Cherry Picking and Holy Books

[Peter]

That's avery sly and crafty way of making an action universally wrong. Look back at how you structured your sentnce. "So to you, slavery is punishment. To me, slavery is one human owning another as property." You could also have said, "So to you, prison is punishment. To me, prison is one human taking away the freedom of another," or further, "So to you, death penalty is punishment. To me, death penalty is one human taking away the life of another." This list cn just go on and on.

I didn't "craft" anything. I just summarized your attempt to make slavery acceptable by calling it punishment.

But clearly, these things are only wrong depending on the context and purpose for which they are used at the time.

I contend that slavery is always wrong and will always be wrong in any context no matter how sugar coated it is.

Clearly taking away one's freedom is wrong at times, but not when used as a punihment for criminals! Same here for capital punishment. Same goes for slavery! Further, the slave owner under Levitical law treated his slave very well...You can't put Biblical slavery in the same context as the Middle Passage. They are very different.

Slavery is not simply "taking away one's freedom", it's taking away membership in the human race and making you property without any rights. Doesn't levitical law allow slave beating as long as you don't put out an eye or some such bullshit? Further, many southern slave owners in the USA treated their slaves very well so did that make it OK? I don't think so.

As for owning property, a child is the property of his parents, is he not? Does not a mother and father OWN a child till it turns 18? They have to give consent for many decisions, and can dictate to a large extent how he or she lives his life, where he goes, what he eats, what he wears, belileves in, etc....So is it wrong for parents to own a child? No! One human OWNING another is not wrong.

No a child is not the "property" of it's parents. Children have rights.

What you have to prove is that Biblical slavery was unnecessarily and ihumanely cruel, and unfairly so, and then you'll have a point. The treatment of the slave is more important than being a slave itself!!!

Can you hear yourself? I can't believe what you've convinced yourself of just to defend an old book of myths. You are saying that slavery is OK as long as it's not "unnecessarily and inhumanely cruel"! Incredible!

If a slave is well treated, and has food, shelter and clotheing, is he not better off that a free person who does not have these things?

Absofuckinglutely INCREDIBLE! You need some serious deprogramming my friend.

[brendand]

No scientific theory can be infallible, otherwise it would no longer be a theory; it would have to be a proven fact and not a hypothesis. The earth is a sphere, that is an infallible scientific fact. The water cycle, that is an infallible scientific fact. At least, I don't believe it can be disproved even if it can be modified. As for if scientists claim an infallible universal truth, go ask them?

That's not necessarily true. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It's a theory because it is an established model used to explain and predict. It is also a fact based on empirical data from observations and that it is nearly universally accepted by scientists.

Facts and theories are not mutually exclusive, nor are theories equivalent to hypotheses.

[reneldo]

I didn't "craft" anything. I just summarized your attempt to make slavery acceptable by calling it punishment.



I contend that slavery is always wrong and will always be wrong in any context no matter how sugar coated it is.



Slavery is not simply "taking away one's freedom", it's taking away membership in the human race and making you property without any rights. Doesn't levitical law allow slave beating as long as you don't put out an eye or some such bullshit? Further, many southern slave owners in the USA treated their slaves very well so did that make it OK? I don't think so.



No a child is not the "property" of it's parents. Children have rights.



Can you hear yourself? I can't believe what you've convinced yourself of just to defend an old book of myths. You are saying that slavery is OK as long as it's not "unnecessarily and inhumanely cruel"! Incredible!



Absofuckinglutely INCREDIBLE! You need some serious deprogramming my friend.

You argue that because children have rights then that means they are not the "property" of their parents. So, are you trying to say that slaves under the law of Moses had no rights? Also, can you define the word property? I don't see how having "rights" negates something or someone being "property." I guess you limit the word roperty to non-living things. Maybe I'm wrong, please explain.

You also claim that slavery is wrong no matter what the context. But if you are an atheist [I'm assumeing you are, open to correction on that], I have to wonder how you come up with this "slavery is wrong" senario. Seems to me, that in the absence of any higher power to to give universal laws to mankind, that salvery could not be truely, morally, worng. After all, on an atheist world view, we're just animals. Killing each other is no more right or wrong than when animals do it in the wild. Survival of the fittest! The slave trader benifitted financially from slavery, many whites agreed to it, it was a norm for hundreds of years (4 hundred I've heard, don't know)...It was right in their eyes, right? So who are you to say that it's wrong now? Seems rather, that without God, the only morality you can defend, is the shifting standards of society that will always be subject to change.

