Then we are done here.

(December 30, 2011 at 9:20 am)chipan Wrote: "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.

You cannot be serious, servitude is an instant heirarchy and therefore negates equality. We, as a species, are past that.

You're defending the indefensible.

(December 30, 2011 at 9:39 am)5thHorseman Wrote:

(December 30, 2011 at 9:20 am)chipan Wrote: "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.

You cannot be serious, servitude is an instant heirarchy and therefore negates equality. We, as a species, are past that.

You're defending the indefensible.

Yeah, that was what I was getting at. He's apparently incapable of seeing that.

"You cannot be serious, servitude is an instant heirarchy and therefore negates equality"

there is a form of servatude in every society. no matter what you do there will always be a rich class and a poor class who do work to make rich life possible. in this way, society itself is inequal, however as long as they are treated human, then it is not immoral

(December 30, 2011 at 3:58 am)chipan Wrote: no, it's b/c they are promised to marry another man. this is almost as bad as adultery and this is besides the point.

I can't believe that I have to tell anyone this, but rape is not the same as adultery.
Adultery impliles consent.

(December 30, 2011 at 3:58 am)chipan Wrote: this is completely unrepresented let me quote a part of it. "the young woman because she did not cry out in the city" do you see the words loudly enough? no you put those there. the fact is in the city the buildings were close enough and made of mud and they had no glass windows. there was no such thing as soundproofing at the time so if a girl cried at all in a city, she would be heard. is she didn't cry then she wasn't raped and that's why she would be stoned.

Or she was gagged, is mute, drugged, threatened, afraid of what'll happen to her if she does cry out, ashamed of the event, or any number of other things.
The worst part of all of it is though that not crying out DOES NOT MEAN SHE WAS NOT RAPED.
At best, the bible is blaming the victim.

(December 30, 2011 at 3:58 am)chipan Wrote: this isn't related to what we're talking about cuz it doesn't mention rape

It implies ownership. Women in that passage are spoils of war and part of an ongoing message that women are not human - but instead property and theire only value in the bible has entirely to do with the men in their life - the husband, son(s), and father.
It has to do with rape because it is the biblical context behind the topic of rape. That is to say that rape itself is not a punishable offense in the bible because women are property and not rightful persons.

(December 30, 2011 at 3:58 am)chipan Wrote: it doesn't condem it b/c it was not as unjust as it was in america. you cannot compare english definitions to hebrew text

You're a christian, aren't you? You believe that God is the ultimate moral authority, yes? I've had so many theists argue about how atheists and those who deny god are essentialy amoral or without morals because that is essentially the jurisdiction of god's domain.
Given that we see slavery as immoral now, then why is slavery only now amoral and why wasn't it amoral in the bible?
Yes, I know you weren't those theists, but "it was a different time" doesn't make murder, rape, and slavery moral actions then or now.
It might have been accepted practice then just as it was during America's slavery years, but it was never moral.

Just ask a few faithful Jewish people if slavery in the bible was moral. I'm sure they can spin you a tale involving Moses and a certain Egyption Pharaoh about how they really didn't feel that way.

(December 30, 2011 at 3:58 am)chipan Wrote: my point is THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT. what your doing is like saying all murder is the same and should be punished equally. well no, there are different types of murder (degrees) in which some are heinous than others. IT'S NOT BLACK AND WHITE. if slaves are free and they choose their life and they can leave it at any time it's equivilant to a JOB.

No. Not it was not equivelent to a job.
As others have stated, slaves were the spoils of war. They did not have rights. The bible explicitly states that slaves (or "servents" if you prefer) are to do their master's bidding NO MATTER WHAT. I even provided the passage stating it as such.
By and large, they were not 'hired' - they were taken, purchased, or bred for servatude and they could only be free if their master allowed them to be free.
Yes, I get that some masters didn't treat their slaves like shit.
That does not make slavery moral in the bible or otherwise. Anywhere. Anytime.

Further, I can see you twisting and contorting every which way to justify slavery in the bible by trying to convince me that they're just jobs - but they're not. It is never ever described as such.
Slavery is never condemned in the bible - even by Jesus, who condemned the Rich for acccumilating wealth. For all your talk, you have nothing in the bible to justify anything you're saying.

(December 30, 2011 at 3:58 am)chipan Wrote: then your definition of a slave does not fit what the bible defines.

BULLSHIT!
I've done nothing but back up my claims with biblical passages and I've not strayed outside of what the bible says about slavery and rape.
You're the only one going on about how it doesn't count as the modern day connotions of slavery because they're just employees who chose to work and can choose to leave and how they're treated humanely but my biblical passages discredit you and so far I'm the only one even defending my point with actual biblical refernces.
So, don't tell me about how I'm getting it all wrong. I'm just reading your book and telling you exactly what is in it.
You're the one trying to spin it to say something other than what's actually in the book.

(December 30, 2011 at 3:58 am)chipan Wrote: when i looked it up i got Godwin's Law which idk how that applies. we aren't talking about Hitler or Nazis.

You're not reading my posts, are you?
If you are, you dont' seem to be comprehending a lot of what I'm saying.
I didn't name names, but yes, Hitler and Stalin were mentioned.
I mentioned them specifically because of your mention about how God's committing genocide against the human race was justified because I should think of it as "state execution" and he did flood the world because, and I quote,

Chipan Wrote:well it wasn't total genocide b/c the human race survived through noah. and i believe he did this b/c fallen angels had interbread with humans and they bore giants. these were a tainted breed and God would not allow their survival for they were an abonimation. this story is clearly explained in the book of Enoch though this book was not put into the bible so it's contriversial.

So... yeah. It's okay for god to commit mostly genocide (since some people survived and it wasn't total genocide) because he didn't like the breeds of human that were being produced as a result of coupling with god's other children.
Our word for that is "Eugenics".
In other words, not only did god murder nearly all of the human race, but he did so to steer our breeding in a direction of his preference.
The last guy in the real world who did that in the real world was one of the most reviled human beings who ever lived.
God did this.
Saavy?

(December 30, 2011 at 3:58 am)chipan Wrote: really? there's a specific date jesus said he would return? try reading Mark 13:32

I don't recall mentioning one.
Also, I don't care. I already have enough of a discussion with you to also include the retarded end-time predictions and prophecies. These posts are already long enough.

(December 30, 2011 at 3:58 am)chipan Wrote: Me?!?! YOU'RE THE ONE WHO TAKES GENERAL ENGLISH WORD DEFINITIONS AND TRY TO APPLY THEM TO ANCIENT HEBREW WORDS. YOUR THE ONE WHO SAYS THAT'S NOT RIGHT IN TODAY'S SOCIETY THEREFORE IT'S NOT RIGHT BACK THEN NOT TAKING TO ACCOUNT THE CULTURE AT THE TIME. I LOOK AT MORE THAN JUST THE BIBLE YOU JUST PICK AND CHOOSE WHATEVER YOU CAN USE AS WEAPONS. YOU DON'T DESIRE TRUTH!

---

and look at leviticus 25:39-40 and tell me how unjust those statements are

Bull. I've backed up every word I wrote with scripture.

Leviticus 25:39 Wrote:And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee ; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:

Leviticus 25:40 Wrote:But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.

I believe I've gone over a number of times with you that slaves and hired servents are two seporate things.
These passages tell you to not sell your 'brother' (I assume both literal adn figurative - like a countrymen) into bondage by force, but allow them to work as a hired servant. Fairly straightforward, but essentially nothing on slavery (outside of not selling out your family or fellow countrymen.)

Why don't we mosey on to Leviticus 25:44-46?

Leviticus 25:44 Wrote:Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Leviticus 25:45 Wrote:Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Leviticus 25:46 Wrote:And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

So yeah... not your family or countrymen, but heathen neighbors, their families, and their children are fine for permaennt slaves.
Don't rule over your own with rigor. Who gives a damn about the rest?
Yeah you've gone on about how the bible tells you not to rule over your slaves with rigour, but when I actually find the proper passages, it curiously specifies your "brothers" - the "children of Israel" as opposed to being a broad term that applies to all slaves.
Leviticus even differientiates between the "employees" and "slaves" that you've been going on about.
The more you quote the bible, the more work you appear to be doing for me and my position here.

"I can't believe that I have to tell anyone this, but rape is not the same as adultery.
Adultery impliles consent."

like i said, if they do not scream, then it is clearly not rape. this is why if it happens in the country then the woman is not punished b/c there is a possibliity of rape due to the fact that there could be noone around to hear her scream.

"Or she was gagged, is mute, drugged, threatened, afraid of what'll happen to her if she does cry out, ashamed of the event, or any number of other things.
The worst part of all of it is though that not crying out DOES NOT MEAN SHE WAS NOT RAPED."

reguardless of what you say, anyone taken by surprise will scream. if someone jumps out in front of you in the dark do you not make a sound. it's a reflex, if a woman is taken forcefully they will scream and in town there will be people around to hear it.

"Given that we see slavery as immoral now, then why is slavery only now amoral and why wasn't it amoral in the bible?
Yes, I know you weren't those theists, but "it was a different time" doesn't make murder, rape, and slavery moral actions then or now.
It might have been accepted practice then just as it was during America's slavery years, but it was never moral."

your generalizing again. if you would read later arguement b/w me and Cthulhu Dreaming, then you would see that using a general english word to categorize actions in an ancieng hebrew text does not prove a thing. slavery as it's called in the bible doesn't exactly fit the english definition of slave.

