FooManChoo

Perhaps they need stronger knife control laws.

Just like Communist ideology is incompatible with western society, so, too is Islamic ideology. It goes beyond religion.

Protesting ICE aside, it's sad to see these women pretend to be pastors of Christ's church. :yack:

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.

quote:

---

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).

---

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.

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:

---

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.

---

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.

You also keep saying "extrapolation". It's application.

quote:

---

We're talking children POWs, calm down Genghis Khan.

---

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.

I hope she turned from her wickedness and put her trust in Jesus Christ for forgiveness before the end. Otherwise, she is answering for her sins right now. That’s a sobering thought.

quote:

---

Yeah, this is exactly how it was when God/the law gave you the right to beat the hell out of them.

---

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.

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:

---

And your God was a large part of that history.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords. Satan is not greater than Jesus.

As I said, Jesus said that all authority was given to Him in heaven and on earth. He didn't make Satan the exception.

quote:

---

Go frick yourself.

---

:usa:

quote:

---

You mean it's a belief about a claim.

---

Yeah, all truth claims are still claims. Even the claim that gravity exists. You shouldn't minimize that.

What I was correcting you on, though, was that it wasn't just saying "Jesus is Lord" that saves anyone, but actually believing that, as I've said all along.

quote:

---

And it's bullshite.

---

Cool opinion, bro.

quote:

---

You ask for a blind eye because you don't repent.

---

Repent of what? I'm aware of sin through the law of God. I know what God expects and therefore I know that I need to repent when I break God's law, and I do repent.

If you think I'm in sin in other ways that what God's word says, then you'll have to explain what that sin is, why you consider it sin, and how you know it is.

quote:

---

Ok, Jesus paid for your blind eye.

Happy now?

---

:rolleyes: