Originally posted by @philokaliaThe question you fled from still awaits you here Thread 175779.
Hey bro I think you forgot to send me that PM.
I'll definitely consider answering your question a second time if you ask me nicely.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
22 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonshipIrrelevant. When a God describes a man as another man's property it's time to find yourself a new religion.
No digression. I am demonstrating that the comparison between millions of slaves kidnapped at gun point and sent over on ships to be worked to death is different from what the Law of Moses allowed for in the good land of Canaan for the Israelites.
Could there have been the Atlantic Slave Trade without kidnapping?
If your answer is no, then apart fro ...[text shortened]... rself to be treated."
That slave trade must have been a little different, huh?
Just a tad?
Give Jainism a go.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeSays the guy that doesn't believe in moral absolutes. 🙄
Irrelevant. When a God describes a man as another man's property it's time to find yourself a new religion.
Give Jainism a go.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
22 Mar 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerDoes someone have to believe in moral absolutes to know one man owning another man as property is wrong?
Says the guy that doesn't believe in moral absolutes. 🙄
Your naivety is astounding (though simultaneously tedious).
Originally posted by @fmfCould you PM me the thread link?
The question you fled from still awaits you here Thread 175779.
Thanks.
I'll consider it.
I like to keep important stuff in my inbox for 49 days then consider them.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWell simple logic would tell you that if there are no moral absolutes any action could be morally acceptable under certain conditions.
Does someone have to believe in moral absolutes to know one man owning another man as property is wrong?
Your naivety is astounding (though simultaneously tedious).
Your lack of logic is astounding (though simultaneously tedious). 😉
Originally posted by @dj2beckerDo you believe that enslavement of human beings and slave-owning are morally acceptable under certain conditions?
Well simple logic would tell you that if there are no moral absolutes any action could be morally acceptable under certain conditions.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
22 Mar 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Why would God refer to a person who 'agrees to be an unpaid servant to work off a debt' as the 'property' of the master?
Are you differentiating between enslavement and someone who agrees to be an unpaid servant to work off a debt or do you consider them the same thing?
Slaves are property, not unpaid servants.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
22 Mar 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYes, your logic is simple.
Well simple logic would tell you that if there are no moral absolutes any action could be morally acceptable under certain conditions.
Your lack of logic is astounding (though simultaneously tedious). 😉
Go annoy someone else.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
22 Mar 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeIf my memory is correct, the KJV doesn’t identify them as slaves or property in those verses from Leviticus
Why would God refer to a person who 'agrees to be an unpaid servant to work off a debt' as the 'property' of the master?
Slaves are property, not unpaid servants.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
22 Mar 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Okay, here is Leviticus 25:44-46 (KJV)
If my memory is correct, the KJV doesn’t identify them as slaves or property in those verses from Leviticus
'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.'
Please explain why 'buying people' is not a facet of slavery and why 'possession' is any better than property?
Kindly address both points.
22 Mar 18
Don't worry, Romans.
FMF and Ghost of Duke will do absolutely nothing but complain when you affirm that, once upon a time, it was OK.
Just say "Yes."
What are they going to do?
They'd have to have a historical and ethical debate with me -- they bloody hate that.
All they can do then is go
"Oh WELP you're so CRAZZZZZYYYYY and I don't understand HISTORRYYY"
and then Dive & Viver will say something like
"Did this guy just justify slavery?!" ZOMG
"... Give me a yes or no answer...."
'
lol