20 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJayYou were asked whether slavery was morally acceptable on the previous page. Your answer was, basically, that people used to accept it and some people still do. I think you misunderstood the question. Nobody was asking you whether slavery used to be accepted. You were being asked whether having slaves was ever morally permissible; whether it was ever actually morally O.K. to enslave others. This was the first confusion in your discussion. Then Knob misunderstood your answer, thinking you were claiming that slavery used to actually be morally O.K., when you were simply claiming that people used to think slavery was O.K. So, he asked you if you felt the same way about pederasty. You guys are all talking past one another, as is unfortunately typical here.
Why would you ask me that?
Kelly
20 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayTo save you from having to go back a page or two and read your own post again, here's the salient exchange:
Again, how did you come up with that?
Kelly
Originally posted by avalanchethecat
So you believe that slavery is morally wrong? (This was inferred from your post 16 Aug 18:45) And yet this practise is condoned in the bible. Therefore it would seem to me that you must either accept that the bible is wrong about this, or you must accept at least some degree of moral relativism.
Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe God sets some rules we should not break no matter if we join hand in
hand together saying we want this not that, and there are other things we judge
for ourselves. I believe life is like that with the absolute and the relative, we see
a mixture throughout the universe in all areas of life.
Kelly
So, no more hedging Kelly, do you think that slavery - the ownership of other human beings - is morally wrong? The bible, as pointed out in this thread, condones this practise. If you are now saying that you agree it is morally wrong, you are agreeing that morals have changed since that part of the bible was written, and indeed, since the last time that passage was selected to remain within the bible. This seems to be totally contrary to your previous position that morals are facts which are laid down by god for us all to follow.
Or are you saying that slavery is a moral 'grey area' according to god and we're allowed to decide for ourselves whether or not it's ok to own other people? If this is the case, please enlighten us as to how you decide which particular morals laid down in the bible we're allowed to modify and which are set in stone.
Incidentally, KellyJay, I think this post ("Again, how did you come up with that?" ) is rather disingenuous. I'm sure you do actually recall your previous posts, I'm sure you're smart enough to have followed the various points raised in the thread and I don't really see what you hope to gain by resorting to this kind of tactic.
20 Aug 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecat“…If you are now saying that you agree it is morally wrong, you are agreeing that morals have changed since that part of the bible was written, and indeed, since the last time that passage was selected to remain within the bible. This seems to be totally contrary to your previous position that morals are facts which are laid down by god for us all to follow….”
To save you from having to go back a page or two and read your own post again, here's the salient exchange:
Originally posted by avalanchethecat
So you believe that slavery is morally wrong? (This was inferred from your post 16 Aug 18:45) And yet this practise is condoned in the bible. Therefore it would seem to me that you must either ...[text shortened]... ad and I don't really see what you hope to gain by resorting to this kind of tactic.
The only way Kelly can be logically here and explain the above apparent contradiction is if he now says the Bible is not always an accurate representation of the facts which are “laid down by god” –somehow I don’t think he would be willing to say that but I could be wrong.
20 Aug 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatNo, I think having a human being in any state other than freedom is not the right
To save you from having to go back a page or two and read your own post again, here's the salient exchange:
Originally posted by avalanchethecat
So you believe that slavery is morally wrong? (This was inferred from your post 16 Aug 18:45) And yet this practise is condoned in the bible. Therefore it would seem to me that you must either ...[text shortened]... ad and I don't really see what you hope to gain by resorting to this kind of tactic.
place for a person to be in. Slavery goes against my morals in that respect.
Kelly
20 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThere are things within scripture I dislike and if I were setting up the universe
“…If you are now saying that you agree it is morally wrong, you are agreeing that morals have changed since that part of the bible was written, and indeed, since the last time that passage was selected to remain within the bible. This seems to be totally contrary to your previous position that morals are facts which are laid down by god for us all to ...[text shortened]... “laid down by god” –somehow I don’t think he would be willing to say that but I could be wrong.
I'd do differently, but I'm not in charge and I accept that. There are things within
our lives we as a people do to one another that I dislike too, and I cannot change
those either, does this mean my views are void due to the fact that there are
things I accept as factual that I disagree with?
Kelly
20 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJayHang on, not quite clear what you mean - are you saying that according to god, slavery is morally acceptable, but that you personally dislike that fact? Or are you saying that scripture is not necessarily representative of god's will? Either way, isn't this contrary to the position you were taking earlier in this thread when you brought up the subject of slavery?
There are things within scripture I dislike and if I were setting up the universe
I'd do differently, but I'm not in charge and I accept that. There are things within
our lives we as a people do to one another that I dislike too, and I cannot change
those either, does this mean my views are void due to the fact that there are
things I accept as factual that I disagree with?
Kelly
20 Aug 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI am also not sure what he meant ( as usual ).
Hang on, not quite clear what you mean - are you saying that according to god, slavery is morally acceptable, but that you personally dislike that fact? Or are you saying that scripture is not necessarily representative of god's will? Either way, isn't this contrary to the position you were taking earlier in this thread when you brought up the subject of slavery?
I bet nobody else really understands what he means either.
He often makes confusing statements that make his position totally unclear to the reader –it is unfortunately his way.
20 Aug 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatPerhaps KellyJay means something like this:
Hang on, not quite clear what you mean - are you saying that according to god, slavery is morally acceptable, but that you personally dislike that fact? Or are you saying that scripture is not necessarily representative of god's will? Either way, isn't this contrary to the position you were taking earlier in this thread when you brought up the subject of slavery?
