On the Nature of Morality

[RandomVariable]

There is no little voice in our head we can go by and if there is it needs to be nurtured into something we can make decisions by. The way to make wise decisions and have at least a little comfort in knowing you tried is to read the Old Testament and ask for an understand of God.

The old testament allows slavery and other immoral things. Thats how we know god is a man made construct.

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

Please try reposting that from the KJV.

Any specific reason? Looks about the same to me....well actually a little worse.

Leviticus 25:44-46New King James Version (NKJV)
44 And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

There is an extra letter in that 'KJV'.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is no little voice in our head we can go by and if there is it needs to be nurtured into something we can make decisions by. The way to make wise decisions and have at least a little comfort in knowing you tried is to read the Old Testament and ask for an understand of God.

No one is moral because they read the Bible.

Did I say that?

Pretty much.

 

[RandomVariable]

My bad. Looks like there is a difference. Still says the same thing though.

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

King James Version (KJV)

OK, you got it. No, it does not say the same thing.

 

[Asclepias]

My bad. Looks like there is a difference. Still says the same thing though.

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

King James Version (KJV)

OK, you got it. No, it does not say the same thing.

Can you explain that statement? I still see it saying you can buy people and have them as your possessions.

 

[RandomVariable]

There is no little voice in our head we can go by and if there is it needs to be nurtured into something we can make decisions by. The way to make wise decisions and have at least a little comfort in knowing you tried is to read the Old Testament and ask for an understand of God.

No one is moral because they read the Bible.

Did I say that?

Pretty much.

Then please allow me the indulgence of including two words I should have put in previously. "The way to try and make wise decisions and have at least a little comfort in knowing you tried is to read the Old Testament and ask for an understand of God."

I agree that they fact that the best one can do is try really needs to be emphasized. Too many people run around beating themselves up because there was a better choice they could have made but did not. We try, God has mercy.

 

[RandomVariable]

My bad. Looks like there is a difference. Still says the same thing though.

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

King James Version (KJV)

OK, you got it. No, it does not say the same thing.

Can you explain that statement? I still see it saying you can buy people and have them as your possessions.

From whom does one buy a bondsman or woman? If a headhunter, professional recruiter, gets a commission for a hire was the employee bought from the headhunter is that employee now a slave? If employment if viewed as lifetime employment could not not be considered a possession of the company.

Is this the correct interpretation? I do not know. I do know more of the Bible than these three verses so when I live my life today I know that even if there is a person whom I might consider my bondsman for life that I must behave in ways toward that person as specified by the laws of Moses, i.e. morally. You will also note that I used the term 'headhunter'. Years from now they will know exactly what that mean, employees heads on a pike.

 

[Asclepias]

My bad. Looks like there is a difference. Still says the same thing though.

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

King James Version (KJV)

OK, you got it. No, it does not say the same thing.

Can you explain that statement? I still see it saying you can buy people and have them as your possessions.

From whom does one buy a bondsman or woman? If a headhunter, professional recruiter, gets a commission for a hire was the employee bought from the headhunter is that employee now a slave? If employment if viewed as lifetime employment could not not be considered a possession of the company.

Is this the correct interpretation? I do not know. I do know more of the Bible than these three verses so when I live my life today I know that even if there is a person whom I might consider my bondsman for life that I must behave in ways toward that person as specified by the laws of Moses, i.e. morally. You will also note that I used the term 'headhunter'. Years from now they will know exactly what that mean, employees heads on a pike.

I can guarantee you that your interpretation is wrong. Its talking about slavery. How you came up with headhunters and employees strikes me as odd.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is no little voice in our head we can go by and if there is it needs to be nurtured into something we can make decisions by. The way to make wise decisions and have at least a little comfort in knowing you tried is to read the Old Testament and ask for an understand of God.

No one is moral because they read the Bible.

Did I say that?

Pretty much.

Then please allow me the indulgence of including two words I should have put in previously. "The way to try and make wise decisions and have at least a little comfort in knowing you tried is to read the Old Testament and ask for an understand of God."

I agree that they fact that the best one can do is try really needs to be emphasized. Too many people run around beating themselves up because there was a better choice they could have made but did not. We try, God has mercy.

Ok. I see what you are trying to say. Personally, I think anyone trying to make wise decisions using whatever religious texts they prefer, whether it is the OT or not, is at least trying. However, it has been my experience that for most the reading is really a matter of finding justification for decisions or positions already made. I don't limit that to any particular faith, it's just an observation on human nature.

As to beating oneself up, if that helps make a better choice in the future a modicum of beating is not uncalled for.

 

[dilloduck]

When we decide to act in opposition to one of our injunctions we can use rationalization as method to resolve the conflict. This is the area where hypocrisy rears its ugly head. People tend to get righteously pissed when someone acts in way that contradicts what they have earlier said. We like things to be predictable.

 

[PratchettFan]

When we decide to act in opposition to one of our injunctions we can use rationalization as method to resolve the conflict. This is the area where hypocrisy rears its ugly head. People tend to get righteously pissed when someone acts in way that contradicts what they have earlier said. We like things to be predictable.

Truly moral decisions are rarely clean. They are a conflict between two moral positions. Is it wrong for me to kill a mentally ill person who is not in control of themselves? Yes. Is it wrong of me to fail to prevent that person from harming someone else even if it means killing them? Yes. You have to make the best judgment you can, typically a choice of two evils, and live with the consequences. You accept the responsibility for your actions.

 

[dilloduck]

I would go as far as to say never clean in the mind of men. Without observers or judges there are only actions that are neither good nor bad but unfortunately we have to draw lines to stay relatively sane and get along with each other. The alternative is chaos.

 

[RandomVariable]

My bad. Looks like there is a difference. Still says the same thing though.

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

King James Version (KJV)

OK, you got it. No, it does not say the same thing.

Can you explain that statement? I still see it saying you can buy people and have them as your possessions.

From whom does one buy a bondsman or woman? If a headhunter, professional recruiter, gets a commission for a hire was the employee bought from the headhunter is that employee now a slave? If employment if viewed as lifetime employment could not not be considered a possession of the company.

Is this the correct interpretation? I do not know. I do know more of the Bible than these three verses so when I live my life today I know that even if there is a person whom I might consider my bondsman for life that I must behave in ways toward that person as specified by the laws of Moses, i.e. morally. You will also note that I used the term 'headhunter'. Years from now they will know exactly what that mean, employees heads on a pike.

I can guarantee you that your interpretation is wrong. Its talking about slavery. How you came up with headhunters and employees strikes me as odd.

You seem to know and not know a lot of stuff based on your preconceived worldview.

 

[Asclepias]

My bad. Looks like there is a difference. Still says the same thing though.

OK, you got it. No, it does not say the same thing.

Can you explain that statement? I still see it saying you can buy people and have them as your possessions.

From whom does one buy a bondsman or woman? If a headhunter, professional recruiter, gets a commission for a hire was the employee bought from the headhunter is that employee now a slave? If employment if viewed as lifetime employment could not not be considered a possession of the company.

Is this the correct interpretation? I do not know. I do know more of the Bible than these three verses so when I live my life today I know that even if there is a person whom I might consider my bondsman for life that I must behave in ways toward that person as specified by the laws of Moses, i.e. morally. You will also note that I used the term 'headhunter'. Years from now they will know exactly what that mean, employees heads on a pike.

I can guarantee you that your interpretation is wrong. Its talking about slavery. How you came up with headhunters and employees strikes me as odd.

You seem to know and not know a lot of stuff based on your preconceived worldview.

I agree with that statement. There is a lot I know and a lot (way more) that I dont know. That passage from the KJV is one of the things I know. I dont see any other logical conclusion you can draw other than it condones slavery.

 

[the_human_being]

OK, you got it. No, it does not say the same thing.

Can you explain that statement? I still see it saying you can buy people and have them as your possessions.

From whom does one buy a bondsman or woman? If a headhunter, professional recruiter, gets a commission for a hire was the employee bought from the headhunter is that employee now a slave? If employment if viewed as lifetime employment could not not be considered a possession of the company.

Is this the correct interpretation? I do not know. I do know more of the Bible than these three verses so when I live my life today I know that even if there is a person whom I might consider my bondsman for life that I must behave in ways toward that person as specified by the laws of Moses, i.e. morally. You will also note that I used the term 'headhunter'. Years from now they will know exactly what that mean, employees heads on a pike.

I can guarantee you that your interpretation is wrong. Its talking about slavery. How you came up with headhunters and employees strikes me as odd.

You seem to know and not know a lot of stuff based on your preconceived worldview.

I agree with that statement. There is a lot I know and a lot (way more) that I dont know. That passage from the KJV is one of the things I know. I dont see any other logical conclusion you can draw other than it condones slavery.

