(June 24, 2015 at 2:43 pm)Won2blv Wrote: But then again I make the point that in a Hebrews case they would have known this stipulation in advance of their going into that agreement. So they must have not felt it was immoral that they could be beaten for one reason or another

Or they had no choice. What they were willing to accept has little bearing on what they thought of its morality. A moment ago you were arguing they accepted slavery because it was the best way to get their needs met; has this changed since you made the argument?

(June 24, 2015 at 2:43 pm)Won2blv Wrote: I don't agree, rape can bring physical and emotional harm to a person. A woman especially may have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy or stds. So I guess the biggest argument for me against the biblical slavery is that the master was allowed to beat the slave. But then again I make the point that in a Hebrews case they would have known this stipulation in advance of their going into that agreement. So they must have not felt it was immoral that they could be beaten for one reason or another

And slavery doesn't bring physical and emotional harm? You keep going back the the Hebrews who were entering into slavery "willingly." I put willingly in quotations because it implies these people had other options. Let's talk about non-Hebrews, here. Can you imagine the emotional harm that not having ownership of your person would do? And also, let's not forget that there was still a marketplace then. It didn't have the same goods, but there was still room for leisure spending. You weren't buying a DVD, but maybe you were buying a toy produced at the carpenter's shop for your child. You keep acting like people had only the basic costs in their lives: clothes, food, shelter. There were still whorehouses, bars, etc.

(June 24, 2015 at 2:49 pm)Nope Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 2:43 pm)Won2blv Wrote: So they must have not felt it was immoral that they could be beaten for one reason or another

Or they were desperate. If I am not mistaken, the bible allowed for the master to keep the wife and children of the newly freed slave.

Yes and no, if someone came with a wife and kids they left with him. But if the master gave a wife to his slave then he had the right to refuse they go with him

(June 24, 2015 at 3:06 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 2:43 pm)Won2blv Wrote: I don't agree, rape can bring physical and emotional harm to a person. A woman especially may have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy or stds. So I guess the biggest argument for me against the biblical slavery is that the master was allowed to beat the slave. But then again I make the point that in a Hebrews case they would have known this stipulation in advance of their going into that agreement. So they must have not felt it was immoral that they could be beaten for one reason or another

And slavery doesn't bring physical and emotional harm? You keep going back the the Hebrews who were entering into slavery "willingly." I put willingly in quotations because it implies these people had other options. Let's talk about non-Hebrews, here. Can you imagine the emotional harm that not having ownership of your person would do? And also, let's not forget that there was still a marketplace then. It didn't have the same goods, but there was still room for leisure spending. You weren't buying a DVD, but maybe you were buying a toy produced at the carpenter's shop for your child. You keep acting like people had only the basic costs in their lives:  clothes, food, shelter. There were still whorehouses, bars, etc.

Heres the thing, I am open on this site that I am questioning my beliefs. But for me this is a non issue. Because I don't believe we can ever fully grasp what life was like back then and when I think of slavery I think about it only from the perspective I have. Also from the perspective that if you really believe in the god of the bible, you are willingly his slave. So to enter into that agreement you have to accept that there would be freedoms you're willing to give up because you love your master that much. Maybe this could be a fucked up abusive relationship. But I know that I am willing to sacrifice certain things for my wife and vice versa. Or my employer. I am willing to give up certain freedoms to keep my job.

(June 24, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: The greatest good for the most people results when people are given the maximum freedom consistent with an ordered society. Slavery denies this freedom to a significant proportion of the populace and thus results in less than the greatest good for the most number of people. Is this an argument that appeals to emotion? Certainly. Is it an illicit or fallacious appeal to emotion? No.

This is how I feel too. Slavery is unfair and harmful. It's immoral because a person becomes property and they are subject to whatever harmful whims their masters dish out. The idea of their children being born into slavery doesn't bear thinking about.

It wasn't that long ago we got rid of slavery, and it was bad enough then. I don't know how anyone can think that slavery was better in biblical times. Certainly not from the kind of "rules" there are in the bible. I'd expect it to have been a whole lot worse. I think it's just wishful thinking to suppose otherwise, to try and reconcile the OT with some sort of morality. Our society has slowly got better and better, so projecting that backwards I would fully expect it to be awful. You don't have to look much further than the OT also condoning rape to see what a fucked up society is must have been, assuming it's at all accurate.

Having slaves was simply fine back then, their society allowed it; or at least got away with it, it appears.

(June 24, 2015 at 2:48 pm)Won2blv Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 2:42 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You imagine that they (early ag societies)  had less free time than we do now, less discretionary wealth (regardless of opportunity to spend it), but this isn't -actually- true.

Even if they had free time and little bit of coin in their pouch, its not like they could pop on down to Sears or take a weekend off to visit stonehenge. Planet money podcast had an interesting piece about the history of light. 4,000 years ago a days wages got you 10 minutes of light. 100 years ago a days wages got you 5 hours of light. Today a days wages gets you 20000 hours of light. The point I am trying to make is that we live in unprecedented times. Where we're at today compared to just 100 years ago is amazing and I do think it skews our understanding of the past

That it buys more light now is an effect of lower skilled, lower wage-slaves producing that light.....I guess that escaped you?  The relative worth and wealth of people as set against others is, essentially, static.  If you can buy more, so can everyone else, that you are wealthier is an illusion, a comforting one, but an illusion nevertheless.  I;m a "wealthy planter" - I know that you work for me....you, apparently, don't.  Good.....I hope it stays that way.  My children will need cheap labor, as I do.  People flipping burgers work harder than me -you work harder than me-, they put more in and get less out..meanwhile I sit on my ass, drinking whiskey and posting in atheist forums, working, on average, 140 hrs -a year- for a salary orders of magnitude larger than those who "voluntarily" agree to fiefdom by another name....and I'm one of the nice guys.........

Unprecedented times my ass, I'm perfectly comfortable in these times, because I see that they are no change from the times of my forebearers who placed me where I'm at and kept you where you -are-...if they were "unprecedented times"......I'd be worried......do I seem worried...to you?

How can you ask if slavery is wrong based on obvious human error, and manipulation. It is obvious that at the time of these writings slavery was deemed ok by the corrupt men of that time. It is not the word of God.

(June 24, 2015 at 3:40 pm)popsthebuilder Wrote: How can you ask if slavery is wrong based on obvious human error, and manipulation. It is obvious that at the time of these writings slavery was deemed ok by the corrupt men of that time. It is not the word of God.

Tell that to the many people of many denominations who think it is the word of God.

It is a shame, I know. We have much work indeed. Unity

My take in two words: Moral Development. 

If we had been a society of moral absolutes from 100,000 years ago until now we would still be living in a primitive tribal like culture. But, since we have allowed our morals to adapt and change by dissecting certain thought processes we have come to ascertain that certain ideas are better than others. Slavery is one of them.