Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I'm not sure if my OP fails because of that. The law still exists, and where applied would put an end to the slavery we all know. What you are questioning isn't the verse itself or the OP but whether the law was actually observed, or if there were loopholes, or if it contradicted some other verse.
I can agree that if Jewish people are going around buying kidnaped people from the surrounding nations as a loophole, that it would clearly be very hypocritical. But its precisely because such behavior would be hypocrisy, that I doubt it was lawful. Scripture speaks negatively about hypocrisy. Moreover, if you apply what you are saying to every other law, you end up with a very strange system. Israel can't murder, but can they pay the Canaanites to murder for them? To steal for them? To blaspheme God for them? It wouldn't make sense to have a people believe their God prohibited something, but allowed it as long as someone else did it.
Again I feel as if you have missed my point... and from how you answered I guess I have to say... I do not believe god actually spoke to Moses, I do not believe god exists, what I am saying is there is a direct conflict to your OP! If no one other than the Hebrews, gods chosen people know this law ( you have to realize I am granting you for this argument only, that the law is universal) than how can other tribes be held accountable for stealing people and selling them as slaves? These rules were written down in exodus long after the "stones were carved" also this is ignoring the fact that the stones where this verse was supposedly written on were broken! The new stones held much different commandments, which people today ignore (you included). So my point is not that of a loophole because that implies intent to deceive, but a flaw in your argument.
The verse you quoted in your OP in no way stops slavery or the driving factor for slavery, your last quote from the Bible did nothing as well to defend. Before you open the third part of this series please actually address these issues, not doing so would imply that you are purposely avoiding truth in order to keep your arguments valid (at least in your eyes) and this to me is dishonest. I feel like you are ignoring these basic arguments... at least point me to where god speaks to all people and not just his chosen few!! I mean what about the natives in Australia? How would they hear gods word? These are background arguments that defeat your premise even before you begin, the biggest problem I see with how you frame your OP is you say at the end you will have picked every cherry off the tree yet I see you cutting off branches of the tree so you can ignore those cherries!! Please come back with evidence that can support your assertion that this law is universal and stops slavery.
Side note also if all the laws god speaks or allows in his holy book are universal, then outsiders could buy permanent Hebrew slaves as well, remember to them Hebrews would be the heathens to them.
Right, but it just doesn't make sense why you want the verse in the OP to stop slavery all over the world, or why you want it to be spoken to all people. My OP only cares about the Biblical world, and whatever the Biblical world touches.
You said so yourself: "these are background arguments that defeat your premise even before you begin." Why would I spend time addressing background arguments? You might as well tell me to prove God exists, and if I don't then my OP is invalid.
John we would be having an entire different argument if you didn't frame your OP the way you did... you said your law was universal now you say it's only biblical. This is why I have an issue with your OP, if you want to rephrase your OP to say this verse only applied to the few Hebrews that heard it then fine, but you also then have to face the issue that the Bible says you can buy permanent slaves from the heathens around you... the Bible does an excellent job of only addressing gods chosen people while looking at outside tribes as heathens that are less than. I mean I live in America and I would be a heathen. So under gods law told through Moses my son could be sold as a slave for life and according to you that would be moral! I'm extremely curious what you have for part three because you have done a very poor job defending parts one and two. Some might even say this isn't your battle to win. Slavery in the Bible is well known among non believers, yet with believers very few know!
No sir, I explained the difference very clearly. You jump from saying the law is about Hebrew Slaves, to saying the law was spoken to the Hebrews. The latter is irrelevant, and the former is incorrect. I don't need to rephrase the OP since it already doesn't say the law is universal the way you are suggesting here.
Back when you were saying the law was about Hebrew Slaves only, I told you it uses the word "man" as the object which can't be kidnapped. It is universal because it applies to every race, age, and gender.
"I told you it uses the word "man" as the object which can't be kidnapped. It is universal because it applies to every race, age, and gender."
So if as your OP claims this means no one can be enslaved because that would break the law on kidnap, can you explain why the bible endorses slavery quite specifically in exodus, and claims Jesus endorsed it as well?
