- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 9/2/26 at 4:59 pm to Azkiger
quote:Do you mean, did God have that as a possibility in His mind? Sure. He knows all things.quote:Did God?
Again, they didn't have the framework for long-term employment like we do today.
The real issue is how He works within time and cultures through progressive revelation. God was aware that electricity and the assembly line would eventually come about a few thousand years later, but it wasn't His plan to reveal that earlier to develop Israel into an industrial power house.
This post was edited on 9/2/26 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:04 pm to Boom33
quote:God uses men to accomplishes His ends, yes. He's still sovereign over all things, even if men are responsible for their actions.
It's just not of God, it's what society and men had decided at the time. You just can't admit such things because you think it diminishes your golden ticket.
quote:I'm glad you don't, either. I'm not sure you would be able to do anything but share your feelings on it
I'm glad I don't need to defend such bullshite.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:06 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
God uses men to accomplishes His ends, yes. He's still sovereign over all things, even if men are responsible for their actions.
This world belongs to Satan.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:32 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The real is is how He works within time and cultures through progressive revelation. God was aware that electricity and the assembly line would eventually come about a few thousand years later, but it wasn't His plan to reveal that earlier to develop Israel into an industrial power house.
The options aren't slavery or the industrial revolution.
God could have said "slavery bad, just pay them for hours worked".
But, who am I to argue. That's objective morality. It actually is moral for me to own people as property and beat them so long as I don't damage an eye, knock out a tooth, and they're able to walk after a day or two.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:33 pm to Boom33
quote:
Good luck guy.
What a clown.Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:33 pm to Boom33
quote:Jesus is ruling and reigning right now at the right hand of the Father. Jesus said all authority in heaven and on earth belongs to Him.
This world belongs to Satan.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:40 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Jesus is ruling and reigning right now at the right hand of the Father. Jesus said all authority in heaven and on earth belongs to Him.
If I put an ant farm in my room, I reign over everything, but the queen is the still the ruler of the ant farm.
So try another excuse, Satan is the ruler of this world.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:55 pm to Azkiger
quote:Correct. I was giving an illustration of how God's knowledge of how society can develop over time does not obligate Him to enforce those standards in history.
The options aren't slavery or the industrial revolution.
quote:He could have, just like He could have said "divorce bad, just stay together", but allowed for divorce. He's dealing with sinners, after all.
God could have said "slavery bad, just pay them for hours worked".
However, He did give rules to govern man's wickedness, particularly at the extremes. It's why He allows for nuance between disciplining servants based on circumstances while not allowing masters to do what they want with them, as if they were animals.
Parents are allowed to punish children, too, and even with a rod to inflict pain, but it's not sinful to be a parent, nor is it sinful to use force to discipline children. It's sinful to beat your children to death, or even to beat them that causes permanent physical damage. That doesn't mean that being a parent is sinful and even using physical violence (like spanking) is immoral because some abuse their children.
quote:You're an atheist who hates God. You need to turn from your sin and trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins.
But, who am I to argue.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:56 pm to Boom33
quote:Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords. Satan is not greater than Jesus.
If I put an ant farm in my room, I reign over everything, but the queen is the still the ruler of the ant farm.
So try another excuse, Satan is the ruler of this world.
As I said, Jesus said that all authority was given to Him in heaven and on earth. He didn't make Satan the exception.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 5:58 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
He could have
But he couldn't have said rape good, do more rape.
So this tells us owning people as property and beating them ISN'T immoral.
Now, what were you saying about chattel slavery again?
quote:
You're an atheist who hates God.
I hate people who drown children, actually.
This post was edited on 9/2/26 at 6:01 pm
Posted on 9/2/26 at 6:21 pm to Azkiger
quote:Nope. Rape is an attack on the divine image. It's a violation of the 6th and 7th commandments.
But he couldn't have said rape good, do more rape.
quote:Owning them as legal property is not immoral, but treating them as property without inherent human dignity and worth is immoral. At the end of the day, if I "own" a person legally but give them freedom to do what they want whenever they want, giving them trust, and even love as a family member, but all that is retained is a legal status, how is that immoral? Is it the legal status of itself--that you are not your own--that is the problem? Because from a Christian perspective, marriage is legally binding yourself to another person, where you are not your own any longer.
So this tells us owning people as property and beating them ISN'T immoral.
quote:I initially said this:
Now, what were you saying about chattel slavery again?
"You need to explain why majority opinion creates a moral obligation to go along with the majority, rather than the minority. For most of history, chattel slavery was (and still is, in some societies) considered morally permissible if not morally noble. To say that we've evolved past that is to say that there is some objective standard out there that states that chattel slavery is morally wrong, since you have to have a standard in order to compare an action against to say it's "good" or "bad"."
