21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @fmfWhere is Becker now that someone has admitted a belief in a moral absolute.... 😛
In the developing country in which I live, some people - in light of the reality around them - choose to traffic in sex slaves. I don't care what economic difficulties these slave traders face or what mitigating benefits they gain - or whatever Machiavellian excuses you might seek to make on their behalf - or whatever "lesser of two evils" cliches that might be ...[text shortened]... your 'new far right' dearth of moral principle, slavery is moral depravity. It always has been.
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemIt's merely my subjective opinion of course and one of the moral principles that guides me in my interactions with others and in my perception of their behaviour. It clearly has not been seen as a moral absolute by those who have profited from slavery ~ and justified it on economic grounds ~ down through the ages, including Christians. Where is dj2ecker now that a fellow Christian seems to have admitted to a belief that seems starkly different from his regarding morality being objective and unchanging because it is based on the Bible? 🙂
Where is Becker now that someone has admitted a belief in a moral absolute.... 😛
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @romans1009Philokalia's frequent snooty references to the intelligence of people he disagrees with are not interesting.
Could there be a duller response?
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneWhy do you think that Christ did not publically call for an end to slavery as an institution within his society?
The Bible can't be reasonably be portrayed as being "against slavery", a "repudiation of slavery", etc. when it depicts God as unambiguously condoning chattel slavery. From what I gather slave owners in the antebellum South used the Bible in justifying slavery.
People like you disingenuously try to spin the Bible into something it's not.
Also, si ...[text shortened]... hread besides your false dichotomy which amounts to little more than a juvenile rationalization?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonship'Perhaps we'll get to' the question I asked you first, after I answer your secondary question that ignores entirely my primary question?
Perhaps we'll get to that. But first you "tackle" this.
"That's all well and good" means to me that the two systems - Israel's and that of the Atlantic Slave Trade were not the same.
Do you think if notices like this were posted all over the Southern States in the US during the slavery centuries the slave trade would have flourished?
The point of th ...[text shortened]... d make provision for slaves fleeing their masters, supposedly for over oppressive circumstances?
If you can't 'tackle' the verse I quoted, just say so.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Mar 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI did, for the second time (it was addressed on another thread beforehand).
'Perhaps we'll get to' the question I asked you first, after I answer your secondary question that ignores entirely my primary question?
If you can't 'tackle' the verse I quoted, just say so.
Look above.
https://www.chessatwork.com/board/alertmoderator.php?postid=3860505&threadid=176339&page=%204
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaSigh. Where to begin:
Lol, if you're an idiot and don't understand history in the least, that follows.
If you have any appreciation and realistic understanding of the human condition condition... You'll see through that.
I can't believe you and Marauder have like these advanced degrees and are professionals in American society but are like basically edgy teenagers when it comes to understanding history, lol.
I always have to repress a chortle in the office.
1. You say 'lol' way too much. ((Twice in that post alone). Seek help.
2. I'm not in 'American society.' (Perhaps a cursory check would have been polite).
3. List recap - Less 'Laughing out Loud' and more factual politeness.
4. Clearly my post was tongue in cheek. Perhaps my dry English sense of humour would have been identified by you had you not assumed I was American. (Or been distracted by your expressive laughter and office chortling).
5. In another thread you asked me directly about my degree. I answered, and then you ignored my reply. Clearly that was not a sincere question by yourself and your intent was just to use my degree against me later with the juvenile put down 'I can't believe you have a degree, but are...Blah blah."
6. I am 100 per cent certain I have a better grasp and study of history and theology than yourself and yet do not implode in a fit of insincerity and excessive laughter.
Again, seek help.
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaAnd what exactly is the 'morality' situation among people "living in a developing country" like the one I live in? Pray tell.
These are just the realities that we face.
None of these are "moral choices."
Nobody chose that poverty and want and despair exist.
It's just that we make choices in light of the reality around us.
You are a man living in a developing country.
Why are you so dull when it comes to these topics?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Mar 18
8 edits
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeOkay, I replied. With your astute insight could you tell me why God ordained the death penalty for "the evil" of kidnapping?
'Perhaps we'll get to' the question I asked you first, after I answer your secondary question that ignores entirely my primary question?
If you can't 'tackle' the verse I quoted, just say so.
How can you force people into slavery without violent kidnapping? Consult the Atlantic Slave Trade and modern Slavery and Sex Trafficking.
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)
"If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, that thief shall die; so you shall purge THE EVIL from among you." (Deut. 24:7)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Mar 18
4 edits
Note that in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul reminds that kidnapping in general (disregarding done by or to Jew or Gentile) is contrary to the healthy teaching.
Only relevant words bolded:
"And know this, that the law is not enacted for a righteous man but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane,
for those who strike their fathers and those who strike their mothers, for murderers, for fornicators, homosexuals, KIDNAPPERS, liars, perjurers, and whatever other thing that is opposed to the healthy teaching,
According to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, with which I was entrusted." (1 Timothy 1:9-11)
Doesn't then the Christian Gospel teach that kidnapping (to secure slaves or for other reasons) is ...
"lawless, unruly, ungodly, unholy, profane," and done by "sinners," and is opposed to the "healthy teaching" of the "gospel of the glory of the blessed God" that Paul was ordained to preach ?
Ghost? Thoughts?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonshipMy thoughts linger on, "...but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.' (Exodus 21:20)
Note that in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul reminds that kidnapping in general (disregarding done by or to Jew or Gentile) is contrary to the healthy teaching.
Only relevant words bolded:
[quote] "And know this, that the law is not enacted for a righteous man but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, ...[text shortened]... pel of the glory of the blessed God" that Paul was ordained to preach ?
Ghost? Thoughts?[/b]
If the slave is 'their property' how can it be claimed that God is against kidnap into slavery?
Think man.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeMaybe because “slavery” is more akin to indentured servitude where the “slave,” unable to pay off a debt, agrees to be an unpaid servant of the person to whom the debt is owed. No “kidnapping” takes place.
My thoughts linger on, "...but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.' (Exodus 21:20)
If the slave is 'their property' how can it be claimed that God is against kidnap into slavery?
Think man.
Unless I’m mistaken, the KJV uses the term “servant,” not slave.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @romans1009I'll respond, but drop you like a stone sir if any of your nonsense arises.
Maybe because “slavery” is more akin to indentured servitude where the “slave,” unable to pay off a debt, agrees to be an unpaid servant of the person to whom the debt is owed. No “kidnapping” takes place.
Unless I’m mistaken, the KJV uses the term “servant,” not slave.
If you replace 'slave' with 'unpaid servant' in the following passage, are you saying it then becomes acceptable to you as a Christian?
'Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.' (Exodus 21:20)