Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[Jackalope]

biblical slavery- when people sold themselves (more accurately their services) for a temporary amount of time in order to earn money so they may purchase land or pay off debts.

You ignore at least three other classes of slavery endorsed in your bible.

1) Slaves taken as spoils of war, and

2) Children sold into servitude by their parents.

3) Free men sentenced to servitude/slavery under court order (e.g. for indebtedness).

None of those three cases involve voluntary servitude (not that there is anything moral about selling one's self into slavery).

Slavery/servitude, whether compelled by force, or by "kinder and gentler" means is morally wrong, and no amount of apologetic bullshit on your part is going to change that.

Slavery was customary in antiquity, and it is condoned by the Torah, which occasionally compels it.[10][11] The Bible uses the Hebrew term ebed to refer to slavery; however, ebed has a much wider meaning than the English term slavery, and in several circumstances it is more accurately translated into English as servant.[12] It was seen as legitimate to enslave captives obtained through warfare,[13] but not through kidnapping.[14][15] Children could also be sold into debt bondage,[16] which was sometimes ordered by a court of law.[17][18][19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and..._the_Bible

P.S. If you're going to challenge the authority of a Wikipedia article, I would challenge you to check the references - all but two of which are from your precious bible. The other two reference text that can be found here.

[chi pan]

"Slaves taken as spoils of war"

yes, there are a few, however they are treated the same as described in leviticus 25. it's war, and i must say i've seen worse in war.

"Children sold into servitude by their parents."

this has happened however the law still applies that the family can redeem them.

"Free men sentenced to servitude/slavery under court order "

are you really defending criminals? how is this servitude much worse than going to prison? i consider it an improvement, at least they're benifiting society.

"None of those three cases involve voluntary servitude (not that there is anything moral about selling one's self into slavery)."

yes, however so many rules are applied to them it's like forcing them to have a job on a farm. without slavery, these people would have no life at all. they would be dieing in the thousands b/c they have no way to make a living. no matter how wrong you think it is, the fact is it's vital for low class life, just peasants in the feudal system needed to work for the nobles. they didn't complain b/c it's better than the alternative.

[Jackalope]

"Slaves taken as spoils of war"

yes, there are a few, however they are treated the same as described in leviticus 25. it's war, and i must say i've seen worse in war.

So? That they were treated "well" (as you claim) does not invalidate the moral issue of owning people as property (as was the case with slaves as spoils of war - they were slaves for life).

You originally made the claim that "biblical slavery" was voluntary servitude, voluntarily entered into by the person. Nice to see that you're acknowledging that it's much, much more than that.

"Children sold into servitude by their parents."

this has happened however the law still applies that the family can redeem them.

So? If they can't, they're still slaves. Again, regardless of how well you claim they had to be treated.

"Free men sentenced to servitude/slavery under court order "

are you really defending criminals? how is this servitude much worse than going to prison? i consider it an improvement, at least they're benifiting society.

I said NOTHING about criminality, not that it would matter. Biblical law allowed for people to be enslaved over DEBT.

"None of those three cases involve voluntary servitude (not that there is anything moral about selling one's self into slavery)."

yes, however so many rules are applied to them it's like forcing them to have a job on a farm. without slavery, these people would have no life at all. they would be dieing in the thousands b/c they have no way to make a living. no matter how wrong you think it is, the fact is it's vital for low class life, just peasants in the feudal system needed to work for the nobles. they didn't complain b/c it's better than the alternative.

And you people call us moral relativists.

Let me ask you two simple questions that only need a yes or no answer.

1) Is God's law / morality objective and eternal?

2) Is slavery morally wrong today?

---

no matter how wrong you think it is, the fact is it's vital for low class life, just peasants in the feudal system needed to work for the nobles. they didn't complain b/c it's better than the alternative.

Feudalism was effectively slavery. Are you serious? "They didn't complain..."?!? They had NO RECOURSE TO COMPLAIN because the noble they "worked for" owned them for all intents and purposes. The alternative was death.