Yes, in the next thread as I've said about ten times now. I know reading is hard, so I don't mind repeating it so many times to help you out.
It must be hard as each time you make this absurd attempt to dishonestly deflect my questions I repeat your BS isn;t going to fly.
So once again...
>>Can you explain why this "deadly blow to the slave trade" didn't stop the Hebrews buying and owning slaves, and why the bible endorses it, and why Jesus endorsed slavery by claiming slaves should obey their masters?
Your dishonesty is just confirming you have no reasonable answer. Your attempt to bluff is risible, or do you think I've not read your other "exchanges" on here. Do you really think anyone will believe it needs a separate thread to address the single claim you have made in your OP being roundly and thoroughly refuted by the same biblical narrative you're cherry picking to make the claim in your OP? No one's that deluded, surely?
God is talking to Hebrews about Hebrew laws, the laws reguarding slavery in exodus relate to slaves that Hebrews own. You say scripture prohibits the driving force for slavery, IF THIS ONLY APPLIES TO HEBREWS THEN NO SCRIPTURE PROHIBITS HEBREWS FROM BUYING OTHER HUMANS THAT HAVE BEEN STOLEN, they are allowed to buy slaves from the heathens around them.... god doesn't want his chosen people to be harmed, yet he doesn't care if others die, are slaves, get murdered! If god only speaks to his chosen people than he is an ineffective leader! Please add part three so you can destroy Sheldon and myself with your awesome apologetic defense!!!
You do understand I am Christian correct? Doesn't that obviously mean I follow the very God you claim wants me murdered and enslaved? Contrary to what you are saying, Christians are gentiles that worship the God of the Jews, because the God of Jews died for us.
Now, let me just break down a few points again. I want to make sure you agree with.
1. Kidnapping and selling people was one of the main engines of the slave trade.
2. If kidnapping and selling people is prohibited, then that would have dealt a deadly blow to the slave trade.
3. The Bible prohibits the kidnapping and selling of people.
Don't complicate yourself. Just tell me if you agree, and if not, then why.
Oh my I'm sorry I had no clue you were Christian...
Wow I'm glad we cleared that mess up, nice way to avoid everything I have said against your premise!
Let's play your game...
1) kidnapping and selling people was one of the main engines of slavery...
Not true actually most Africans were conquered by neighboring tribes and taken as prisoners, then they were sold into slavery. Please point me to the verse that says you shall not sell another human? I didn't see this in your OP! Maybe you just forgot to add it in.
2) deadly blow... ummm no I do not see where it says to not sell people, if a neighboring tribe decides to sell me a slave the Bible actually tells me it is ok to buy them.
3) the Bible prohibits kidnapping and selling...
Umm no it allows humans to be sold, and I would also disagree with your idea of kidnapping, has god not commanded for his chosen people to kill the neighboring tribe and TAKE ALL VIRGINS??? Hmmm
Like I said please move on to part three I am getting board repeating myself over and over and over...
1. So its not true that kidnapping was one of the main engines of slavery... because there are other ways of enslaving? Surely you can see how that doesn't affect the statement.
2. I don't know what you're talking about. This point doesn't even mention the Bible. I told you not to complicate yourself. The correct answer is yes. Just look at sex slavery, if kidnapping and selling could be prevented, that would give a deadly blow to the whole industry.
3. I don't care what it allows. I asked you what it prohibits. Again, the correct answer is yes, it prohibits kidnapping and selling. Now why did you say kidnapping isn't one of the main engines of slavery in point 1, but then described a scenario of conquering and taking prisoners, which in point 3 you equate to kidnapping?
You asked me if I agreed or not, I do not agree with you! I have you my quick responses if you want more detail just ask ;) now I don't see where you gave counter arguments all you did was say the correct answer is yes. Like I said please move on to part 3
" My OP only cares about the Biblical world, and whatever the Biblical world touches."
Except your OP implies that the laws in Exodus prohibiting kidnap by extension prohibit slavery, and we know this isn't true, as the same laws in Exodus explicitly endorse buying, owning and beating slaves, even to death as long as they survive for a couple of days.
