(July 28, 2021 at 1:15 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(July 28, 2021 at 12:59 pm)Huggy Bear Wrote: So my examples do nothing to disprove your baseless assumptions?

It wasn't baseless.  You provided a basis.  If being a slave was a nothing burger, then the story you cite doesn't make sense.  Additionally, there is plenty of extra-biblical evidence about slavery in ANE, as well as Jesus' comments.

But thanks for showing what a towering intellect you are once again.

Your assumptions are baseless, you conflate indentured servitude with slavery, where in the King James English, the word SLAVE only appears twice the bible, once in the old testament and once in the new testament, the word SERVANT is used IN ALL OTHER INSTANCES, which shows a clear distinction between the word servant and slave.

Hows is it that your apparently prodigious brain can't understand that?

There is no doubt whatsoever that the slave trade flourished and was endorsed by their laws.

Are you an advocate of biblical slavery? Do you intend to argue…not that Christianity doesn’t support slavery, but that it does- and that slavery was right and proper?

(July 28, 2021 at 1:28 pm)Huggy Bear Wrote:

(July 28, 2021 at 1:15 pm)Angrboda Wrote: It wasn't baseless.  You provided a basis.  If being a slave was a nothing burger, then the story you cite doesn't make sense.  Additionally, there is plenty of extra-biblical evidence about slavery in ANE, as well as Jesus' comments.

But thanks for showing what a towering intellect you are once again.

Your assumptions are baseless, you conflate indentured servitude with slavery, where in the King James English, the word SLAVE only appears twice the bible, once in the old testament and once in the new testament, the word SERVANT is used IN ALL OTHER INSTANCES, which shows a clear distinction between the word servant and slave.

Hows is it that your apparently prodigious brain can't understand that?

I can understand that, as well as the possibility that the distinction you are arguing is nonsense or of limited applicability. Ultimately that doesn't matter. As Nudger has pointed out, both are things a moral god would prohibit if my argument holds, which it does. Try arguing the point instead of cheap shots and semantic quibbles. You've now conceded that even if indentured servitude was less problematic than slavery, it's still a problem.

As to what word is used in the King James version of the bible, that matters little as the bible wasn't written in the king's English. I admit to being ignorant here, a limitation that even a prodigious brain can't overcome on the nonce. What words were used in the original, what practices did they indicate, and were they uniform or are you trying to sneak in exceptions as a general rule? We've already seen you try to reason from a limited set of particulars to a universal or general rule in an invalid manner, what's to say that you aren't doing so now?

(July 28, 2021 at 1:39 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: There is no doubt whatsoever that the slave trade flourished and was endorsed by their laws.

Are you an advocate of biblical slavery?  Do you intend to argue…not that Christianity doesn’t support slavery, but that it does- and that slavery was right and proper?

Who are you talking to?

Your question, Angr, is also handled in the link I provided, right at the beginning iirc.

You Huggy. I’m asking you, of course.

Do you intend to argue not that magic book or Christianity don’t endorse slavery, but that they do, biblical slavery -the right and proper kind?

(July 28, 2021 at 1:54 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(July 28, 2021 at 1:28 pm)Huggy Bear Wrote: Your assumptions are baseless, you conflate indentured servitude with slavery, where in the King James English, the word SLAVE only appears twice the bible, once in the old testament and once in the new testament, the word SERVANT is used IN ALL OTHER INSTANCES, which shows a clear distinction between the word servant and slave.

Hows is it that your apparently prodigious brain can't understand that?

I can understand that, as well as the possibility that the distinction you are arguing is nonsense or of limited applicability.  Ultimately that doesn't matter.  As Nudger has pointed out, both are things a moral god would prohibit if my argument holds, which it does.  Try arguing the point instead of cheap shots and semantic quibbles.  You've now conceded that even if indentured servitude was less problematic than slavery, it's still a problem.

 
*emphasis mine*
I've done no such thing, what I've maintained is that in the bible, people voluntarily entered into servitude, in the case of Jacob he did it in lieu of having a dowry. This was two grown adults entering into a contractual agreement, explain how YOU consider this to be problematic...

(July 28, 2021 at 1:54 pm)Angrboda Wrote: As to what word is used in the King James version of the bible, that matters little as the bible wasn't written in the king's English.  I admit to being ignorant here, a limitation that even a prodigious brain can't overcome on the nonce.  What words were used in the original, what practices did they indicate, and were they uniform or are you trying to sneak in exceptions as a general rule?  We've already seen you try to reason from a limited set of particulars to a universal or general rule in an invalid manner, what's to say that you aren't doing so now?

*emphasis mine*
Correct the bible wasn't written originally in English, it was translated into English, and for some reason the scholars chose to make a distinction between the words servant and slave.

That’s not the only way people entered into slavery in the Bible or in mere reality.

That’s immaterial, at this point, though.

Is that the kind of slavery that you would personally endorse?

(July 28, 2021 at 2:23 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That’s not the only way people entered into slavery in the Bible or in mere reality.

That’s immaterial, at this point, though.

Is that the kind of slavery that you would personally endorse?

I endorse the right for a person to be able to make their own choices, which indentured servitude clearly was. If one CHOOSE to enter into a contractual agreement to serve for a number of years for whatever it is they want, i'm totally fine with that, is that clear enough for you? not much else to say on the subject.

Then there we have it. You’re not arguing the premise that Christianity supports slavery, you’re agreeing with it and indicating that you do as well.

(July 28, 2021 at 2:31 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Then there we have it.  You’re not arguing the premise that Christianity supports slavery, you’re agreeing with it and indicating that you do as well.

Better than your support of genocide I suppose.