After reading your posts since you've been here I can only conclude that you're woefully and willfully ignorant, not to mention berift of any sense of real morality.

[chi pan]

like i've said many times, the bible does not claim these things to be moral. simply put, slavery happened and nothing anyone could do could get rid of it. they didn't have a job system like they do today. all the bible did was put rules so that slages wouldn't be treated unjustly. it doesn't say it's good to own slaves anywhere. in that culture hard decisions had to be made in order to survive and if that meant selling themselves or their children then that's what had to be done. it's about survival. the system back then wasn't the same as ours today.

1) Is God's law / morality objective and eternal?
yes, however slavery was never considered moral. it happened and in order to protect slaves in jewish society, restrictions were made.

2) Is slavery morally wrong today?
there is no need for slavery in today's society b/c we live in a society of many jobs. where people do specific tasks for an amount of time and are paid as they go, not paid in advance. we live in a society where businesses exist for the sole purpose of lending money to people. back then people weren't willing to lend a substancial amount of money for those who needed it.
in short no, but slavery was neccisary back then. they didn't have all the options of today and slavery was a last resourt. they had to get money from somewhere and it doesn't grow on trees. between slavery and mass death from famine, i would say slavery is the better option. at least it was improved in the bible.

[Jackalope]

For someone who is claiming slavery to be immoral and not condoned by the bible, you sure spend a lot of effort in defending biblical law on slavery.

Your claims are disingenuous. The Pentateuch is God's law according to the early covenant. Are you saying that God's law is not moral? Or are you claiming that the law in the Pentateuch is not from God?

[chi pan]

"For someone who is claiming slavery to be immoral and not condoned by the bible, you sure spend a lot of effort in defending biblical law on slavery."

yes, b/c the law had a good purpose, to defend rights of slaves. to make sure they weren't mistreated.

"Are you saying that God's law is not moral?"

the law itself was moral. it make sure slaves weren't mistreated. it's a way to make an honest living at the time for those who did not own land. how else were they to make money? and also, they may have been considered property, but not treated like such.

just b/c you claim someone a dependant on your taxes does not mean they are treated like property.

---

oh and explain Exodus 21:16

[Jackalope]

Exodus 21:16 has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. We both understand that Israelites were prohibited from kidnapping into slavery. I never claimed they weren't.

Congratulations, you've now made assertions that slavery as described in the bible is both moral and immoral.

You're still stuck in a fantasy world where all of the Israelite slaves were treated well. The law protecting them did not apply to non-Israelite slaves. Not that it matters - that just is a greater degree of immorality.

No law that allows slavery is moral or just. It appears that you're too married to dogma to realize that.

[chi pan]

"Congratulations, you've now made assertions that slavery as described in the bible is both moral and immoral.

You're still stuck in a fantasy world where all of the Israelite slaves were treated well. The law protecting them did not apply to non-Israelite slaves. Not that it matters - that just is a greater degree of immorality.

No law that allows slavery is moral or just. It appears that you're too married to dogma to realize that. "

the problem is that you take a generalize what we're talking about. is physical punishment of a child immoral? it's too general, if you were to specify and say spanking, then i would say yes that is moral. you ask an impossible question, try to make it more specific

[Jackalope]

you ask an impossible question, try to make it more specific

That's funny, you appear to be the only person on this thread to have a problem with the question.

Let me see if I can simplify the question for you. Are there any elements of slavery / indentured servitude as described and codified as law in the bible that you find immoral?

If you answer yes, we'll have some common ground to continue this discussion.

If you answer no, then I can only conclude that it's a waste of my time to continue this discussion.

[chi pan]

"Are there any elements of slavery / indentured servitude as described and codified as law in the bible that you find immoral?"

all people are created equally, so long as servetude does not degrade the person's humanity i see nothing wrong with it.