You want to jump back into the discussion about objective morality?
quote:You are free to have opinions and make judgments based on your emotions if that’s what you want to do, but as the discussion about moral objectivity shows, it’s all you’ve got: morality is whatever you want it to be based on your arbitrary preferences. It certainly isn’t based on objective standards pertaining to justice.
I hate people who drown children, actually.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 8:14 am
Posted on 9/2/26 at 6:26 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
At the end of the day, if I "own" a person legally but give them freedom to do what they want whenever they want, giving them trust, and even love as a family member, but all that is retained is a legal status, how is that immoral?
Yeah, this is exactly how it was when God/the law gave you the right to beat the hell out of them.
quote:
For most of history, chattel slavery was (and still is, in some societies) considered morally permissible if not morally noble.
And your God was a large part of that history.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 6:29 pm to Azkiger
quote:
The topic was theoretical astrophysics
I didn’t know that. I jumped in on your comment about infinite regress and the concept of God being logically absurd. I didn’t read any of your prior conversation about theoretical astrophysics in this thread about conservative values and religion
I am most certainly not going to argue theoretical astrophysics with you. Posted on 9/3/26 at 12:03 am to Azkiger
quote:Parents have the right to use physical pain to discipline their children, yet parents have no "right' by God to abuse them out of anger. Same thing applied to masters in Israel.
Yeah, this is exactly how it was when God/the law gave you the right to beat the hell out of them.
It's absolutely bizarre that you think that having no crime against inflicting pain for disobedient children or servants means that it was morally OK to beat them up whenever the desire to do so came about. Leviticus 19:17-18 stipulates that a person shall not hate their brother (neighbor) or take vengeance out on them, but to love them as themselves (Jesus would later quote that). That means that it was still immoral to beat up a servant, even if there were no civil discourse (ETA -I meant civil recourse) for it.
quote:God being sovereign over evil does not mean He participates in it. Humans are responsible for evil, just as you are responsible for your wicked rejection of your Creator.
And your God was a large part of that history.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 10:46 am
Posted on 9/3/26 at 9:19 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Parents have the right to use physical pain to discipline their children
And yet the Bible doesn't say that you own your children like property.
You're being intentionally obtuse.
quote:
That means that it was still immoral to beat up a servant, even if there were no civil discourse for it.
No it doesn't. Thats an extrapolation.
"The Bible says love your neighbors."
"Didn't The Hebrews commit genocide against their neighbors?"
"Killing children can be justified because I said the magic word, "God", therefore there is no contradiction."
Your argument here might have more strength if the Bible was internally consistent.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 10:44 am to Azkiger
quote:It depends on how you look at it, I suppose. While the Bible doesn't use the word "property" in relation to children, parents had full control over them. They could even sell them into temporary service to pay debts, or to be married. They could use violence to correct them (spanking with a rod), and they were included in the religious institutions and practices (circumcision, temple worship, religious feasts, etc.) according to the head of the household's direction rather than their own convictions.
And yet the Bible doesn't say that you own your children like property.
You're being intentionally obtuse.
It's kinda funny, actually: you are happy to pretend that ancient Hebrew slavery and modern chattel slavery were the same thing because it fits your narrative, but now you're refusing to see the similarities between Hebrew slavery and raising children because it doesn't suit your hatred against biblical Christianity.
quote:That's how Jesus interpreted it. Some say He was a revolutionary, but He was saying that's how it was always supposed to be interpreted.
No it doesn't. Thats an extrapolation.
quote:It is internally consistent. You don't care to understand it and are looking for inconsistencies, so you're going to find them even if they aren't there.
"The Bible says love your neighbors."
"Didn't The Hebrews commit genocide against their neighbors?"
"Killing children can be justified because I said the magic word, "God", therefore there is no contradiction."
Your argument here might have more strength if the Bible was internally consistent.
"Love your neighbor" doesn't mean justice is denied, or self-defense can't exist. It doesn't mean that God can't punish wickedness as a leader goes to war with an entire country, not just the leaders of that country.
What "love your neighbor" means is that as a lay person or common citizen and civilian, you are to obey the 10 commandments towards your neighbor, and you have no moral right to go rogue and take justice into your own hands, or treat someone with hatred or abuse because you feel like it. It means that people are made in the image of God and only He has the authority to determine when life can be taken.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 11:32 am to FooManChoo
quote:
you are happy to pretend that ancient Hebrew slavery and modern chattel slavery were the same thing because it fits your narrative
Nope, I already acknowledged the fact that there were notable differences.
