re: Why can’t we separate Conservative values from religion?

quote:

---

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.

---

A law establishing a penalty is not what I was getting at in terms of distinguishing between property rights and human rights. In chattel slave systems, the slaves don't have personal rights, and they certainly don't have standing to defend themselves against abuse, as the systems, themselves, are set up to facilitate engagement between the slave owner and the state.

In slave-owning states, it wasn't typical to speak of slaves as having personal rights. Most of the laws protecting them from violence and death were actually in support of the slave owner, not the slave, as they touched on what amounted to property damage, like if a neighbor shot someone's cow and had to pay restitution.

Even in those instances where the slave, themselves, were given a level of protection by law, the enforcement structure was not set up to actually grant that to them. Slave owners were rarely prosecuted for violation of any such laws, and those that were were rarely found guilty by a jury of their peers. In practice, even laws that limited abuse of slaves did no such thing.

By contrast, the civil laws regarding slavery in the Old Testament were predicated on the existence of human dignity and rights as image-bearers of God, even for the slave. Even foreigners could get refuge in Israel, even though the society was very focused on genetic preference (it was a blessing to be a literal descendent of Abraham by blood). The Israelites were not morally allowed to show partiality and do injustice to the slave or the foreigner, and that was reflected in the laws constraining slavery.

So again, the focus wasn't on whether there were any form of legal penalty at all for harming property, but what was the nature of the rights of that property.

quote:

---

Source?

---

The principle of proportionality and "do unto others" is all throughout the Bible in various ways, but here are a few:

Deuteronomy 25:1-3. This governs the proportionality of even beatings for offenses, and the guilty party is not allowed to receive more punishment than is reasonable due to even the risk of unnecessary humiliation. Personal dignity is the reason for even this.

Leviticus 19:17-18. This is the "love your neighbor" passage I already mentioned. The context is laws regarding how to treat the vulnerable and those under one's authority or influence (do not oppress others; do not keep wages of a hired worker overnight; do not oppress the deaf or blind; do no injustice in court; do not be partial against the poor or in favor of the great/wealthy/powerful)

Exodus 21:20. This is one of the primary passages you are appealing to regarding slavery, and the standard, itself, is proportionality. While it assumes physical correction is happening, it says that you cannot go too far (disproportionate action) without being punished, yourself.

quote:

---

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.

---

Proportionality in the slave relationship applies to an ongoing relationship where one is punished for offenses he committed. You're now pivoting to a different category, namely impact on a society that is undergoing divine judgement. They are different use cases.

Just as "love your neighbor" doesn't mean abandoning justice towards a murderer, so the POW example is not applicable. First of all, they weren't POWs, because the command was not to take any prisoners. The exception was for any young women that would become wives to the soldiers.

Second, the judgement fell on the community as a whole for their moral perversions and war against God's people, Israel. In order to prevent the people of Israel from being tempted to do the same wicked things those tribes and nations were doing and to reject the God who saved them, God commanded the destruction of the people's that He gave 400 years to repent. They didn't turn away and therefore they received His divine wrath, by being destroyed and having their possessions taken from them. Since God is the King and Judge of al the world, He has the moral right and authority to decree such a thing against law-breakers. He used the nation of Israel to be the executioner of His justice.

In those instances, it was intended that none should be left alive, both as total judgement for those peoples but also to prevent their religious and moral practices from infiltrating the Israelites. No age limit was placed on that, and none was needed.

quote:

---

Christian apologetics is one hell of a drug.

---

It's focused on consistency according to truth, including moral truth that you lack without the Christian God.

Christian theology is systematic and comprehensive. It's not something you can just pick apart and remove context from while ignoring the rest of its connectoins. It's why when we talk about a particular act like slavery or people being killed in war, we need to ground those topics in other theological concepts, like moral guilt, holiness, justice, federal representation, and so on. You might not like that, but it's necessary for internal consistency across the board.

quote:

---

So you think children and adults should be held to the same standard under the law?

No?

---

In regard to God's law, yes. All people are under it and children are not exempt. It's why Christians also preach the gospel to their children, because everyone--even children--sins and falls short of God's glory.

When we're talking about God's judgement against a tribe or nation, we're talking about His judgement against sin, and as the Bible says elsewhere, "the soul that sins shall die". That's what all sin deserves. It's also why God is so merciful to save anyone. We all sin and we all deserve destruction, physically and spiritually.

quote:

---

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.

---

Don't try to downplay it. The language you've been using has been intentional to make emotional points rather than logical ones. While I don't blame you for trying any tactic you can to score points, it's not relevant to the moral truth of a thing to try to get people worked up emotionally about it.