God Condoned Chattel Slavery

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yes or No? It’s a simple question. Dodge it again and my point is made.

You try to play this game all the time. You ask a question out of the blue and then start making accusations of "dodg[ing]" and that your "point is made". It's nonsense. I'm not playing.

If you have a point to make, then just plainly state it.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Why is it that when a Christian engages in reasoned, thoughtful and constrained comversation, people in opposition trot out some petty passive pejorative, in this case, the dreaded "pseudo-intellectual."
As though the person attempting to affix the label is completely ignorant of the voluminous scholarship which has been accumulated on the topics discuss ...[text shortened]... hey themselves pretentious and without any solid scholarship to support their charges.

Weird.

All the major religions have "voluminous scholarship which has been accumulated".

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Slavery is wrong. Slavery has always been wrong. Slavery will always be wrong.

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. 46 ...[text shortened]... doning chattel slavery by the Jews was wrong since it is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus?

This is a misconception of how slavery functioned and how it is "supposed to" function or some such.

Earlier in this thread, much earlier in fact, someone had brought up the fact that the average peasant had about as much rights as a slave. Indeed, I was just reading Cheikh Anta Diop's book about premodern West Africa and he talked about how slaves there had pretty much identical rights to the average European serf and perhaps even better living conditions.

Whether one was a slave or one was a peasant, it would simply involve serving a different set of masters who likely exercised a very similar amount of control over you.

But IDK. And I do not think that anyone knows for sure. This is an area that scholars debate.

Originally posted by @fmf
All the major religions have "voluminous scholarship which has been accumulated".

True.
But we're not speaking to all of them, as none can withstand much scrutiny before hazing into low resolution depiction of both the eminent and the emergent personality.
The transcendent which does not require broadcast by any artificial means, is most clearly obscured within the Scripture.
What commentary we receive from there is literal manna from heaven, for heaven.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
True.
But we're not speaking to all of them, as none can withstand much scrutiny before hazing into low resolution depiction of both the eminent and the emergent personality.
The transcendent which does not require broadcast by any artificial means, is most clearly obscured within the Scripture.
What commentary we receive from there is literal manna from heaven, for heaven.

SecondSon asserted that the reasons for me having different beliefs from him are "pseudo-intellectual". I don't think they are.

Originally posted by @fmf
SecondSon asserted that the reasons for me having different beliefs from him are "pseudo-intellectual". I don't think they are.

From my read, it sounded as though he was calling your patronizing characterization of Christianity (as "superstitious" ) pseudo-intellectualism (which it is), not that pseudo-intellectualism as practiced by you was keeping you from accepting the truths of the Bible.
Your dismissive tone and perjoratives are what lead to the dismissal of civil discourse.
If I were to guess.

The reason calling these ancient beliefs superstition is wrong is not on account of veneration for tradition, but rather because such castigation stands against all of reality.
The person who dismisses them as anything other than what they are, i.e., the clearest insight we have to the human condition and, better, the solution for the same, is a person either blinded by ignorance, arrogance or both.
Those are folks best not associating with too closely or for too long of time: those who deny reality have a way of harshing everyone's mellow.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Your dismissive tone and perjoratives are what lead to the dismissal of civil discourse.

Oh, the irony.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
The reason calling these ancient beliefs superstition is wrong is not on account of veneration for tradition, but rather because such castigation stands against all of reality.
The person who dismisses them as anything other than what they are, i.e., the clearest insight we have to the human condition and, better, the solution for the same, is a person either blinded by ignorance, arrogance or both.

I am supposedly blinded, ignorant, arrogant, against all of reality etc. OK, I understand where you're come from. Thanks.

Originally posted by @fmf
I am supposedly blinded, ignorant, arrogant, against all of reality etc. OK, I understand where you're come from. Thanks.

How else does someone dismiss the Bible like you do in the face of such demonstrable proofs of its relevance throughout history, including now?

Originally posted by @fmf
Oh, the irony.

Things change; so do people.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
How else does someone dismiss the Bible like you do in the face of such demonstrable proofs of its relevance throughout history, including now?

I have never once in all my life ~ and certainly never here on this forum ~ dismissed the "relevance throughout history" of the Bible. You've got me mixed up with someone else perhaps.

Originally posted by @philokalia
This is a misconception of how slavery functioned and how it is "supposed to" function or some such.

Earlier in this thread, much earlier in fact, someone had brought up the fact that the average peasant had about as much rights as a slave. Indeed, I was just reading Cheikh Anta Diop's book about premodern West Africa and he talked about how slaves t ...[text shortened]...

But IDK. And I do not think that anyone knows for sure. This is an area that scholars debate.

This is a misconception of how slavery functioned and how it is "supposed to" function or some such.

What part(s) of my post did you have in mind when you wrote this?

Originally posted by @fmf
I am supposedly blinded, ignorant, arrogant, against all of reality etc. OK, I understand where you're come from. Thanks.

You shouldn't be disrespectful.

It makes me wonder if you never say anything mean to anyone's faces and you just take out all this passive aggression here at a rate of like 40-50 posts a day.

What I am trying to do is to calm myself in between posts and hopefully my content will actually contribute to a better forum.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]This is a misconception of how slavery functioned and how it is "supposed to" function or some such.

What part(s) of my post did you have in mind when you wrote this?[/b]

This:

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?

It seems to be that you want to deny the legitimacy of that portion fo the Bible and deny that God ever had these plans for the Israelites.

Originally posted by @philokalia
You shouldn't be disrespectful.

It makes me wonder if you never say anything mean to anyone's faces and you just take out all this passive aggression here at a rate of like 40-50 posts a day.

What I am trying to do is to calm myself in between posts and hopefully my content will actually contribute to a better forum.

Thanks for your suggestion. If you need to calm yourself between posts, like you say, then you do that. There is nothing wrong with you wanting to contribute to a better forum.