repudiate its teachings and it likewise repudiates my actions.  If I do not repent, then it will ultimately repudiate me. 

I said the same of those who committed atrocities in the name of Christianity, including the Church's inquisitions and burning of heretics at the stake.  I recalled that Christ taught us ... "Let no man judge another" [in terms of our relationship with God] .... meaning we cannot know whether those who committed those atrocities remained Christians or not, because it becomes a question of repentance, unknown by us.  I simply say that these actions were not representative of Christianity and they were not, but atheists love to claim they are.  Another misrepresentation by you.  If you still claim it is not, then quote me.

Next, you make assumptions about my denomination.  None of your damned business, Nosey Parker.  I've told Happy K and now tell you similarly.  I am not foolish enough to reveal it on this forum, because it is the nature of atheism to find ways to use it against us, no matter which faith we hold to.  Consequently, I will never reveal it on this forum, least of all to you.  It's for me to know and you to never find out.

 Next you claim this below.  You really don't have a clue.  You just fly kites and hope they will stay up.

At Dee claims:  It [the Douay Rheims version] is still not the most highly regarded it is by some , have you taken a poll?

I am not speaking of the public, but of the scholarly regard.  Douay is still held as the most authoritative by scholars of all denominations.  The following is what used to appear in the Preface of the early Editions of the KJV, because it waited upon  the Catholics, before it could be written, for the reason the English monarchy did not have the scholarship to do the job of faithful comparisons with the Hebrew and Aramaic.

Dr James G. Carleton in his book, “The Role of The Rheims in The Making of The English Bible” [Clarendon Press, Oxford 1902].  states that noted in the “Translators to the Reader”, the standard Preface published for over a century at the front of the earliest editions of the King James Bible, were the following less than complementary remarks: “Yea, so unwilling are they of the College of Oxford Biblical Theologians, to communicate the Scriptures to the people's understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess, that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills” , which was followed up with an endorsement of the Douay Rheims - “Nay, if it must be translated into English, Catholics are fittest to do it. They have learning, and they know when a thing is well - they can manum de tabula.”   

At the end of the day Dee, It matters not, so it is petty to argue it. What matters is that we can have access to the most authoritative and most accurate Word of God, something copies can never claim 

The rest of your post is shameless bald-faced, flat-out denials with no substantiation - hardly debating an argument.  It's outright self-opinionated hubris, "just because I said so"  style of crapola and therefore that's how it must be, so that's the end of it. You do this all the time.  LOL! Then you march through these forums loudly proclaiming to all and sundry how you "proved them wrong".  It's the same pantomime every day.

Dee

@Grafix

As anticipated your reply is astonishing in its ignorance of the historicity of the Douay Rheims and your constant appeals to authority who in fact as a body do not agree with your prattle.

Leaving that aside it’s your usual red herrings to avoid the meaning of the terms “bondmans “, “servant “ regards the original language as spoken in biblical times.

As usual you launch into rabid attack mode all because you cannot answer what I’ve asked 14 times now , do you want to make a 15th rant or will you now attempt to answer what as yet you cannot?

I know all about the word “slave” and it’s equivalent as in “bondsman” as used by biblical scholars you don’t unfortunately so let me further your education

Below are the simple questions @ Grafix refuses to answer instead he prefers to fly into yet another rage ......

Greek

1401. doulos -- a slave 

... servants (1), slave (58), slave's (1), slaves (39). bondman, servant, slave.

From deo; a slave (literal or figurative, involuntary ... 

//strongsnumbers.com/greek2/1401.htm - 7k

Strong's Hebrew

615. asir -- a bondman, prisoner

... 614, 615. asir. 616 . a bondman, prisoner. Transliteration: asir Phonetic

Spelling: (aw-sere') Short Definition: prisoners. Word ... 

/hebrew/615.htm - 6k

5650. ebed -- slave, servant

... bondage, bondman, bondservant, manservant. From abad; a servant -- X bondage, bondman,

(bond-)servant, (man-)servant. see HEBREW abad. 5649, 5650. ebed. 5651 ... 

/hebrew/5650.htm - 6k

Your lack of knowledge and denial of biblical slavery is appalling , slavery was commonplace in biblical times , your attempts to introduce the terms “servant “ or “bondsman” does not in any way take away from these facts.

You need to open a history book and do a bit of research ......

