Wednesday, February 20, 2013

The OK Kind of Slavery

There's a slice of a conversation between myself and Thoughts For Young Men that I'd like to preserve for posterity, should he decide to challenge my view of morality in the future.  This is excerpted unedited from the comments thread on this blog post.  We're discussing slavery as described in Leviticus 25 and the taking of human beings as spoils of war as described in Numbers 31.


  1. Ok, well, I'm not going to go back and forth with you over something anyone can open a Bible and see for themselves. Levitcus 25:44-46 explicitly allows owning another human being as property, a practice that you are refusing to condemn.

    I also invite anyone to read Numbers 31, in which God's followers take virgin girls as spoils of war. So this whole nonsense about it not reeeeeally being slavery is simply false.

    Unless you are willing to take a stand right here and condemn to practice of owning another human as property, under any circumstances, then I don't really care whether your morality is objective or subjective; either way, it's worthless in any civilized society.
    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think it is wrong for one person to own another human being if they voluntarily agree to it? There are many reasons why someone would do so, as I have explained above. As for one person owning another human being involuntarily, I believe that is wrong as I have also explained above.

      Would you even be interested in an explanation of Numbers 31? Maybe not, but I'll give one for the benefit of anyone else who may read this exchange.

      Consider Man #1 who kills children to offer them as sacrifices as part of his religious worship. Now, suppose Man #2 comes across him while he is about to kill a young girl out in the wilderness. Man #2 puts a stop to it by killing Man #1. There is no one else around and they are in the middle of nowhere. Should Man #1 just leave the young girl alone to fend for herself?

      That is just like what happened in Numbers 31, except on a smaller scale. Taking in the young girls was an act of mercy and compassion. You are so committed to rejecting Christianity that you mistake compassion for cruelty.

      Now, back to your view of morality...

      Assuming you somehow find a way to resolve the issue of who decides/defines what happiness and suffering are, and how to weigh them in a given situation (which I don't believe you can), how do you know that is even the right way to determine morality? Why are happiness and suffering the defining issues? Why not something else? Your worldview is based on nothing.
  2. Right, so you've described not one but two circumstances under which slavery is okay. I disagree with both. I think that owning another human being as property is reprehensible under any circumstances, and I believe that makes my conception of morality superior to yours. I don't really care if you believe that your morals come from God and mine come from "nothing."

    I invite anyone reading this to consider our two positions:
    You: Slavery is sometimes okay.
    Me: Slavery is never okay.
    And decide for themselves who's right.

    Just a couple of quick notes on your explanation of Numbers 31:
    1) The only reason the girls are all alone in the wilderness is that their whole families were slaughtered by the very people about to take them as slaves.
    2) Nowhere does Numbers claim that any of the girls were going to be sacrificed by the Midianites.
    3) The girls are specifically described as "plunder," and 32 of them were "offered as tribute to the Lord."
    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, anyone can read our comments and see what we are saying. Let me summarize our positions, since your summary is misleading.

    Me: Slavery (kidnapping) is wrong. Someone voluntarily selling themselves to someone else is okay (just as taking a job is okay). Someone having to work for someone else involuntarily in order to pay off a debt is okay (if this law were in effect in modern culture it would have minimized the recent mortgage crisis, because not as many people would have foolishly taken on debt they could not afford, and the bankers who defrauded people would be "slaves" now instead of getting million dollar bonuses).

    You: Slavery (kidnapping) is wrong. Someone voluntarily selling themselves to someone else is also wrong. Someone having to work for someone else involuntarily in order to pay off a debt (or for any other reason) is also wrong.

    Do you have a job? How is that different from selling yourself? I understand that the terms of your employment may be more restricted. Your hours and responsibilities are more limited than if you sold yourself as a slave, but that is just a matter of degree, not a different kind of transaction.

    Do you believe that people shouldn't have to pay off their debts? Do you believe that bankruptcy is morally right? That is a logical implication from what you have argued. I know that bankruptcy is allowed as part of our legal system, but is it morally right?

    FYI, Biblical law allows for cancellation of debts every seven years. That would also help to minimize the debt/credit problems we have been experiencing, since lenders would know that they might not be able to collect their loan.

    As for Numbers 31, my example was greatly simplified, but the basic premise is the same. Maybe I overdramatized it by saying that Man #1 was about to sacrifice the young girl. In any case, the principle is still the same. The Israelites put to death the Midianites who were condemned to death by God because of their wickedness, and showed compassion to their young orphaned girls by taking them in.

