Originally posted by @philokaliaSlavery is still moral under those conditions.
Let us say that we had a massive catastrophe and reverted to post-apocalyptic conditions, literally living in caves, then re-emerging nearly without technology. The details are unimportant... But theoretically, again, we could reach an occasion in which we would also have an allowance for such an institution as slavery. [...] Slavery is still moral under those conditions.
I don't see how.
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaSo you morality is “conditional”?
Let us say that we had a massive catastrophe and reverted to post-apocalyptic conditions, literally living in caves, then re-emerging nearly without technology. The details are unimportant... But theoretically, again, we could reach an occasion in which we would also have an allowance for such an institution as slavery.
So... in a sense, nothing has ...[text shortened]... s is highly unlikely to wake up and find themselves in late bronze age or Iron Age I conditions.
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterWe know that Philokalia/Jacob does not really believe in a society with a network of "rights" and "freedoms". We know that he believes that rights are an obstacle to discussing politics in the 21st century and that he feels they are a "sacred cow." He is against ascribing rights to humans who are not what he sees as being productive agents in society. And we know that he prefers to think along the lines of duties and practical consequences rather than rights ~ and he refuses to accept that every person in a society has to be treated with the assumption that their citizenship is valuable and wanted. He has been pretty candid about it all.
It seems that Jacob is comfortable with both casual racism and casual slavery, under certain conditions.
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @fmfHe also believes that there are studies show that some races are genetically inferior to others and that he has difficulty in refuting these.
We know that Philokalia/Jacob does not really believe in a society with a network of "rights" and "freedoms". We know that he believes that rights are an obstacle to discussing politics in the 21st century and that he feels they are a "sacred cow." He is against ascribing rights to humans who are not what he sees as being productive agents in society. And we kn ...[text shortened]... ssumption that their citizenship is valuable and wanted. He has been pretty candid about it all.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterThat sentence makes no sense.
He also believes that there are studies show that some races are genetically inferior to others and that he has difficulty in refuting these.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterGood grief, tiger. I just read that sentence again and it’s not only grammatically incorrect, it’s logically incorrect.
He also believes that there are studies show that some races are genetically inferior to others and that he has difficulty in refuting these.
Is your noggin still a throbbing cotton ball from last night? Can you not see your computer screen through your watery, bloodshot eyes?
Hop in the shower and clean yourself up, kiddo. Let some cold water soak that throbbing noodle of yours.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeAlternatively Roman's, address neither point.
Okay, here is Leviticus 25:44-46 (KJV)
'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.
23 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @philokaliaIf your moral justification - on economic grounds and so that employers can minimize financial risks incurred by giving their employees food - for humans to be legally permitted to own other human beings as property - like livestock or chattel - and set them to work, with no basic human rights, such as being able to leave your employment, or being able to object to being sold to a different "owner" - if this "moral" prism you have is the result of you studying "philosophy", then I will accept you at your word that that is where you got your ideas from.
See, FMF, this is what you get when you do not study philosophy.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeMaybe you are into "trying" religions like tasting brands of coffee. I met Christ.
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.
Now, go get me an ancient document pre-dating the writing of the book Job (written about 2000 BC, some 500 years before Moses wrote the Pentateuch). And point out to me an earlier recognition that divinely ordained dignity / equality should be assigned to a servant or a maid "property" of some master.
... something pre-dating this:
"If I have despised the cause of my servant or my maid when they contended with me, what will I do when God rises up?
And when He visits me, what will I answer Him?
Did not He who made me in the womb make him ? And was it not One who fashioned us in the womb?" (Job 31:13-15)
You're going to find us an earlier ancient expression of God-fearing concern for equity from a master towards the "property" of his slaves. Go!
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonshipSonship, do you think slavery is morally justifiable?
Maybe you are into "trying" religions like tasting brands of coffee. I met Christ.
Now, go get me an ancient document pre-dating the writing of the book [b]Job (written about 2000 BC, some 500 years before Moses wrote the Pentateuch). And point out to me an earlier recognition that divinely ordained dignity / equality should be assigned to a serva ...[text shortened]... ession of God-fearing concern for equity from a master towards the "property" of his slaves. Go![/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeCome on Ghost. You know it depends.
And is it ever okay to describe people as property/possessions?
Do you have kids?
Now if you're not impressed I am. Year 2000 BC and a God fearing master is nervous over the unequal treatment of his male and female servants.
Put up something MORE human from the ancient world or admit you have no examples.
Then maybe we'll go on.
23 Mar 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @sonshipLeviticus 25
Come on Ghost. You know it depends.
Do you have kids?
Now if you're not impressed I am. Year 2000 BC and a God fearing master is nervous over the unequal treatment of his male and female servants.
Put up something MORE human from the ancient world or admit you have no examples.
Then maybe we'll go on.
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,..
In the above passage God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.
What's interesting is the number of Christians who feel compelled to defend God condoning chattel slavery when faced with this.
Why not simply assert that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery by the Jews was wrong since it is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneAre you going to confess belief in God or NOT ??
Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them sla ...[text shortened]... doning chattel slavery by the Jews was wrong since it is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus?