Exodus 21

[Drich]

nice identification of a logical fallacy,  now simply provide the world with a working model of a society not built on slavery and the argument is yours.

Oh that's right you can't because all models demand basic needs: food water clothing to be provided at or below the average income. which means someone is working below a livable wage to provide the basics for everyone else. eg.. slaves by this name or the modern terms..

Maybe when robotics are perfected, but then again what happens to those who currently depend on slave wages to survive? if the robots take all of the slave work what will the modern slave do for a job? how can they make money or survive? robots don't make food free. the may make it cheaper but more than likly it will simply become more profitable for the growers.

Even if a society based on slavery does not meet all the requirements of a logical premise it does not mean we have the tools or capability to create such a society free from slavery. intellectually you are right but in practice the lack of a working slave less society despite some of our greatest minds best efforts proves that I am practically correct.

So, basically you don't have an argument.  Just more "neener neener, I'm right, you're wrong, la la la, I can't hear you" bullshit.  

Your defense of God and the bible fails as it is based on an invalid argument.  There is nothing 'practical' about an invalid argument.

Additionally, you missed the following:

Additionally, you need to define what slavery is for any argument to have legs.  I recently participated in a discussion as to whether slavery was over or not and the meaning of the term varied dramatically.  There is the example of chattel slavery on one end, and the ideas of being slaves to materialism or slaves to sin or some other thing on the other.  The closer you hew toward the latter, the more it becomes difficult to disentangle society from it, but then it also renders your argument something of an equivocation and rather moot.  The more you hew toward the former, the more your argument misrepresents reality and is therefore simply wrong.  Without an actual definition of slavery, you can talk until the cows come home, likely equivocating left and right, without accomplishing a damn thing.

As an afterthought, I don't see that you've discussed why it would not still be wrong even if we grant you everything you argue.  A necessary evil is still an evil, and "everybody does it" isn't a rational justification for anything.

my argument is despite man's best efforts we have not even been able to conceive of a plausible working society that does not have slavery at it's base. the fact that there has never been one despite our efforts to create classless societies  one group always rises to the top. Orwell animal farm is a great illustration of this where/when a society tries to make everything equal it turns out more tyrannical. in saying that... neaner neaner..

Slavery is divided into social and economical definitions. 
Chattle slavery is different because it has the chattle prefix, meaning owned/property slaves.

the Social side of slavery is having your will supplanted by the will of another or your will must first be filtered through a system. example you want to marry guy a, but your culture demand you marry guy b because for whatever social communal reason. Or you want job A, but because you belong to this group or sect of people you only qualify for job b (the sunni arabs verse the shia kurds in northern Iraq (pre gulf war 11)for example, and the resulting genocide because they were pushing what their society demanded of them/they were being displaced and refused to go so saddam gassed them.) your will or the will of others like you is first subject to the will of another or others. This describes a distinct lack of basic freedom to choose for one's self how and where they want to live.

The economic side basically describes someone who works under a living wage for their region (meaning would other wise die/not afford a new car or live like everyone else, living wage means can sustain life) and subsequently has to be subsidized with either 'other benefits' from the country and or company for the basics of life. shelter food clothes etc. As a result freedoms are workers rights are often exchanged for these extras.. 2/3 of the world works like this. my family worked like this up to my grand father, and my aunts and uncles worked this way. 

Then there is chattel slavery. sugar, coffee bananas and other topical grown food and or drink still use chattel slaves/ outright owned people. they may receive a wage of some kind, but every aspect of their lives is dependant on the plantation. they neither have social or economic freedom. the plantation decides everything for them.

[Simon Moon]

So God was right to support economic boom at the expanse of people? I mean, economic prosperity is holy, right?

how about economic survival. how about that is what ALL your nasty ancestors were if not slaves themselves were also doing without a thought to regulation or rights.

Remember whatever you have to say here you only condemn your hypocritical selves. even today nothing has changed only our vocabulary concerning those who work dependant on the company because they do not get paid a living wage. (which is 2/3 of the planet) who would otherwise starve without their slave wage jobs.

I do considering no economy of any nation ever created has not been built on the backs of slaves that was successful. Meaning only an all knowing God knew the society needed slaves in order to get on it's feet and support it self. and I think this is evidence of an agape' filled God as no such rules has ever protected the rights of a slave. wich to this point and even after never been done. Meaning man never has been unprompted to mandate slave rights.

Dritch is a perfect example of how religion can cause someone to abdicate their humanity in difference to their ridiculous beliefs. Just look at how he has to stoop to false equivalency to 'wage slavery' in order to try to justify his support for slavery in the Bible.

Sorry Dritch, but there is no hypocrisy. The Bible condones slaves as chattel, with ability to pass them to your children, to beat them as long as they don't die in a couple of days, that you are allowed to take slaves from "the heathens around you"....

Also, there is no hypocrisy, because we never claim that humanity is infallible, maximally moral or maximally powerful (as Christians claim for their god), so we are likely to make moral mistakes. So, your god is so weak, that he couldn't come up with any other method other than owning other people as property, in order to create viable economies?

What a small, weak god you believe in, Dritch.

[Bahana]

My original post had nothing to do with being all loving. It seems obvious to me that this book was written by ancient men and not inspired by a being who is all knowing. If people can read things like that and still consider the Bible to be divinely inspired then there is not much more to talk about.