Wiki 

The Bible contains several references to slavery, which was a common practice in antiquity. The biblical texts outline sources and legal status of slaves, economic roles of slavery, types of slavery, and debt slavery, which thoroughly explain the institution of slavery in Israel in antiquity.[1] The Bible stipulates the treatment of slaves, especially in the Old Testament.There are also references to slavery in the New Testament.

Here are the questions you’re still fleeing from ........I anticipate your usual typing up of a novel that fails to address what I’ve asked 12 times now , when are you going to stop running and attempt to answer?

Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?

Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property? 

Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?

Jesus talked about how you could beat your slaves do you deny this?

Grafix

HUH? But I am appealing to your very own side of the camp, the KJV, who themselves acknowledge in their very own Preface the superior scholarship of the DRB.  LOL!  That not good enough?  Well then what would be?  God's own version, from His own lips?   You really do take the cake.  Clueless and all proclaimed in the Hubris of self-idolatrous tones, at which we are all meant to stand in awe, rooted to the spot and nod approvingly.  LOL!  You have no clue, Dee, how to defend your claims.

Then in the twittiest of manner, you think   M  O  D  E  R  N     D  E  F  I  N  I  T  I  O  N  S   are applicable?   It is these very modern definitions which are the problem.  Sigh, but still you cleave like a leech drunk on the blood of its host.  I've gotta go.  Enjoy babbling.

Dee

@Grafix

**** Another proclamation, asserted with the Hubris of self-idolatry tones, which we are all meant to stand in awe rooted to the spot and nod acceptingly.  LOL!  You have no clue Dee, how to defend your claims.


You mean the claims you keep running from that you refuse to address .......

Here are the questions you’re still fleeing from ........I anticipate your usual typing up of a novel that fails to address what I’ve asked 12 times now , when are you going to stop running and attempt to answer?

Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?

Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property? 

Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?

Jesus talked about how you could beat your slaves do you deny this?

****Then in the twittiest of manner, you think   M  O  D  E  R  N     D  E  F  I  N  I  T  I  O  N  S   are applicable.

You mean definitions from the original Hebrew?

Strong's Hebrew

615. asir -- a bondman, prisoner

... 614, 615. asir. 616 . a bondman, prisoner. Transliteration: asir Phonetic

Spelling: (aw-sere') Short Definition: prisoners. Word ... 

/hebrew/615.htm - 6k

5650. ebed -- slave, servant

... bondage, bondman, bondservant, manservant. From abad; a servant -- X bondage, bondman,

(bond-)servant, (man-)servant. see HEBREW abad. 5649, 5650. ebed. 5651 ... 

/hebrew/5650.htm - 6k

  ****It is these very modern definition which are the problem.

Right Biblical Hebrew is “modern definition” Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha 

  ****Sigh, but still you cleave like a leech drunk on blood to its host.  I've gotta go.  Enjoy babbling.

Your complete capitulation was anticipated .....game , set , match .......next ........

Grafix

Lol.  The absence of "slave" even in Strong's Condcordance, is strangely AWOL.  In fact he agrees with me, i.e., "slave" equivalent to "bondman", which is a servant under a contract of Indenture of Service.  LOL!  But you play out your little pantomime with "game, set and match" , while the Fat Lady keeps singing.

Dee

@Grafix

LOL ......

Strong's Hebrew

615. asir -- a bondman, prisoner

... 614, 615. asir. 616 . a bondman, prisoner

Here are the questions you’re still fleeing from ........I anticipate your usual typing up of a novel that fails to address what I’ve asked 12 times now , when are you going to stop running and attempt to answer?

Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?

Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property? 

Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?

Jesus talked about how you could beat your slaves do you deny this?

Dee

@Grafix

LOL........

Strong's Hebrew

615. asir -- a bondman, prisoner

encyclopedias - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Bondman

BONDMAN

bond'-man:

One of the translations of the word `ebhedh, very common in the Old Testament. It refers to the ordinary slave, either foreign (Genesis 43:18; 44:9,33; Leviticus 25:44,46) or Hebrew (Leviticus 25:42; 2 Kings 4:1). Hebrews were forbidden to enslave Hebrews, but did it nevertheless. It also refers to the Israelites in the bondage of Egypt (Deuteronomy 15:15, and often), and in the exile of Babylonia (Ezra 9:9). The intended treatment of the men of Judah in Samaria (2 Chronicles 28:10) was apparently to sell them into ordinary slavery or bondage. The word is used once in the New Testament (Revelation 6:15) to translate doulos, where it evidently means a slave in contrast with a freeman.