I just pointed out the fact that while not as severe, Hebrew slavery still is chattel slavery (a term you injected into the conversation, not me), and argued that if this was merely long term skilled labor retention, as you asserted, that owning people as property and reserving the right to beat the hell out of them isn't a necessary qualification (meaning youre just flailing your arms around trying to find any justification).
quote:
That's how Jesus interpreted it.
Unless Jesus said that love your neighbor as yourself = yeah you COULD beat your slaves but you shouldn't (which itself is lol... is it objectively moral or not? Make up your mind), then this is again you extrapolating. quote:
"Love your neighbor" doesn't mean justice is denied, or self-defense can't exist. It doesn't mean that God can't punish wickedness as a leader goes to war with an entire country, not just the leaders of that country.
We're talking children POWs, calm down Genghis Khan.
This post was edited on 9/3/26 at 11:37 am
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:25 pm to Azkiger
quote:Hebrew slavery was only "chattel slavery" in the broadest of senses, though, which is why I think it's actually better to describe the typical situation as bond-service rather than straight chattel slavery, except for foreigners, and even then, they had protects not typically afforded to pure "chattel", in principle or in practice.
Nope, I already acknowledged the fact that there were notable differences.
I just pointed out the fact that while not as severe, Hebrew slavery still is chattel slavery (a term you injected into the conversation, not me), and argued that if this was merely long term skilled labor retention, as you asserted, that owning people as property and reserving the right to beat the hell out of them isn't a necessary qualification (meaning youre just flailing your arms around trying to find any justification).
Chattel slavery assumes that the slave is a movable property that has no inherent rights as a person, no permanence or heritability, total disposability, no protection from violence from the owner. The assumption is that the slave really is no different from cattle or farm equipment.
As I've mentioned previously, Hebrew slaves in Israel were regarded as persons made in the image of God with inherent value beyond an asking price; they had to be released after six years unless they voluntarily bound themselves for longer; they could not be disposed of at-will in terms of resale; and they had strong protections from owner violence, being required to be set free if permanently injured or disfigured, and the owner killed if the slave was killed.
The closest case to true chattel slavery as we understand it is for the foreigner who is purchased by an Israelite. The only difference with him compared to the Hebrew slave is that he does have a permanent status as slave and may be inherited by the master's heir. Aside from that, such slaves still had human dignity and rights that must be upheld; could not be killed off if they were not good workers and they could flee and be granted sanctuary status if needed; and they had protection from extreme owner violence that would leave them maimed or killed. So, even the strongest case for chattel slavery still wasn't comparable.
So no, I'm not flailing my arms around trying to find justification. I'm calling out clear differences that you and others don't seem to really care about so long as you an make it look like God basically condoned the American slave trade that we all find immoral.
quote:Jesus' quotation of the OT was saying what was always true: do to others what you would have them do to you. That means no abuse and nothing beyond what is needed for correction. That's the principle, and then the civil law put penalties on going beyond that.
Unless Jesus said that love your neighbor as yourself = yeah you COULD beat your slaves but you shouldn't (which itself is lol... is it objectively moral or not? Make up your mind), then this is again you extrapolating.
You also keep saying "extrapolation". It's application.
quote:Yeah, I know what you're doing. You're trying to frame it as an emotional issue rather than rational one regarding moral justice. It's the same tactic used by those who say abortion is good because of the suffering of the mother.
We're talking children POWs, calm down Genghis Khan.
Posted on 9/3/26 at 4:40 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Chattel slavery assumes that the slave is a movable property that has no inherent rights as a person, no permanence or heritability, total disposability, no protection from violence from the owner. The assumption is that the slave really is no different from cattle or farm equipment.
So the fact that no southern states allowed slave owners to just kill their slaves under any and all circumstances also proves that chattel slavery wasn't practiced in America.
Even a light fine IS some form of protection and proof that they're weren't literally the same as far equipment because a plantation owner could destroy his farm equipment without any fines.
quote:
That means no abuse and nothing beyond what is needed for correction.
Source?
Also how did that not apply to children POWs? You can't beat the hell out of your slaves, but those children over there? Yeah, you can kill them.
Christian apologetics is one hell of a drug.
quote:
You're trying to frame it as an emotional issue rather than rational one regarding moral justice.
So you think children and adults should be held to the same standard under the law?
No?
Then this isn't emotional framing. I'm specifically pointing to children because that's the toughest case that exists within the Bible for Christians to justify.
Page 29 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News