God Condoned Chattel Slavery

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Yeah, and you either can't read or can't be bothered to listen to anyone but your ideology.
Either way, we're done.
Best of luck.

You could have simply admitted that you're wrong instead of stooping to this ridiculous level of buffoonery. You certainly would have expended less energy.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
[b]Decent people don't...
Decent people don't, eh?
Since you're positioning yourself as the arbiter of what decent people do, I'll give you first whack at what a decent person does in the scenario(s) to which you allude.
Do decent people wait until after all of the fanfare has gone away before pointing out the immediate fraudulent nature of ...[text shortened]... figure out anyone but you." - How about taking your own advice?[/b]
It's great advice.
Thanks.[/b]

Here's a revelation for you. We're living on a globe where the laws of gravity apply. As a species, we have evolved, been to the moon and back and invented numerous gods to give meaning, comfort and purpose to our lives and alleviate the fear of mortality.

I'm sorry these things fall outside your understanding or your youtube education.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as:
Expressly giving permission for Jews to buy slaves. Expressly stating that they are their property. Expressly stating that they can be bequeathed to their children. Expressly stating that they can be made slaves for life.

How exactly is that not God being depicted as condoning chattel slavery?

If God were ...[text shortened]... it would be the Jews for having depicted God as condoning chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46.

You asked the question; "How exactly is that not God being depicted as condoning chattel slavery?"

Your reading of Leviticus 25:44-46 is flawed for two reasons. Firstly you improperly infer that it is the Jews that are depicting God as condoning slavery, and secondly you appear to miss the fact that it is God Himself speaking to the Jews about slavery.

Your inferences are both antisemitic and blasphemous against God simultaneously.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Here's a revelation for you. We're living on a globe where the laws of gravity apply. As a species, we have evolved, been to the moon and back and invented numerous gods to give meaning, comfort and purpose to our lives and alleviate the fear of mortality.

I'm sorry these things fall outside your understanding or your youtube education.

Since we're in the giving/relevatory mood, I'll bounce one back ala bouncing lasers off the moon like they did back in the 50's...

All of those fantastic stories you refer have next to nothing about the topic at hand.

Love is a bitch, ain't she!

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Here's a revelation for you. We're living on a globe where the laws of gravity apply. As a species, we have evolved, been to the moon and back and invented numerous gods to give meaning, comfort and purpose to our lives and alleviate the fear of mortality.

I'm sorry these things fall outside your understanding or your youtube education.

"We're living on a globe where the laws of gravity apply."

That's genius.

"...and invented numerous gods to give meaning, comfort and purpose to our lives and alleviate the fear of mortality."

And here's a revelation for you. There is immortality for those in Christ. I can't imagine the shock you'll experience when your house of cards comes crumbling down.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Do you personally believe that slavery is morally justifiable?

Second son?

Originally posted by @secondson
You asked the question; "How exactly is that not God being depicted as condoning chattel slavery?"

Your reading of Leviticus 25:44-46 is flawed for two reasons. Firstly you improperly infer that it is the Jews that are depicting God as condoning slavery, and secondly you appear to miss the fact that it is God Himself speaking to the Jews about slavery.

Your inferences are both antisemitic and blasphemous against God simultaneously.

I fully understood that the passage is attributed to God. In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as condoning chattel slavery. There's no reasonable way around that. If you believe otherwise, then explain what you believe is being said.

Your inferences are both antisemitic and blasphemous against God simultaneously.

How exactly is it "antisemitic"?

How exactly is it "blasphemous against God"?

Originally posted by @divegeester
Second son?

Missed your post.

God doesn't, and neither do I, but the world is full of slaves.

