The Immorality of God - Slavery in the Old Testament

[athrock]

I just want to say that this is an utterly pathetic display.  The apologist has the benefit of our ignorance of the specifics of slavery among the Hebrews, so he can make up any sunshine story he wants.   The bible doesn't state why God chose to abet the slave ethics that he did, so once again the apologist can make up any sunshine story he chooses.  And after all is said and done, granted such liberties, he can't make the vicarious suffering of the slaves into a moral act.  You have your choice of facts and you still can't make it work.  Pathetic.

And since you deny that objective morality comes from God or that it even exists, you can pretty much make up any sunshine story YOU want about why people should or should not do the things they do. The atheist denies the existence of God and the authority of Bible, so once again, you can make up any sunshine story YOU want about how people should behave. Gay marriage? No problem. Abortion? If it's more convenient. After all is said and done, granted such liberties and having all the freedom in the world to paint whatever picture you want on the canvas you call morality, you still can't come up with anything that looks much better than grade school stick figures drawn with crayons.

And "vicarious suffering of the slaves"? Who the hell were they suffering in the place of???

Pathetic.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Who gives a fuck about ancient Israelite slaves when the modern Jews helped finance modern slavery that resulted in over 65 million people spending their lives in miserable slavery?

Wow. I'm stumped. I had no idea that the Jews were behind all this.

Do you have a source? A link to a website or something?

Because I clearly need to get up to speed and pronto.

OK.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/...1830.shtml

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Slavery

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...razil.html
"In Dutch Brazil, Jews flourished in the sugar industry, tax farming and slave trade. Jews often purchased slaves and resold them at great profit."

[Angrboda]

I just want to say that this is an utterly pathetic display.  The apologist has the benefit of our ignorance of the specifics of slavery among the Hebrews, so he can make up any sunshine story he wants.   The bible doesn't state why God chose to abet the slave ethics that he did, so once again the apologist can make up any sunshine story he chooses.  And after all is said and done, granted such liberties, he can't make the vicarious suffering of the slaves into a moral act.  You have your choice of facts and you still can't make it work.  Pathetic.

And since you deny that objective morality comes from God or that it even exists, you can pretty much make up any sunshine story YOU want about why people should or should not do the things they do. The atheist denies the existence of God and the authority of Bible, so once again, you can make up any sunshine story YOU want about how people should behave. Gay marriage? No problem. Abortion? If it's more convenient. After all is said and done, granted such liberties and having all the freedom in the world to paint whatever picture you want on the canvas you call morality, you still can't come up with anything that looks much better than grade school stick figures drawn with crayons.

Typical.  All you've got as a retort is a tu quoque.   I guess red herrings are your style.

And vicarious suffering of the slaves? Who the hell were they suffering in the place of???

Think about it a while, maybe it will come to you.  Does Copan's book have an appendix?

[athrock]

Wow. I'm stumped. I had no idea that the Jews were behind all this.

Do you have a source? A link to a website or something?

Because I clearly need to get up to speed and pronto.

OK.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/...1830.shtml

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Slavery

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...razil.html
"In Dutch Brazil, Jews flourished in the sugar industry, tax farming and slave trade. Jews often purchased slaves and resold them at great profit."

The first is a link to a site promoting Louis Farrakhan.

The third references Jewish ownership of slaves in the 15th and 16th centuries and states in part, "Those they kept often preferred to work for Jews because both Shabbat and Sunday were rest days, whereas the Portugese only gave them Sunday off, and the Dutch worked their slaves seven days a week."

This seems to corroborate my argument that the Jews had been taught to treat their slaves better than they were treated by other nations. (Jorm and Equislax are going to be PISSED to read this.)

As for the second, I'll keep my eyes and ears open for corroboration. Thanks.

[Angrboda]

The third references Jewish ownership of slaves in the 15th and 16th centuries and states in part, "Those they kept often preferred to work for Jews because both Shabbat and Sunday were rest days, whereas the Portugese only gave them Sunday off, and the Dutch worked their slaves seven days a week."

This seems to corroborate my argument that the Jews had been taught to treat their slaves better than they were treated by other nations.

Weak.  Is that you, Drich?

[athrock]

And since you deny that objective morality comes from God or that it even exists, you can pretty much make up any sunshine story YOU want about why people should or should not do the things they do. The atheist denies the existence of God and the authority of Bible, so once again, you can make up any sunshine story YOU want about how people should behave. Gay marriage? No problem. Abortion? If it's more convenient. After all is said and done, granted such liberties and having all the freedom in the world to paint whatever picture you want on the canvas you call morality, you still can't come up with anything that looks much better than grade school stick figures drawn with crayons.

Typical.  All you've got as a retort is a tu quoque.   I guess red herrings are your style.

And vicarious suffering of the slaves? Who the hell were they suffering in the place of???

Think about it a while, maybe it will come to you.  Does Copan's book have an appendix?

Dunno. I don't own it.

[athrock]

The third references Jewish ownership of slaves in the 15th and 16th centuries and states in part, "Those they kept often preferred to work for Jews because both Shabbat and Sunday were rest days, whereas the Portugese only gave them Sunday off, and the Dutch worked their slaves seven days a week."

This seems to corroborate my argument that the Jews had been taught to treat their slaves better than they were treated by other nations.

Weak.  Is that you, Drich?

Let me get this straight...

Another member of the forum goes out on the web and finds articles relating to what he feels are damning facts about the Jewish ownership of slaves. But I observe that this same article corroborates the main point of this entire thread.

And you call this weak?

[Crossless2.0]

Weak.  Is that you, Drich?

Let me get this straight...

Another member of the forum goes out on the web and finds articles relating to what he feels are damning facts about the Jewish ownership of slaves. But I observe that this same article corroborates the main point of this entire thread.

And you call this weak?

I suspect the weakness, in this case, refers to your apparent moral relativism on the question of slavery.

But Jor is more than capable of carrying her own water, and I'm sure she'll correct the record if I got that wrong.

[Angrboda]

Weak.  Is that you, Drich?

Let me get this straight...

Another member of the forum goes out on the web and finds articles relating to what he feels are damning facts about the Jewish ownership of slaves. But I observe that this same article corroborates the main point of this entire thread.

And you call this weak?

I call it weak because the fact presented corroborates your thesis only weakly. So, yes, "weak."

Moreover, you don't know why the Jews of the 15th and 16th centuries there adopted that practice, so your attributing it to a history of beneficient treatment of slaves is purely ad hoc.

[Crossless2.0]

See? I stand corrected.

I also stand by the observation that your insistence on explaining away a glaring moral shortcoming of your holy book and its god character is weak and reveals you as a relativist when it suits your apologetic needs.