Sadly you are shamelessly ignoring this fact, so an honest discourse isn't possible. I'll keep pointing it out however.
My OP presents a quote by King Alfonso, in which he denounces the kidnapping and selling of his people. It is no secret that kidnapping and selling fueled the slave trade. It is ignorance on your part to think prohibiting kidnapping and selling, wouldn't have dealt a deadly blow to the slave trade.
Scripture prohibits such acts. So we are left with two options, either the Bible contradicts itself by endorsing and prohibiting slavery. Or as we will see in the next thread, the only contradiction are your claims about the Bible.
" It is ignorance on your part to think prohibiting kidnapping and selling, wouldn't have dealt a deadly blow to the slave trade."
>>Where have I claimed that?
>>Can you explain why this "deadly blow to the slave trade" didn't stop the Hebrews buying and owning slaves, and why the bible endorses it, and why Jesus endorsed slavery by claiming slaves should obey their masters?
>>That doesn't sound like the law on kidnap "dealt a deadly blow to slavery" does it?
-----------------------------
"Scripture prohibits such acts."
>>What acts? Kidnap? So what, it still specifically endorses slavery in direct contradiction of your claim in your OP, and now here.
---------------------------------
"So we are left with two options, either the Bible contradicts itself by endorsing and prohibiting slavery."
>>The bible doesn't prohibit slavery, that's just an unevidenced assertion you keep making that is contradicted by the fact the bible quite specifically endorses slavery, and so does Jesus in the NT.
-----------------------------------
"Or as we will see in the next thread, the only contradiction are your claims about the Bible."
>>I've made no claims about the bible, only quoted the texts that specifically endorse slavery as you are dishonestly ignoring them. There is of course another option, the Hebrew laws on Kidnap didn't apply to non-Hebrews and so they didn't view enslaving them as a breaking that law. Either way the bible fully and specifically endorses slavery, and ignoring this is simply dishonest.
Any chance you'll answer my questions now?
I'm pretty sure the answer is....
I WILL ANSWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS IN MY NEXT PART!!! Stay tuned!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yet I'm sure not one hard question will be answered, only avoided
John 6IX Breezy "If you post whatever you think is salient, don't complain when I ignore it if I think otherwise."
>>There you go again telling other people what they can say, I'll complain and point out your rank dishonesty and hypocrisy if and when I think it's apropos. GET OVER IT...
John 6IX Breezy "This is great by the way. So you think the laws didn't apply to slaves. Then what exactly does kidnapping and selling ppl apply to? What are ppl being sold to? The circus?"
Are you being this obtuse deliberately, or are you simply being dishonest to avoid what is axiomatically true? OK I'll dumb it down with bullet points for you:
1 YOU claimed the laws in Exodus prohibiting kidnap would prohibited slavery.
2. The same laws in Exodus specifically endorse the slavery you claim would not have been allowed.
Do you see how your claim is moronic?
PS How I feel about any of it has no relevance to these facts.
Feel free to dishonestly ignore this, your dishonesty as always will just bead up and roll right off as I persist in showing the stupidity of your claim, and your dishonesty in selectively ignoring the facts you don't like.
-----------------------------------------
John 6IX Breezy "... exodus was god talking with Moses to establish laws for Hebrews? That's it? Great, I agree. One of those laws says you cannot kidnap people and sell them. Again, don't kidnap, don't sell them."
So you've finally spotted the law of kidnap ONLY applied to Hebrews, so they could kidnap and enslave whomever they wanted from other tribes. Then we're done and your absurd denial that the bible doesn't endorse slavery is over.
Now, do you think the biblical endorsement of slavery was / is moral?
Breezy "In contrast, Scripture prohibits the very engine that drives slavery."
Once again since you're ignoring it, this isn't true. Since the bible endorses slavery quite emphatically, and in the same laws that prohibit kidnap. If the law on kidnap prevented slavery then WHY WERE THERE SLAVES AND WHY DID THE SAME BIBLICAL LAWS IN THE SAME PART OF BIBLE ENDORSE SLAVERY?
This isn't going away Breezy...You might also want to address why the bible claims Jesus told slaves to obey their masters, if the bible prohibits slavery?
Take your time...
You'll see in the next thread why. I'm literally trying to help you out. I'm playing chess here, and you don't seem to notice. I have each step planned out ahead of time. When I tell you to focus on the OP, its because if you don't, its going to haunt you later on. You keep thinking I'm dishonest and that I'm cherry-picking, you're not seeing the big picture, and when you finally do you're gonna want to come back address the points you weren't addressing before.
From my perspective, you seem to displace arguments a lot. If I claim X you want to prove Y wrong, because you think that by proving Y wrong, you've proven X wrong by proxy. You're that lawyer in court, that when the defendant is charged with rape, you bring up the fact that's he's murdered and stolen in the past as evidence that he's a rapist.
Why else would you bring up Jesus telling slaves to obey their masters, on a thread about kidnapping and stealing people? Because you think one thing disproves the other. Why else would you argue that the Bible condones slavery, and think that matters at all to the OP? Can't you see that by asking me why the Bible endorses slavery in another part, you shift the conversation from the OP to that verse? It means you completely ignore the OP. You don't seem to see this.
Put it this way. Suppose I were to agree with you. The Bible condones slavery. In fact, lets pretend the Bible says we can't go to Heaven unless we own ten slaves minimum, and they all have to be the purest black. Great. How does that affect the verse in question? How does a contradiction matter to our understanding of the verse?
Breezy "Why else would you bring up Jesus telling slaves to obey their masters, on a thread about kidnapping and stealing people?"
>>Could it be because you mentioned slavery 3 times in your opening post? Let me refresh your memory...
"If **slavery** is a fire, kidnapping is the coal that fueled it."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Breezy " Why else would you argue that the Bible condones slavery, and think that matters at all to the OP? "
>>Ahem, again this is from your opening verbiage, quoted verbatim "In contrast, Scripture prohibits the very engine that drives slavery." If you didn't want to discuss slavery then mentioning slavery three times in your opening post is bizarre. Though not as bizarre as basing your OP on the premise that you think slavery is prohibited in the bible, then sulking every time someone points out the bible very specifically endorses it, and in the same narrative you claim prohibits it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Breezy "Can't you see that by asking me why the Bible endorses slavery in another part, you shift the conversation from the OP to that verse?"
>>Since you mentioned slavery three times in your opening post, and the entire point of your OP is that the biblical prohibition of kidnap implies the bible also prohibits slavery, then no, I really can't fathom why you think it valid to repeatedly make this absurd objection every time someone points out that the bible endorses slavery repeatedly, even Jesus endorsed it.
_______________________________
Breezy "Put it this way. Suppose I were to agree with you. The Bible condones slavery."
>>Suppose? Are you seriously even implying it doesn't? This why your posts are derided on here Breezy, if you can be that dishonest then no one can take anything you say seriously.
----------------------------------------------------------
Breezy "How does that affect the verse in question? How does a contradiction matter to our understanding of the verse?"
>>Obviously because cited that verse and then you claimed in your opening post that "Scripture prohibits the very engine that drives slavery."
>>Are you are seriously claiming to not understand why verses in the same narrative in the bible specifically endorsing slavery, are relevant to that?
You must be kidding, right?
Right, but isn't it clear that the topic of this thread is something very specific? Its not about slavery in general. That's like me saying I don't think birds lay eggs, and instead of addressing that statement, you start talking to about all the other things birds do, for no other reason than because I mentioned bird in the sentence. I don't care if birds eat seeds, or have beaks, I care if they lay eggs. That's it.
Breezy "The law on kidnap and selling didn't apply only to kidnapping Hebrews, if it did it would have said so as it does in other places. The verse does not allow them to kidnap another human being."