You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
Indeed you're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

You might be a rock 'n' roll addict prancing on the stage
You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage
You may be a business man or some high-degree thief
They may call you doctor or they may call you chief

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes you are
You're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

You may be a state trooper, you might be a young Turk
You may be the head of some big TV network
You may be rich or poor, you may be blind or lame
You may be living in another country under another name

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes you are
You're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

You may be a construction worker working on a home
You may be living in a mansion or you might live in a dome
You might own guns and you might even own tanks
You might be somebody's landlord, you might even own banks

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
You're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride
You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side
You may be workin' in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair
You may be somebody's mistress, may be somebody's heir

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
You're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

Might like to wear cotton, might like to wear silk
Might like to drink whiskey, might like to drink milk
You might like to eat caviar, you might like to eat bread
You may be sleeping on the floor, sleeping in a king-sized bed

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
Indeed you're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

You may call me Terry, you may call me Timmy
You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy
You may call me R.J., you may call me Ray
You may call me anything but no matter what you say

Still, you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
You're gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

Bob Dylan.

Originally posted by @secondson
Missed your post.

God doesn't, and neither do I, but the world is full of slaves.

You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
Indeed you're gonna ha ...[text shortened]... it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody

Bob Dylan.

I heard a blues version of this and it was fantastic.

First time I heard it, I believe, was on Dylan's Biograph album, a triple CD album of his more well-known stuff.

Originally posted by @suzianne
I heard a blues version of this and it was fantastic.

First time I heard it, I believe, was on Dylan's Biograph album, a triple CD album of his more well-known stuff.

As a way of contributing to the definition of "slave" in the context of this thread's discussion on the morality of owning human beings as property or chattel, quoting this Dylan song is, of course, a bit of a fatuous red herring, regardless of which CD it was released on ~ and I imagine that being trite in this way was SecondSon's purpose.

Originally posted by @fmf
As a way of contributing to the definition of "slave" in the context of this thread's discussion on the morality of owning human beings as property or chattel, quoting this Dylan song is, of course, a bit of an fatuous red herring, regardless of which CD it was released on ~ and I imagine that being trite in this way was SecondSon's purpose.

And yet, the lyrics are on point.

We all have to "serve" someone, or something. That makes us all technically "slaves".

However, in a discussion of traditional slavery, especially as experienced in the United States, and/or as experienced in Egypt/Canaan, I don't disagree that it might be a bit "fatuous" or "trite". "A bit of a red herring"? Not so much.

Originally posted by @suzianne
And yet, the lyrics are on point.

We all have to "serve" someone, or something. That makes us all technically "slaves".

However, in a discussion of traditional slavery, especially as experienced in the United States, and/or as experienced in Egypt/Canaan, I don't disagree that it might be a bit "fatuous" or "trite". "A bit of a red herring"? Not so much.

What claptrap. There is still ~ to this day ~ the atrocity of humans owning humans as chattel for things like sex-trafficking and sweatshops. Dylan's song throws no light on this at all. Citing his lyrics is just smug claptrap. You and SecondSon need to grow up.

Originally posted by @fmf
What claptrap. There is still ~ to this day ~ the atrocity of humans owning humans as chattel for things like sex-trafficking and sweatshops. Dylan's song throws no light on this at all. Citing his lyrics is just smug claptrap. You and SecondSon need to grow up.

I would say that this is a bit off...

There were Mamluk slaves that would go on to be the leaders of the Empire, and there were slaves that were doctors in Rome, so much so that almost all of the doctors at one point were slaves that were treated quite well.

Cheikh Anta Diop noted that the slaves of high up African lrods considered it a great honor, and that they would receive the same status of their slave master. SO if their Master was an important Koi (Lord), they would have to be treated as a Lord, creating a very interesting position where freehold farmers and artisans had to treat some slaves with great respect. It also enabled some slaves to even own slaves.

These things are complicated.

They require nuance and grace, GOOD SIR.

Originally posted by @philokalia
I would say that this is a bit off...

There were Mamluk slaves that would go on to be the leaders of the Empire, and there were slaves that were doctors in Rome, so much so that almost all of the doctors at one point were slaves that were treated quite well.

Cheikh Anta Diop noted that the slaves of high up African lrods considered it a great hon ...[text shortened]... even own slaves.

These things are complicated.

They require nuance and grace, GOOD SIR.

Quoting Dylan lyrics is smarmy Christian prattle.

Originally posted by @secondson
[b]"We're living on a globe where the laws of gravity apply."

That's genius.

Freaky believes neither, so I guess he lacks the genius you infer, hey?