"As others have stated, slaves were the spoils of war. They did not have rights."

ALL SLAVES HAD RIGHTS. i clearly proved this in Levaticus 25. you keep cycling back to things i have already refuted.

"The bible explicitly states that slaves (or "servents" if you prefer) are to do their master's bidding NO MATTER WHAT."

i don't believe it says no matter what, but it does state they must obey them. it also states that masters MUST NOT RULE OVER THEM WITH RIGOR. you keep forgetting what rights are given to slaves. tell you what, read leviticus 25:39-55 and gert back to me.

"So... yeah. It's okay for god to commit mostly genocide (since some people survived and it wasn't total genocide) because he didn't like the breeds of human that were being produced as a result of coupling with god's other children."

yes, however you wouldn't like it either. you cannot speak for things you do not understand, you say slavery is wrong but why don't you go to someone who perfers slavery b/c their master's take care of them and learn a thing or too.

"Bull. I've backed up every word I wrote with scripture."

yes you backed it up with single verses applying to modern culture and english definitions. how does that prove anything. why don't you try comparing chinese definitions to see if the bible better fits what you want it to say. USE THE FREAKING HEBREW. IT'S WHAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN. servants were treated well by their masters and if they were treated injustly they would be punished whether it by by man or God.

Ah - I had forgotten that you had responded to my previous post.
Well, let the games continue, I suppose.

(December 30, 2011 at 11:33 pm)chipan Wrote: like i said, if they do not scream, then it is clearly not rape. this is why if it happens in the country then the woman is not punished b/c there is a possibliity of rape due to the fact that there could be noone around to hear her scream.

No, if they choose to consent, then it's not rape. Sreaming isn't the difference between rape and not-rape.
Of course, the other problem of this equation is that it only becomes rape if the men hear the scream and respond. All the instances for rape also include a bonus arguement - inherant biblical misogyny (if I spelled that correctly.) That's neither here nor there in this discussion however.

(December 30, 2011 at 11:33 pm)chipan Wrote: reguardless of what you say, anyone taken by surprise will scream. if someone jumps out in front of you in the dark do you not make a sound. it's a reflex, if a woman is taken forcefully they will scream and in town there will be people around to hear it.

Oh really? I'd love for you to argue that with police, rape victims, judges, lawyers, feminists, and generally anyone that knows anything about the crime, the victims, and the sorts of people that perpetrate the crime.
I think they'd get a kick out of that arguement.

This either has to be among the most ignorant statement I've ever seen or the one where the logic and understanding is twisted so much on itself to try to represent the bible passages as a positive that it loops back on itself and a forms a black hole.

If you don't agree with my assertion about your statement above, I suggest you reread it to yourself once to try to get a grasp of your own words and really understand what you're saying in the context of a human man with a knife and a lust that cannot be abided targets a woman, wraps his hand around her mouth and his knife under her neck and tells her "scream and you're dead".
At this very moment, her options are exactly: scsream and die or get raped and die.
The bible tells her that those are her only two options.

All I can tell you is that your statement is just as dismissive to biblical woman's victimization as the bible itself is but I can assure you right now that consent determines whether it's rape, not whether or not she was able to get the attention of nearby men or not.

(December 30, 2011 at 11:33 pm)chipan Wrote: your generalizing again. if you would read later arguement b/w me and Cthulhu Dreaming, then you would see that using a general english word to categorize actions in an ancieng hebrew text does not prove a thing. slavery as it's called in the bible doesn't exactly fit the english definition of slave.

You tell me I'm generalizing and I'm telling you that you're missing my points.
"Some slaves have rights/good masters/whatever" doesn't make slavery moral. Further, the bible doesn't agree with any of your (not-backed) assertions about slavery being akin to 'having a job' at all - in context or out. My points HAVE biblical backing and I've quoted them and attempted to put them in as much context as the appropriate chapters in the bible allow.

Even if I'm glossing over the 'finer points' of slave-owning in the bible (and that's a pretty big if considering how many lengths I've gone to prove my point) - you've done nothing but spin the words in those passages and used that as a rebuttal. You've done nothing to actually back your counterpoints and the few passages you have quoted, once brought into proper context, have supported my position over yours.

Furtther, I am fully aware that the bible uses a different term than I've been using - servants, maidens, handmaidens, or whatever but your attack on my termanology doesn't really change my arguement. I would still be making the same arguement about slavery even if I used the terms as quoted in the bible.
It would just be a different name for the same offenses.

(December 30, 2011 at 11:33 pm)chipan Wrote: ALL SLAVES HAD RIGHTS. i clearly proved this in Levaticus 25. you keep cycling back to things i have already refuted.

First of all, you haven't refuted a damn thing. I rebutted Leviticus 25 some time ago and you've failed to do anything other than repeat your arguement and ignore my response.
All of the biblical passages I've been using prove the following:
1) Slavery is standard practice
2) There are rules for the treatement, selling, and buying of slaves
2A) Those rules tend to involve not selling your family or countrymen but instead taking foreign neighbors or if you do to treat them better than slaves who are not family or countrymen
2B) Those rules tend to involve not killing or maiming your slave, but those rules only apply in certain circumstances and to very specific body parts
3) Slaves are to do what they are told. Period.
... I'm sure there are other things, but I'm working off memory at the moment because I have other things to do today and I'm trying to finish this post in a timely manner, but I am quite certain I've missed a few points in my favor.
That said, I have yet to see a response other than "nuh uh" from you and that is not satisfactory in proving any counterpoint that you have claimed thus far. Putting your words in all CAPS does nothing to this end.

(December 30, 2011 at 11:33 pm)chipan Wrote: i don't believe it says no matter what, but it does state they must obey them. it also states that masters MUST NOT RULE OVER THEM WITH RIGOR. you keep forgetting what rights are given to slaves. tell you what, read leviticus 25:39-55 and gert back to me.

Yeah, I read that some time ago.

Leviticus 25:45 Wrote:And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour

You keep accusing me of not putting these things into context (as you do in this post and several previous) and yet you seem to forget the bolded part above. The very reason I dismissed it (thought I did mention it specifically in a previous post) is because it tells you what I said in my response immediately above this paragraph - specifically 2B.
In those same passages, it tells you to get slaves from what amounts to out of town or not god's chosen - like those of egypt or the children of israel or your own family.
There is nothing else in those passages that forces anyone to treat foreigners well and the language regarding your family and countrymen can be interpreated to mean that you can't beat them like others, but nothing about having freedoms of any kind, compulsory employment where they can leave at any time, or anything that would make their servitide anything other than slavery and until you point out to me specifically otherwise, then you have nothing to make your case.

(December 30, 2011 at 11:33 pm)chipan Wrote: yes, however you wouldn't like it either. you cannot speak for things you do not understand, you say slavery is wrong but why don't you go to someone who perfers slavery b/c their master's take care of them and learn a thing or too.

Slavery doesn't become moral just because the slave is treated well or even if the slave is ignorant to his slavery.
There is so much literature both from history and fiction from just about every perspective imaginable that states slavery to be as such that I couldn't even begin to describe to you the magnitude of how wrong you are on this point.
These days, for every well-treated servant or slave wage worker that's otherwise treated wel, there are dozens if not thousands of men, women, and children bought and sold every day who have to endure far worse. Even despite the range of difference in treatment between a well-treated black slave during slavery America and a modern day child sex slave that is bought and sold in secret across any national border will tell you that being treated well doesn't make them any less of a slave nor slavery any more or less moral for 'having rules' or 'good treatment.'
When you come to understand that, you'll understand why the bible is a terrible book in which to get your morals from.

(December 30, 2011 at 11:33 pm)chipan Wrote: yes you backed it up with single verses applying to modern culture and english definitions. how does that prove anything. why don't you try comparing chinese definitions to see if the bible better fits what you want it to say. USE THE FREAKING HEBREW. IT'S WHAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN. servants were treated well by their masters and if they were treated injustly they would be punished whether it by by man or God.

Bullshit.
I've far outdone you in terms of both quoting and contextualizing my arguements within the bible and you have yet to do anything other than accuse me of wrongdoing.
Using the Hebrew version isn't going to change my arguements at all. It'll just force me to use synonyms but new passages that rewrite the old ones won't magically appear by changing the language.
Feel free to make the arguement, however.

I apologise in advance for any resemblance to arrogance and/or triumphalism, but for his continued disgusting attempts to redefine and justify the crime of rape, chip pan has now officially earned the rare distinction of a billing on my ignore list. Even if his future comments may be among the most erudite and cogently reasoned ever committed to text, I shall have to learn to live without the benefit of them.

Goodbye, chimp, good luck and (in anticipation of your upcoming ban) good riddance.

I don't think he'll get banned. I might be wrong (I don't see all of his posts) but here he hasn't been trolling or flaming.

He just sounds like someone who eiher so badly wants to believe that the bible's morals are good and just that he's willing to delude himself in any manner necessary to this end or he's just naive.

By the by, Stim, I LOVE physics jokes. Here's a favorite of mine:

A tachyon gets kicked out of a bar. The bartender says “we don’t serve your type!”. A tachyon walks into a bar.

Quote:like i said, if they do not scream, then it is clearly not rape.

I'll make you a deal, moron. I'll hold a gun to your fucking head and tell you that it you scream I'll blow whatever passes for brains out of it. Then I'll shove a broom stick up your ass.

If you stay quiet, does that mean you consented?