The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[Esquilax]

No, it's FULLY true that kidnapping others into slavery was prohibited. (And here I'll insert what appears to be the obligatory eye roll to say, "You're such an idiot.")  

So, to be clear: you can't kidnap people into slavery, but you can enslave people who were kidnapped. Ever considered going into law, with that kind of double-speak rolling around in that head of yours?

The acquisition of people who were ALREADY slaves would have been a blessing for them, because the Israelites were commanded by God to treat their slaves better than other nations treated them. Now, get real...we both know that being a slave sucked, but if you had to choose, you would have wanted to be the slave of a benevolent owner rather than some pagan Hittite. Wouldn't you?

Listen, I don't consider Hebrew owners benevolent, when god had to specify "okay, so you can't beat them to death, alright?" If they were benevolent that wouldn't even need to be said: what that suggests to me is that Hebrew owners were barely restrained from the worst of their impulses. A "benevolent" person doesn't feel the need to own slaves at all, let alone require, for example, lengthy rules for how and why they can be turned into sex slaves.

No, to BEGIN with, you can apologize for implying that I was telling a half-truth when it is obvious here that I make a clear reference to the differences between Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves. Jerk.

Nah, that's cool. You'd have to have not peppered your OP with half truths, for that.

Racist slavery? Yeah, that's my problem. Forget about the Africans taken to America against their will...no, what really gets me going is the thought of some Canaanites toiling in the noon-day sun, singing those old Amorite spirituals. "Go down, Sihon, let my people go..."

Yes, I'm mocking you. Could you tell?

You're mocking me, but you've failed to insert any content into your mockery that actually refutes what I said. Fairly bland, overall: don't mistake scoffing for an argument, athrock.

Emotional blackmail? Lame...the slaves had the choice to say no, dude.

Seriously? Would you say that a person offering the choice of "you can either be my slave against your will for the rest of your life, or I'll keep you from your family that you love forever," is offering a moral choice, or an immoral choice? And what would you say about a book that explicitly suggests that this choice be undertaken in order to trick people into lives of slavery?

Oh, so now they're not JUST slaves, but sex slaves, to boot. Ooooooh.

No, dude, they were legit wives and bearing sons to their husbands accorded them with great honor. You really, really need to read the OT again. The NT more, of course, but the OT again just to get the cobwebs out.

I must say, any respect I may have had for you previously has been lost costly. In one post. Not that you care, but damn.

Do you really think your bald assertion counts shit for dick with me? No, man: what we have here are slaves (not specific people, but a blanket generalization across the entire set) that are either bought without concern for their pasts and may in fact be kidnapped into slavery, or prisoners of war (the Israelites had a bad habit of taking the virgin women from those they conquered as wives) or sold into debt bondage or for marriage. Their consent to any of this isn't brought up once in the entire bible.

And despite all this, you're actually willing to assert that every single female slave, despite having no control over who bought them or who those buyers gave them to, were universally stoked to have sex with them, sight unseen? That's literally your position here? And you're talking about losing respect for me?

Yep. Kinda sucked to be on the wrong side of history, didn't it?

Heh, "they had god on their side so fuck everyone else," eh? And you're here asserting this god is moral?

Riiiiiight. By providing the exact verse, I was hiding it. Please tell me you're not an attorney or someone who has to make logical arguments for a living.

I'm not going to play games with you, dude: you provided the verse and then only explicitly mentioned the happy, smiley bit of it that suited your argument. You omitted completely the bad bit.

Do you, incidentally, have an actual argument to excuse the bad bit? Or are you still unable to tell the difference between snark and a real response?

I had the same reaction, to be honest, but this is too little too late for you, I'm afraid. Your previous points were insignificant, and this one is a trifling.

Condescension is not a rebuttal, athrock.

Precisely. PRECISELY. Do you have evidence of any ANE code requiring better?

So, the tu coque fallacy, then?

Which is why at the end of the day, you have to admit that the Mosaic Law raised the bar for the treatment of slaves.

"A slightly better horrific moral injustice," is not exactly the best case to make for a supposedly morally impeccable god, dude.

You had nothing. (and you want to take on WLC?)



Oh, and  

Given that you're apparently so terrified of my argumentation that you won't even present your favorite WLC bit for me to address, it seems I've got more than you're willing to admit. Those with an actual point to make don't have to inflate their nothingy responses with all this bluster.