[Drich]

My original post had nothing to do with being all loving. It seems obvious to me that this book was written by ancient men and not inspired by a being who is all knowing. If people can read things like that and still consider the Bible to be divinely inspired then there is not much more to talk about.

if this where true then why the sudden prohibition on treating slaves any way you like? this was clearly counter culture.. not to mention while restrictive by today's standards the bible gave women rights for the first time as well. again very counter morality at the time. The link to the table of crime I posted a few posts backs were prime examples of what men of that time thought and enacted concerning what was right and wrong and fair compensation for being wronged.. which clearly had nothing to do with scripture. the holy Scripture had it's followers go miles beyond what 'man' thought was moral.' this level of concern or care was absurd and unheard of in that day. 

When putting things back to an apples to apples comparison meaning when you compare how much above and beyond the morality of the bible was when compared to the laws and what was allowed, you can clearly see a huge difference between what was 'moral' by society's standard and what the bible was asking for in change.

It is when not so smart people take this command out of context and compare it with the modern definition and understanding of slavery do you see a slant that favors what maybe considered immoral law. but when you reframe what was side in the time it was said, the law becomes ground breaking and unheard of in a time where your people where treating slaves without rules.

---

how about economic survival. how about that is what ALL your nasty ancestors were if not slaves themselves were also doing without a thought to regulation or rights.

Remember whatever you have to say here you only condemn your hypocritical selves. even today nothing has changed only our vocabulary concerning those who work dependant on the company because they do not get paid a living wage. (which is 2/3 of the planet) who would otherwise starve without their slave wage jobs.

I do considering no economy of any nation ever created has not been built on the backs of slaves that was successful. Meaning only an all knowing God knew the society needed slaves in order to get on it's feet and support it self. and I think this is evidence of an agape' filled God as no such rules has ever protected the rights of a slave. wich to this point and even after never been done. Meaning man never has been unprompted to mandate slave rights.

Dritch is a perfect example of how religion can cause someone to abdicate their humanity in difference to their ridiculous beliefs. Just look at how he has to stoop to false equivalency to 'wage slavery' in order to try to justify his support for slavery in the Bible.

Sorry Dritch, but there is no hypocrisy. The Bible condones slaves as chattel, with ability to pass them to your children, to beat them as long as they don't die in a couple of days, that you are allowed to take slaves from "the heathens around you"....

Also, there is no hypocrisy, because we never claim that humanity is infallible, maximally moral or maximally powerful (as Christians claim for their god), so we are likely to make moral mistakes. So, your god is so weak, that he couldn't come up with any other method other than owning other people as property, in order to create viable economies?

What a small, weak god you believe in, Dritch.

what a small weak mind.. what where your people doing back then without God? how much worse off were people under your ancestors???

[Astreja]

A society that needs slavery to succeed is worthless.

[Bahana]

Whether they treated their slaves better than their neighbors is debatable and really doesn't matter. Is slavery immoral or not? The god of the Bible sure thought it was needed at the time.

[Minimalist]

Dripshit considers "slavery" the good old days.  I'd love to see your sorry ass on the other end of the whip, asswipe.

He embraces idea that God one way or another is his Eternal Master. That's just as bad as slavery in some sense. And as it turns out doubts and thoughts of apostasy are countered with hell among believers. Even slaves didn't had shit like that.

[Jehanne]

Slavery is an intrinsic evil, which means that it is never right.  Yours is a sick version of Christianity, one that many professing Christians do not share:

POPE APOLOGIZES TO AFRICANS FOR SLAVERY

and if I told you the majority of the food you eat (that can not be mechanically harvested) was harvested by modern slaves?

That black friday 70 flat screen for 150 bucks was made so cheap because the person who assembled it got paid far less than what they could afford to live on?

10.00 per hour per house hold.. not per person. most live in subsidized private housing (owned by the company) and everyone in the house is expected to work for 10 bucks per hour or they work piece work/by the field.  which is usually less than 10 bucks per hour.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle...633ac6082c

So where is your apology? if all forms of slavery are all bad then you benefiting from modern slaves should be just as bad correct? then should you apologize? 
or is 10 per household a fare livable wage?

otherwise know if they were all paid 15 dollars per hour, you... could not afford to eat

The same was true 10x over back then when God issued these laws. Society (middle lower class) needs slaves in one form or another.

---

I wonder what your source is for the above, please?  Are you claiming that factory workers aboard who produce goods sold in America are forced to work in their country's factories?  And, are such individuals being jailed, whipped or put to death for their refusal to work?

[Minimalist]

I doubt there is any dispute about the conditions which factory workers in China and much of the rest of Asia operate under.  It is hard to find unbiased sources but not impossible.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...conditions

At a Catcher Technology Co. manufacturing complex in the Chinese industrial city of Suqian, about six hours’ drive from Shanghai, workers stand for up to 10 hours a day in hot workshops slicing and blasting iPhone casings for Apple Inc., handling noxious chemicals sometimes without proper gloves or masks.

These conditions -- some described in a report Tuesday by advocacy group China Labor Watch and others in Bloomberg News interviews with Catcher workers -- show the downside of a high-tech boom buoying the world’s second-largest economy. Chinese recruiters play up the chance to build advanced consumer electronics to attract the millions of typically impoverished, uneducated laborers without whom the production of iPhones and other digital gadgets would be impossible.

Things are no different in Bangla Desh, India, Thailand, etc.  The only proviso here is that without THESE lousy jobs the people would be taking equally lousy jobs or no jobs at all in the agricultural sectors of their countries.

[possibletarian]

Why would a nation blessed by an all powerful god need slaves at all, what a ridiculous position to take.