>>So again I repeat, "If the law on kidnap prevented slavery then WHY WERE THERE SLAVES AND WHY DID THE SAME BIBLICAL LAWS IN THE SAME PART OF BIBLE SPECIFICALLY ENDORSE SLAVERY? You might also want to address why the bible claims Jesus told slaves to obey their masters, if the bible prohibits slavery?"
John 6IX Breezy "Right, but isn't it clear that the topic of this thread is something very specific? Its not about slavery in general.
>>Is that why you entitled it SLAVERY? Give over ffs...
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'm ignoring your vapid irrelevant verbiage about birds and eggs, ffs do you hear yourself?
Now, since you've failed to answer my questions yet again, even though they're directly salient to your claim that the biblical prohibition of kidnap implies it also prohibits slavery, so I'll post them again...
>>So again I repeat, "If the law on kidnap prevented slavery then WHY WERE THERE SLAVES AND WHY DID THE SAME BIBLICAL LAWS IN THE SAME PART OF BIBLE SPECIFICALLY ENDORSE SLAVERY? You might also want to address why the bible claims Jesus told slaves to obey their masters, if the bible prohibits slavery?"
Now before you try the same tired old BS here are the quotes from your initial post on SLAVERY.
Breezy "If slavery is a fire, kidnapping is the coal that fueled it."
Breezy "modern day sex trafficking and slavery hinges greatly on kidnapping: "
Breezy "Scripture prohibits the very engine that drives slavery. "
So please stop pretending this thread of yours entitled SLAVERY is not about slavery, it's beyond tedious.
Hilarious, so you just read the title and based your comments off that? The title isn't SLAVERY. It's SLAVERY pt. 2 The "part 2" isn't there for decoration. Its there to let you know the thread is about something specific, and part of a larger continuum.
I told you your question will begin to be answered in the next thread. When you say "IF" the kidnapping prevented slavery, THEN WHY does the Bible endorse it, you are doing two things. You're shifting the conversation, and you're also turning my OP into a hypothetical,
I don't want you turn the OP into a hypothetical, I want you to address it. Do you agree, or do you not? You keep saying you disagree, because you think the laws don't apply to slaves. I told you before to focus on that. Even though I personally think its incoherent, it at least addressed the OP head on.
You implied the bible prohibits slavery, here is the quote from your first post:
Breezy "Scripture prohibits the very engine that drives slavery. "
"If the law on kidnap prevented slavery then WHY WERE THERE SLAVES AND WHY DID THE SAME BIBLICAL LAWS IN THE SAME PART OF BIBLE SPECIFICALLY ENDORSE SLAVERY? You might also want to address why the bible claims Jesus told slaves to obey their masters, if the bible prohibits slavery?"
And what did I claim was that engine, which Scripture prohibits? Was it not kidnapping and selling people? I didn't make that up, the verse is there. Is your only objection that you think it contradicts other verses, or do you have something else?
I'm trying so hard to help you here. Once I move to the next thread I am not reopening this conversation again. It will on record that you didn't present any objections, just as you didn't present any objections to the previous thread, and merely attacked slavery in general.
Breezy "I didn't make that up, the verse is there. "
>>The verses that endorse slavery quite specifically are there as well.
You implied the bible prohibits slavery, here is the quote from your first post:
Breezy "Scripture prohibits the very engine that drives slavery. "
------------------------------------------------
>>So perhaps you can explain in light of your claim in your first post...
"If the law on kidnap prevented slavery as you have implied, then why did the same biblical narrative endorse slavery, the verse is there after all, it is real? You might also want to address why the bible claims Jesus told slaves to obey their masters, if the bible prohibits slavery?"
Off you go, you've dodged this long enough now and look sillier each time you ignore it. No more lying about me making claims when all I am doing is asking you a question.
Very well, don't say I didn't warn you.
"Very well, don't say I didn't warn you."
So you admit you have no answer, and that your claim the bible prohibits slavery by prohibiting kidnap is quite demonstrably false, since it is contradicted by the same biblical narrative you're trying to claim prohibits slavery, as it in fact quite specifically endorsing slavery?
We all knew this of course. I'm sure your next thread will be much better, sigh.
Pages