    As for the fact that some of the young girls were "offered as tribute to the Lord," that simply means that the priests and Levites got some of them to raise in their househoulds. This is typical Biblical language. The priests and Levites devoted their time to the service of the Lord, so the rest of the people were required to give them a portion.
    Reply
  4. "Me: Slavery (kidnapping) is wrong."
    Which is what I said; you have to specify the kind of slavery that you oppose, because some kinds are okay.

    "Someone voluntarily selling themselves to someone else is okay"
    Again, I disagree. If someone offered to sell themselves to me, to own for life and to be passed on to my children, I would say no and ask what's wrong with them.

    "Do you have a job? How is that different from selling yourself? "
    My employer does not own me as property.

    "Do you believe that people shouldn't have to pay off their debts? Do you believe that bankruptcy is morally right?"
    Irrelevant; we're talking about slavery.

    "The Israelites put to death the Midianites who were condemned to death by God because of their wickedness,"
    Which verses of the Bible list their specific crimes? All I can see is that they worshiped a different god, which is hardly worthy of slaughter.

    "and showed compassion to their young orphaned girls by taking them in."
    After murdering everyone they know. Some compassion...

    "As for the fact that some of the young girls were "offered as tribute to the Lord," that simply means that the priests and Levites got some of them to raise in their househoulds."
    And to do with them whatever they pleased.
Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. DVD BachFebruary 20, 2013 at 11:06 AM

    Update:

    Thoughts for Young MenFebruary 20, 2013 at 8:58 AM
    Shame on you for using a loaded term like "slavery" and then refusing to accept any clarifications to specific situations. You are being deceptive and dishonest, as anyone can see.

    You say, "My employer does not own me as property." I never said they did. Your responsibility is limited to what you contracted with them. You are denying others that same freedom.

    I believe I've said more than enough to make my point. As I began up above, let me state again, your worldview is accurately summarized in Romans 1--illogical, immoral, and foolish.

    Thanks for helping me to make it even more plain for all to see.

    Reply

    DVD BachFebruary 20, 2013 at 9:25 AM
    "Shame on you for using a loaded term like "slavery" and then refusing to accept any clarifications to specific situations."
    That "loaded term" is what we've been discussing all along! You're the one who's claiming it's no different from having a job.

    "You say, "My employer does not own me as property." I never said they did."
    But you did ask me if it was the same as selling myself into slavery.

    "I believe I've said more than enough to make my point."
    You sure have.

    "Thanks for helping me to make it even more plain for all to see."
    No problem. I'll be sure to remind you of your defense of slavery if you decide to question my morality in future conversations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    Thoughts for Young MenFebruary 20, 2013 at 10:17 AM
    You were the one who brought up slavery in the Bible, but you have refused to accept the Bible's definition of slavery. The Bible's concept of "slavery" does not include kidnapping, which is condemned. However, when most people think of "slavery", then think of someone being kidnapped and forced into service against their will. I have repeatedly clarified this, and you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge that there is a difference.

    The fact that you cannot seem to perform simple logical tasks like distinguishing between different uses of the same word, or recognizing the fact that word usage changes over time greatly helps my case.

    Thanks again. Please feel free to refer others to this discussion. I would greatly appreciate it.

    Reply

    DVD BachFebruary 20, 2013 at 12:05 PM
    Exactly. Slavery, as you are interpreting the definition, is morally acceptable to you. The Bible is very clear in Leviticus 25:44-46 that this definition includes owning other human beings as property and passing them on to one's children.

    My position is that there are no circumstances under which such a thing is morally acceptable, whereas you have done nothing but disagree with me on that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thoughts for Young MenFebruary 21, 2013 at 5:18 AM

    Check out the whole conversation at
    http://ephesians4-15.blogspot.com/2013/01/atheism-and-grief.html
    You'll have to scroll to read it all.

    If DVD Bach really wanted to condemn slavery in the Bible, he would cite and explain all the passages in the Bible related to slavery. Anyone can pick one isolated portion and make it say whatever they want. For instance, the Bible also says, "There is no God", but it you read it in context, it says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."

    DVD Bach has selected just a few verses in the Bible about slavery. What about the all the other verses relating to slavery? There are a lot of them. What about the verses that specifically condemn kidnapping.

    DVD Bach misrepresents the Bible's view of slavery. All he has really done is condemned slavery as practiced in early American history (and other similar forms). Well, duh!

    If he wants to condemn the Biblical view of slavery, then he must actually address the Biblical view of slavery in its entirety. Otherwise, he's just blowing a lot of hot air.

    ReplyDelete
  3. DVD BachFebruary 21, 2013 at 6:27 AM

    Fair enough. I invite everyone to read the entire book of Leviticus and see the context for themselves. You'll find that I am accurately characterizing slavery as the owning of other human beings as property.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)