See SLAVERY.

Here are the questions you’re still fleeing from ........I anticipate your usual typing up of a novel that fails to address what I’ve asked 12 times now , when are you going to stop running and attempt to answer?

Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?

Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property? 

Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?

Jesus talked about how you could beat your slaves do you deny this?

Grafix

Correct.  Bondman could be a prisoner of sorts, because it defined someone who was under Indentured service for a variety of reasons.  According to the Book of Leviticus which in the Biblical text expresses the Hebrew's interpretation of their own  Laws, as per the Levite Priests, the legal scholars of the Jewish Sanhedrin, no Hebrew could be enslaved or "owned", following their receiving Mosaic Law - the law handed to Moses on the Mountain of God, Mt. Sinai.  Yet, we see any number of them working for Uncles, friends, peers and relatives under the usual six-year Indentured Contract as "servants" or as "bondmen".  That therefore clearly means that bondman cannot be interpreted as slavery.  It could even be a voluntary decision to be so.  Jacob is the perfect example of that.  He sought to marry Laban's daughter, Rachel, but could not afford the dowry, so he agreed to work for Laban for six years as a bondman, aka as an Indentured servant to pay for Rachel's dowry.  Laban was family, an Uncle of Jacob.  Jacob volunteered to do this.  Volunteering is hardly slavery, is it?

On the score or the interpretation of "prisoner".  Again, the Jewish Council of the Sanhedrin could mete out a sentence of Indentured labor in return for a debt owed or as a repayment or for a wrong done to a complainant, in which case the injured party could obtain restitution via a Council (equivalent to our Courts) ruling that the convicted party repay the damages by indentured service.  In such cases, the indentured servant clearly had to be subjected to constraints to prevent his absconding, so the word "prisoner" in that type of indentured service is also a correct definition. The fact Strong also says "servant", reinforces the Douay interpretation.

Dee

@Grafix

LOL........Again totally ignoring what I said please read it again and explain how owning someone as property is not slavery?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

See that exceptions are made for people of Israel , others are your property.

Strong's Hebrew

615. asir -- a bondman, prisoner

encyclopedias - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Bondman

BONDMAN

bond'-man:

One of the translations of the word `ebhedh, very common in the Old Testament. It refers to the ordinary slave, either foreign (Genesis 43:18; 44:9,33; Leviticus 25:44,46) or Hebrew (Leviticus 25:42; 2 Kings 4:1). Hebrews were forbidden to enslave Hebrews, but did it nevertheless. It also refers to the Israelites in the bondage of Egypt (Deuteronomy 15:15, and often), and in the exile of Babylonia (Ezra 9:9). The intended treatment of the men of Judah in Samaria (2 Chronicles 28:10) was apparently to sell them into ordinary slavery or bondage. The word is used once in the New Testament (Revelation 6:15) to translate doulos, where it evidently means a slave in contrast with a freeman.

See SLAVERY.

Here are the questions you’re still fleeing from ........I anticipate your usual typing up of a novel that fails to address what I’ve asked 12 times now , when are you going to stop running and attempt to answer?

Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?

Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property? 

Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?

Jesus talked about how you could beat your slaves do you deny this?

Grafix

So now, unhappy with the   H I G H E R   A U T H O R I T Y of both the Douay and Strong's concordance, you flee to the resort of last retort, a non-scholarly source online, a misinformed website giving today's definition of these words, just as the poor translation in your original quotation gave.  Back to square one.  Of course, these erroneous translations abound online.  That's the entire grist of this argument, unscholarly ignorance.  Why do you go backwards to lesser authority?  I have already given you the inescapable truth, i.e.,  that Jacob's volunteering to enter indentured labor defined him as a bondman.  So how can these two definitions prevail?

Yes, the Hebrews were in Egypt and sometimes we see the description of them being "in bondage" to the Egyptians, so what did that really mean?  We know they were not captured and taken as slaves, that they went their voluntarily and settled on the richest and most fertile plains around Goshen - some of the best land in the whole of Egypt - the fertile delta of the Nile.  A slave, in today's definition, means one captured and forced into labor with no financial return obtained.  That is not what was going on in Egypt with the Israelites at all.  So what did this term "in bondage" to the Egyptians mean?