You're on your roll now aren't you? Soon you'll be spouting your profanities and then you'll declare everyone in the world owes you reparations because of your sufferings from slavery. Then you'll claim that all the races and murders committed by Blacks upon the other races is well deserved because of the way the Blacks have been treated. Then you will post some more of your staged and perverse photos and finish off with your usual degenerate attack upon women.

 

[Asclepias]

Can you explain that statement? I still see it saying you can buy people and have them as your possessions.

From whom does one buy a bondsman or woman? If a headhunter, professional recruiter, gets a commission for a hire was the employee bought from the headhunter is that employee now a slave? If employment if viewed as lifetime employment could not not be considered a possession of the company.

Is this the correct interpretation? I do not know. I do know more of the Bible than these three verses so when I live my life today I know that even if there is a person whom I might consider my bondsman for life that I must behave in ways toward that person as specified by the laws of Moses, i.e. morally. You will also note that I used the term 'headhunter'. Years from now they will know exactly what that mean, employees heads on a pike.

I can guarantee you that your interpretation is wrong. Its talking about slavery. How you came up with headhunters and employees strikes me as odd.

You seem to know and not know a lot of stuff based on your preconceived worldview.

I agree with that statement. There is a lot I know and a lot (way more) that I dont know. That passage from the KJV is one of the things I know. I dont see any other logical conclusion you can draw other than it condones slavery.

You're on your roll now aren't you? Soon you'll be spouting your profanities and then you'll declare everyone in the world owes you reparations because of your sufferings from slavery. Then you'll claim that all the races and murders committed by Blacks upon the other races is well deserved because of the way the Blacks have been treated. Then you will post some more of your staged and perverse photos and finish off with your usual degenerate attack upon women.

If I hurt your feelings somehow please forgive me. Please stay on topic.

 

[Youch]

Your perspective if a bit off, however. Slavery was not "embraced in American society".....early America had long previously inherited the practice from elsewhere in the world, more especially in Africa (and the middle east and elsewhere) where slavery had been embraced for thousands of years. The foundation of American, the civil society, clearly laid the foundation for the end of slavery. It is more appropriate to state that America did not embrace slavery so much as grew out of/away from the immoral practice. Thanks be to our Framers, some of whom inherited the immoral practice they set upon to end.

I disagree. Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society. Before the US was officially formed, Black people in the states were either free or indentured servants. There was a social and economic need to make Black people slaves and the equivalent of animals. The social need to do so was to deal with the cognitive dissonance that resulted from the hypocritical stance of christians owning slaves. The economic reasons are obvious as it resulted in the US becoming and economic power. One only needs to look at the 3/5 compromise to see the US embraced the concept of slavery even after debating its merits among the slave owners that created the constitution.

Do you simply have to turn even this thread into a racial one? Can't you discuss anything at all without turning it into a racial issue?

Youch brought up slavery. I never mentioned it. I know you can read so why are you claiming I turned it into a racial one?

No, the OP did. I responded. To which you responded (seemingly without reading the context (OP) of my response). To which another responded, without taking any time or attention at all to read the context of the thread. This is a common breakdown of communication, leading to wastefully explanatory posts such as this, leading to neither party to go back and re-read the thread with any intention of understanding. Ain't communication great!!

RIF.

 

[Youch]

Your perspective if a bit off, however. Slavery was not "embraced in American society".....early America had long previously inherited the practice from elsewhere in the world, more especially in Africa (and the middle east and elsewhere) where slavery had been embraced for thousands of years. The foundation of American, the civil society, clearly laid the foundation for the end of slavery. It is more appropriate to state that America did not embrace slavery so much as grew out of/away from the immoral practice. Thanks be to our Framers, some of whom inherited the immoral practice they set upon to end.

I disagree. Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society. Before the US was officially formed, Black people in the states were either free or indentured servants. There was a social and economic need to make Black people slaves and the equivalent of animals. The social need to do so was to deal with the cognitive dissonance that resulted from the hypocritical stance of christians owning slaves. The economic reasons are obvious as it resulted in the US becoming and economic power. One only needs to look at the 3/5 compromise to see the US embraced the concept of slavery even after debating its merits among the slave owners that created the constitution.

You claim to disagree with my position without actually doing so.

Your understanding of the 3/5th of a man compromise illustrates a COMPLETE lack of understanding of what it actually was, and of what it was trying to accomplish. Wanna debate it? I only ask, because this leftist myth has perpetuated too long in academia and in the media, and it is easy to rebuke.

But hey, at least someone liked your post.