Slavery is now and always has been morally unacceptable. Everybody should be free, so nobody should be a slave. However, slavery was wrongly accepted in the ancient world. It was simply a common fact in the ancient world that people were enslaved. KellyJay dislikes this fact, and if he were going to set things up, he would have clearly and unequivocally forbade slavery. But God has His reasons, and KellyJay just does not know why God seemed to allow slavery. There are precedents, however, for God placing restrictions on behavior that He otherwise condemns. For instance, God knew that people would divorce due to hardness of heart. God does not want people to divorce. But, given the fact that they will divorce, He sees fit to place restrictions on divorce in order to prevent it from being as bad as it would otherwise be. Similarly for slavery. God does not condone slavery. But, given the fact that people in the ancient world were going to enslave others, God sees fit to place restrictions on slavery in order to prevent it from being as bas as it would otherwise be.
I don't think this works, in the end, but there you go.
20 Aug 10
Originally posted by bbarrA quick consideration of this argument seems to provide a lot of wriggle-room for sinners right across the spectrum. Plus it would seem to make the bible an untrustworthy source of guidance. But of course, that's just my reading of your suggested interpretation, and I can't even do 'simple' chess puzzles.
Perhaps KellyJay means something like this:
Slavery is now and always has been morally unacceptable. Everybody should be free, so nobody should be a slave. However, slavery was wrongly accepted in the ancient world. It was simply a common fact in the ancient world that people were enslaved. KellyJay dislikes this fact, and if he were going to set things ...[text shortened]... g as bas as it would otherwise be.
I don't think this works, in the end, but there you go.
20 Aug 10
Originally posted by bbarr“….God does not condone slavery. But, given the fact that people in the ancient world were going to enslave others, God sees fit to place restrictions on slavery in order to prevent it from being as bas as it would otherwise be….”
Perhaps KellyJay means something like this:
Slavery is now and always has been morally unacceptable. Everybody should be free, so nobody should be a slave. However, slavery was wrongly accepted in the ancient world. It was simply a common fact in the ancient world that people were enslaved. KellyJay dislikes this fact, and if he were going to set things ...[text shortened]... g as bas as it would otherwise be.
I don't think this works, in the end, but there you go.
Interesting explanation. I can see at least one reason why, as you said, this doesn’t work:
An all-powerful God does not “condone” slavery but, because some mortal people where going to do it anyway, he puts “restrictions” on it. If he is all-powerful and he is against slavery then why would he give-in to the demands of mere mortals and say “ok, I give-in to you mere mortals; I agree to compromise with you; you can have slavery but there has to be some restrictions….”.
-Doesn’t seem consistent with him being all powerful if he is willing to compromise on his moral beliefs with mere mortal people?
20 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI think it's supposed to be more like "Slavery is wrong, so don't enslave others. But since you folks are going to disobey me anyway, make sure you treat your slaves in the following way..." Of course, this doesn't explain why God doesn't just come out and say "Don't enslave others!" Perhaps such a command would have been simply rejected by the Hebrews? Does God have to pick his battles in that way?
“….God does not condone slavery. But, given the fact that people in the ancient world were going to enslave others, God sees fit to place restrictions on slavery in order to prevent it from being as bas as it would otherwise be….”
Interesting explanation. I can see at least one reason why, as you said, this doesn’t work:
An all-powerful God do ...[text shortened]... being all powerful if he is willing to compromise on his moral beliefs with mere mortal people?
21 Aug 10
Originally posted by bbarrI pointed out that it was very accepted in times past, and in certain places today
You were asked whether slavery was morally acceptable on the previous page. Your answer was, basically, that people used to accept it and some people still do. I think you misunderstood the question. Nobody was asking you whether slavery used to be accepted. You were being asked whether having slaves was ever morally permissible; whether it was ever actual ...[text shortened]... y about pederasty. You guys are all talking past one another, as is unfortunately typical here.
it still is. That was my answer earlier, so has it been and is acceptable depending
on where and when you are yes. Is that a blanket statement on if it was always a
good and moral thing, that wasn't the question I was asked now was it? Morals,
change with the time and people depending on what they value, if you want an
eternal timeless set of morals you need a source that does not change with time,
and is eternal. You have one of those in mind?
Kelly
21 Aug 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI think scripture took into account our condition, which during that time frame was
Hang on, not quite clear what you mean - are you saying that according to god, slavery is morally acceptable, but that you personally dislike that fact? Or are you saying that scripture is not necessarily representative of god's will? Either way, isn't this contrary to the position you were taking earlier in this thread when you brought up the subject of slavery?
an eye for an eye. I think God allowed quite a few things to go on that God did not
approve of, but with time worked things out so that those things He dislikes get
dealt with not for a short time, but forever. Slavery means we are bound, the Son
of God has come that we will be set free!
Kelly
21 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonGod is all powerful; however, we are still made in His image, we have our wills
“….God does not condone slavery. But, given the fact that people in the ancient world were going to enslave others, God sees fit to place restrictions on slavery in order to prevent it from being as bas as it would otherwise be….”
Interesting explanation. I can see at least one reason why, as you said, this doesn’t work:
An all-powerful God do ...[text shortened]... being all powerful if he is willing to compromise on his moral beliefs with mere mortal people?
which He is not destroying to force us into a robot state. So He deals with us
where we are and leads us out of there into a place where now, many of us see
slavery is wrong and can reject it out of hand.
Kelly