If slavery is totally wrong no matter what the conditions, then I challenge you to tell me where this law came from? Is it embedded in our genes? If so, why did transatlantic slavery happen? If we are just dancing to our genes, what part of us can rebel against them to end slavery? Did some group of men create this high morality of yours? If so, why can't another group of men say slavery is right? Are we all not just animals? Where do your standards come from?

I'll also invite you to investigate the OT law on slavery to see if slaves had any rights. You might be surprized what you find. What's even more, is that you've ran far away from the orginal topic, namely, how do we cherry pick which parts of the Bible to obey. To which you never answered my position till now so I'll repeat it briefly for you:

The law of Moses was not for Christians, but for the Jews, that's why I don't keep it. Jesus inaugurated a new covenant in the NT and that's what I live by! There are many laws and covenants in the Bible addressed to different people and lasting for different time periods, so it is necessary to distinguish them. It'n not CHERRY PICKING by the way, its READING EACH VERSE IN CONTEXT and SYSTEMATICALLY DERIVING DOCTRINE. What say you?

[rdjackso]

No scientific theory can be infallible, otherwise it would no longer be a theory; it would have to be a proven fact and not a hypothesis. The earth is a sphere, that is an infallible scientific fact. The water cycle, that is an infallible scientific fact. At least, I don't believe it can be disproved even if it can be modified. As for if scientists claim an infallible universal truth, go ask them?

That's all I'm saying. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. We all agree that no scientific theory can be infallible thus the theory of evolution is also not infallible.

[rdjackso]

I probably should be the most emotional one in this forum when it comes to the topic of slavery but I will try to not be. I have to agree with my colleague on this issue. The transatlantic slave trade was rather unique and arguably the worst form of slavery ever witnessed in human history. I am not saying slavery is a benign institution but it is also unfair to compare all slavery to that which practiced during the transatlantic slave trade.

[reneldo]

That's all I'm saying. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. We all agree that no scientific theory can be infallible thus the theory of evolution is also not infallible.

Ok, I agree with you

[brendand]

That's all I'm saying. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. We all agree that no scientific theory can be infallible thus the theory of evolution is also not infallible.

Well, Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. It would be plain stupid to waste time teaching what are essentially myths in the realm of science when there are scientific facts available that stood the test of time and accumulated evidence. So yes, we all agree on the infallibility of science.

Religious people, on the other hand, are the ones making claims for perpetual truth. Science welcomes criticism as that allows for the expansion of knowledge. Religion seems above criticism as logical debate is incompatible with faith.

[reneldo]

Absofuckinglutely INCREDIBLE! You need some serious deprogramming my friend.

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3] The 'slavery' of the OT was essentially designed to serve the poor!: [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. 38 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.[/SIZE][/FONT]
39 "`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.35-43)
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Indeed, the proceeds of the transaction went to the servant only--each 'sold himself' to someone. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]Notice that the sole motive--in the primary text before us-- for allowing 'slavery' is so the poor can continue in the land, and that it is NEVER 'forever' (indeed, other passages indicate that it was 6 years at the most!). This is radically different than an elitest-motive. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]This points to a paradox at the heart of the slave system. Slavery is the most degrading and exploitative institution invented by man. Yet many slaves in ancient societies...were more secure and economically better off than the mass of the free poor, whose employment was irregular, low-grade and badly paid...It was not unknown for free men to sell themselves into slavery to escape poverty and debt, or even to take up posts of responsibility in the domestic sphere."[/SIZE][/FONT]

[Peter]

You argue that because children have rights then that means they are not the "property" of their parents. So, are you trying to say that slaves under the law of Moses had no rights? Also, can you define the word property? I don't see how having "rights" negates something or someone being "property." I guess you limit the word roperty to non-living things. Maybe I'm wrong, please explain.

In the OT slaves had some rights. They had the right to run away from a cruel master but the law of moses allowed the beating of slaves as long as they could recover in a couple of days. I suppose the slaves that could run the fastest avoided the beatings. Clearly children cannot be considered slaves (property) of their parents today because parents (at least in this country) cannot beat them to within an inch of their lives.

You also claim that slavery is wrong no matter what the context. But if you are an atheist [I'm assumeing you are, open to correction on that], I have to wonder how you come up with this "slavery is wrong" senario.

The golden rule. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Also, I'm an antitheist. Based on the evidence to date I don't believe gods exist and further I wouldn't want gods to exist if they could.

Seems to me, that in the absence of any higher power to to give universal laws to mankind, that salvery could not be truely, morally, worng. After all, on an atheist world view, we're just animals. Killing each other is no more right or wrong than when animals do it in the wild. Survival of the fittest! The slave trader benifitted financially from slavery, many whites agreed to it, it was a norm for hundreds of years (4 hundred I've heard, don't know)...It was right in their eyes, right? So who are you to say that it's wrong now? Seems rather, that without God, the only morality you can defend, is the shifting standards of society that will always be subject to change.

You create a straw man and call it the atheist world view. Treat others as you would have them treat you is all we need.

If slavery is totally wrong no matter what the conditions, then I challenge you to tell me where this law came from? Is it embedded in our genes? If so, why did transatlantic slavery happen? If we are just dancing to our genes, what part of us can rebel against them to end slavery? Did some group of men create this high morality of yours? If so, why can't another group of men say slavery is right? Are we all not just animals? Where do your standards come from?

The golden rule. It's innate in us. It evolved with us. Children know it without being taught it. No need for a celestial lawgiver. Especially not one with such a poor record on slavery.

I'll also invite you to investigate the OT law on slavery to see if slaves had any rights. You might be surprized what you find. What's even more, is that you've ran far away from the orginal topic, namely, how do we cherry pick which parts of the Bible to obey. To which you never answered my position till now so I'll repeat it briefly for you:

The law of Moses was not for Christians, but for the Jews, that's why I don't keep it. Jesus inaugurated a new covenant in the NT and that's what I live by! There are many laws and covenants in the Bible addressed to different people and lasting for different time periods, so it is necessary to distinguish them. It'n not CHERRY PICKING by the way, its READING EACH VERSE IN CONTEXT and SYSTEMATICALLY DERIVING DOCTRINE. What say you?

Slaves had a handful of rights in the OT. Not being beaten to within an inch of your life wasn't one of them. What say I? I say the bible is interpreted and contextualized and moderated just enough for a 1st century book of myths to be marginally acceptable in the 21st century and that amounts to cherrypicking.

[reneldo]

In the OT slaves had some rights. They had the right to run away from a cruel master but the law of moses allowed the beating of slaves as long as they could recover in a couple of days. I suppose the slaves that could run the fastest avoided the beatings. Clearly children cannot be considered slaves (property) of their parents today because parents (at least in this country) cannot beat them to within an inch of their lives.

And where does the Bible say a slave owner could do that? Does it say he could do so without reason?

Also, if the golden rule and all this anti-slavery high morals of yours is IINATE in us because of our evolutionary nature, why didn't thousands upon thousands of white slave owners realize this and for probably 400 years? I know of no species in the animal kingdom that can rebel against its nature! If morals are naturally part of us because of our DNA, genes, or whatever, then all people should have these moral standards! Clearly the slave owners of the middle passage didn't!

The golden rule. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Also, I'm an antitheist. Based on the evidence to date I don't believe gods exist and further I wouldn't want gods to exist if they could.

Golden rule you say? I don't see lions treating zebras as they would want to be treated. No evolutionary or natural selection reason can reasonably explain the origin of this moral stance. Fact is, many Israelites sold themselves into slavey to escape povety, a testimony to how well slaves were treated. And others who were forced into slavery, deserved it! Case closed!

The golden rule. It's innate in us. It evolved with us. Children know it without being taught it. No need for a celestial lawgiver. Especially not one with such a poor record on slavery.

Slaves had a handful of rights in the OT. Not being beaten to within an inch of your life wasn't one of them. What say I? I say the bible is interpreted and contextualized and moderated just enough for a 1st century book of myths to be marginally acceptable in the 21st century and that amounts to cherrypicking.

The Bible is not a book of myths. Ever read Luke 1:1-4?

[brendand]

The Bible is not a book of myths. Ever read Luke 1:1-4?

Does that make Luke's version the correct account, thereby falsifying all others?

[reneldo]

Does that make Luke's version the correct account, thereby falsifying all others?

Luke's account is supported by independent multple attestation, it is contemporary and supported by contemporary accounts, he is correct in his internal material about places, and customs of the time, etc. The unanimous testimony of those who referenced his account show that he did write it. If we can be sure of the authorship, the date, and his story is corroborated by his contemporaries, and he himself lived in the time of which he speaks, he actually says he interviewed the eyewitnesses; how do other accounts compare to his? Do they have the same kind of evidence? In fact, can you name one and let's compare reliability?