The Israelite leaders negotiated with the Egyptian Pharaohs to be permitted to settle there, to lease the land and work it for their own gain as free men, but certain provisos and conditions were attached.  A substantial number had to provide their services for the benefit of the Egyptian population, including providing harvests and knowledge of certain crafts, including in agronomy and other skills, also to supply a percentage of grain and produce to the Egyptian population, as opposed to trading it to other nations, they being in the food basket region of Egypt and also pay taxes. Paradoxically, Egypt became substantially dependent upon their resources.

The Egyptians also obtained considerable knowledge from another Hebrew, named Imhotep in the Egyptian language but known as Joseph by Hebrews - the same Joseph whose brothers had sold him into slavery to Egyptian Midianites.  His knowledge, wisdom and skills in maths, his capacity to foretell the future, interpret dreams found favor with the Pharaoh.  He was called upon frequently, eventually promoted to second in command to the Pharaoh and lived in the royal household.  When the Israelites went to Egypt, Joseph recognised them immediately as his own brethren, but he never told them who he was. Through him they got the best land in Egypt and the favourable arrangement for their prosperity.  The Pharaoh relied upon Imhotep for decisions concerning much to do with the prosperity of Egypt.  His wisdom was renowned.

So the Israelites were in bondage concerning the land they were permitted to settled upon in Egypt, in exchange for the right to their freedom and personal gain.  That was the definition of their position and often referred to as "enslavement" to the Egyptian Pharaohs, although not slaves as we understand it today.  Sure, there are records which show Israelites were taken into slavery, but these were a minority and not representative of the hundred thousand living in their many settlements across the Nile delta.  As their population grew, the Pharaoh became concerned that they would become a threat, given their gifts and knowledge as well as their industriousness, wealth and productivity, so harsher conditions were imposed upon them, higher taxes and greater subjugation.  It was called "enslavement" and rightly so, with them increasingly working for the benefit of Egypt and less being returned for themselves.  That's when Moses and Aaron, his brother, approached the Pharaoh requesting they return to Palestine.  Imhotep advised the Pharaoh it would resolve the issue of the Israelites' growth in numbers becoming a threat. Had they been literally slaves, defined as we know it, then how could they possibly be a threat to a Pharaoh?  They couldn't.

So the Pharaoh agreed to let them go in exchange for which they put no price on the improvements they had made to the land nor for the cities they had built..  Later the Pharaoh changed his mind with the dawning  realization of their extremely valuable contribution to Egyptian society, its knowledge base, the supply of its food resources and the work force they provided, that the economy would seriously contract without them.  So he pursued them to bring them back as slaves, slaves in the literal sense.  There were around one hundred thousand of them in the Exodus, as far as I can recall - a rough figure - and they took all of their flocks and gold and wealth with them.
.

Dee

@Grafix ;

As anticipated yet another novel to avoid answering what you’ve been asked 17 times now , you don’t like the translations from the original Hebrew what a surprise ......

LOL........Again totally ignoring what I said please read it again and explain how owning someone as property is not slavery?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

See that exceptions are made for people of Israel , others are your property.

Strong's Hebrew

615. asir -- a bondman, prisoner

encyclopedias - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Bondman

BONDMAN

bond'-man:

One of the translations of the word `ebhedh, very common in the Old Testament. It refers to the ordinary slave, either foreign (Genesis 43:18; 44:9,33; Leviticus 25:44,46) or Hebrew (Leviticus 25:42; 2 Kings 4:1). Hebrews were forbidden to enslave Hebrews, but did it nevertheless. It also refers to the Israelites in the bondage of Egypt (Deuteronomy 15:15, and often), and in the exile of Babylonia (Ezra 9:9). The intended treatment of the men of Judah in Samaria (2 Chronicles 28:10) was apparently to sell them into ordinary slavery or bondage. The word is used once in the New Testament (Revelation 6:15) to translate doulos, where it evidently means a slave in contrast with a freeman.

See SLAVERY.

Here are the questions you’re still fleeing from ........I anticipate your usual typing up of a novel that fails to address what I’ve asked 12 times now , when are you going to stop running and attempt to answer?

Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?

Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property? 

Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?

Jesus talked about how you could beat your slaves do you deny this?

Grafix

If I've said it once, Dee, I've said it a dozen times.  P A T I E N C E.  I have not finished addressing your original quotations from the New Testament, in your original post dated March, 10.  I am slowly working through those and in those replies will be the answers you seek.  

I gave you my answer to the Strong's concordance definition.  It supports the Douay Rheims' definition which I use.  Unlike you I do have other commitments than sitting here happily responding to your every empty word.
.