 

[Asclepias]

Your perspective if a bit off, however. Slavery was not "embraced in American society".....early America had long previously inherited the practice from elsewhere in the world, more especially in Africa (and the middle east and elsewhere) where slavery had been embraced for thousands of years. The foundation of American, the civil society, clearly laid the foundation for the end of slavery. It is more appropriate to state that America did not embrace slavery so much as grew out of/away from the immoral practice. Thanks be to our Framers, some of whom inherited the immoral practice they set upon to end.

I disagree. Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society. Before the US was officially formed, Black people in the states were either free or indentured servants. There was a social and economic need to make Black people slaves and the equivalent of animals. The social need to do so was to deal with the cognitive dissonance that resulted from the hypocritical stance of christians owning slaves. The economic reasons are obvious as it resulted in the US becoming and economic power. One only needs to look at the 3/5 compromise to see the US embraced the concept of slavery even after debating its merits among the slave owners that created the constitution.

Do you simply have to turn even this thread into a racial one? Can't you discuss anything at all without turning it into a racial issue?

Youch brought up slavery. I never mentioned it. I know you can read so why are you claiming I turned it into a racial one?

No, the OP did. I responded. To which you responded (seemingly without reading the context (OP) of my response). To which another responded, without taking any time or attention at all to read the context of the thread. This is a common breakdown of communication, leading to wastefully explanatory posts such as this, leading to neither party to go back and re-read the thread with any intention of understanding. Ain't communication great!!

RIF.

I read your post and responded. He claimed I brought up race when you and as you pointed out the OP mentioned first. Evidently his feelings are hurt over something if he singled me out.

 

[Asclepias]

Your perspective if a bit off, however. Slavery was not "embraced in American society".....early America had long previously inherited the practice from elsewhere in the world, more especially in Africa (and the middle east and elsewhere) where slavery had been embraced for thousands of years. The foundation of American, the civil society, clearly laid the foundation for the end of slavery. It is more appropriate to state that America did not embrace slavery so much as grew out of/away from the immoral practice. Thanks be to our Framers, some of whom inherited the immoral practice they set upon to end.

I disagree. Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society. Before the US was officially formed, Black people in the states were either free or indentured servants. There was a social and economic need to make Black people slaves and the equivalent of animals. The social need to do so was to deal with the cognitive dissonance that resulted from the hypocritical stance of christians owning slaves. The economic reasons are obvious as it resulted in the US becoming and economic power. One only needs to look at the 3/5 compromise to see the US embraced the concept of slavery even after debating its merits among the slave owners that created the constitution.

You claim to disagree with my position without actually doing so.

Your understanding of the 3/5th of a man compromise illustrates a COMPLETE lack of understanding of what it actually was, and of what it was trying to accomplish. Wanna debate it? I only ask, because this leftist myth has perpetuated too long in academia and in the media, and it is easy to rebuke.

But hey, at least someone liked your post.

Its pretty simple. You said...

Slavery was not "embraced in American society".

I said.....

Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society.

I have a firm grasp on what the 3/5 compromise meant. I dont know that this is the thread for a debate on it but start one and let me know.

 

[Youch]

Your perspective if a bit off, however. Slavery was not "embraced in American society".....early America had long previously inherited the practice from elsewhere in the world, more especially in Africa (and the middle east and elsewhere) where slavery had been embraced for thousands of years. The foundation of American, the civil society, clearly laid the foundation for the end of slavery. It is more appropriate to state that America did not embrace slavery so much as grew out of/away from the immoral practice. Thanks be to our Framers, some of whom inherited the immoral practice they set upon to end.

I disagree. Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society. Before the US was officially formed, Black people in the states were either free or indentured servants. There was a social and economic need to make Black people slaves and the equivalent of animals. The social need to do so was to deal with the cognitive dissonance that resulted from the hypocritical stance of christians owning slaves. The economic reasons are obvious as it resulted in the US becoming and economic power. One only needs to look at the 3/5 compromise to see the US embraced the concept of slavery even after debating its merits among the slave owners that created the constitution.

You claim to disagree with my position without actually doing so.

Your understanding of the 3/5th of a man compromise illustrates a COMPLETE lack of understanding of what it actually was, and of what it was trying to accomplish. Wanna debate it? I only ask, because this leftist myth has perpetuated too long in academia and in the media, and it is easy to rebuke.

But hey, at least someone liked your post.

Its pretty simple. You said...

Slavery was not "embraced in American society".

I said.....

Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society.

I have a firm grasp on what the 3/5 compromise meant. I dont know that this is the thread for a debate on it but start one and let me know.

It seems you don't.

Second request: wanna debate? Prove your position and I'll respond.