>BUT MUH OLD TESTAMEEEEENT>BUT MUH SLAVERYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYThere's nothing wrong with God regulating slavery because slavery isn't inherently evil.There, simple. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
>>17282435>slavery isn't inherently evilone based on racism sure is
>>17282444Nowhere in that verse is it condemned that Noah cursed Canaan to be a servant of his brothers.I don't see your point.
If you want fagnostics to shut up about muh slavery, just double down and say slavery is based. They don't believe in morality anyway
>>17282444You sound like the same faggots who place hitler as more evil than stalin or pol pot because at least they weren't muh racist
Imagine believing in 2004 +20
>>17282452Christians were the ones who made race based slavery immoral in the us though. Just like they did when they increased the age of consent
>>17282458But they do like to feel like they're the most moral people in the world, even though if you get them behind close doors they'll tell you that morality is just subjective.
>>17282467>Christians were the ones who made race based slavery immoral in the us though.Ok? What does that have to do with the verse? The Canaanite race was condemned to servitude. That has no bearing on the African race.
>>17282458>>17282468Morality doesn't need to exist outside of groups of humans for it to be universalized.
>>17282472Faggot, ANY moral claim can be universalized, universalize your morality all you want. What are you gonna do when people do not put up with it and tell you to go fuck yourself? Fight them?
>>17282435>i wrote "but muh" before your reasonable objection to my beliefs, now it's invalid
>>17282487>your reasonable objectionI answered said reasonable objectionSlavery is not inherently evil.
>>17282471Blacks are descendants of Ham though
>>17282491>i asserted a conclusion without any premise, that means i answered your objection
>>17282499Citation needed.>>17282500>i asserted a conclusion without any premiseYou mean just like people that assert "slavery is evil" period without any premise either?
>>17282499>>17282507Also, even if the Bible said Africans are descendants of Ham (which it doesn't), Noah's curse was specifically for Canaan, not even Ham himself.
>>17282507You have made no argument for your position being correct. People don't usually have to argue about why slavery is evil because most people already agree with that proposition. Simply asserting the contrary without further elaboration and expecting people to just accept it is rather retarded, but pretty funny I'll give you that
>>17282527>People don't usually have to argue about why slavery is evil because most people already agree with that proposition.Well now I'm challening it.
>>17282531Lol. Like I said, not much of a challenge if you don't bother to make a case for it
>>17282536If you're making the claim that slaverly is inherently immoral, you're the one who has to make a case for it.Anyway, you're changing the conversation, this isn't about slavery per se, this is about moral objections being raised at God for regulating slavery in the Old Testament law.
>>17282519They are descendants through Cush and his other sons, but yes not Canaan you are right. So I will concede on that point. Still "the curse of Ham" was one of the justifications used by people who enslaved Africans.
>>172825451. Slavery is bad for the person held as a slave2. God is claimed to be all-loving3. An all-loving being would not be fine with people being held in slaverySo slavery either goes against the will of God, or God is not all-loving
>>17282576Category error. Slaves are not persons they are property, like a farm cow that tills a field or a mule to pulls a cart. Until very modern times, the last couple hundred years, only whites were people. Even the popes and clergy all used non white slaves because that was not and is not wrong according to God. At least that was their position until they decided they decided they knew better than the son of God who was in need of salvation from death.
>>17282576>1. Slavery is bad for the person held as a slaveSo? The lethal injection is "bad" for the criminal sentenced to death.>2. God is claimed to be all-lovingWhich doesn't mean that He can't enact suffering on a person, it just meant that God doesn't create something that He hates.>3. An all-loving being would not be fine with people being held in slaverySee point above.
>>17282585>Slaves are not persons they are propertyThis statement is only true from the point of view of certain legal systems. There is no reason to hold those legal systems to be morally correct. Most people do not agree with that definition of personhood and you do not make any arguments for why we should.>Until very modern times, the last couple hundred years, only whites were people.According to what, and where? Certainly not in places where Whites didn't live! And even in America and Europe, blacks could earn freedom, so you're just plain wrong>Even the popes and clergy all used non white slavesAlso White pagans>because that was not and is not wrong according to God.Which implies God is not all-loving
Are they worth saving
>>17282618No dummy, God loved the world by giving it white people who he loved so much he sent his son to die for their eternal existence and dominion over his creation. You can try to cheat the game for a while but you can't hold back the tide forever.
>>17282613>The lethal injection is "bad" for the criminal sentenced to death.Yes. An all-loving God wouldn't want that>Which doesn't mean that He can't enact suffering on a person, He wouldn't if he was all-loving>it just meant that God doesn't create something that He hates.No, all-loving literally means he wants what is good for everyone
>>17282618>This statement is only true from the point of view of certain legal systems. Like the Old Testament's>There is no reason to hold those legal systems to be morally correct. I hold the Old Testament's legal system to be morally correct because it was established by God.>Most people do not agree with that definition of personhood So? Fuck "most people". What kind of cuck let's other people determine his morality?>and you do not make any arguments for why we should.Because God said so.>According to what, and where? Europeans in Europe and its colonies.>Certainly not in places where Whites didn't live! Even in Japan and China Europeans were considered to be a lower barbarian race. They still think this today.>Also White pagansOk.>Which implies God is not all-lovingGod being all-loving is probably one the the most misuderstood concepts by secularists. They apply their own false understanding of what it means to be loving and then demaing God abides by it. What God being all loving means is that He does not start anything out of hatred or malice, but love, what happens after that once His creation acts out on its own is a different matter. Like a Father who has children, he begins with love, but if those children end up being scum, criminals, cheaters, thiefs, liars, frauds, well, he's not gonna take that lightly.
>>17282631>No, all-loving literally means he wants what is good for everyone.Until you fuck up and start doing evil, then He wants you to suffer, rightfully so. What is good for everyone is that they repent and submit to Him, but that won't impede God from enacting righteous judgement on those who do evil.
>>17282627He loved White people so much he sent his son to Brown people in Palestine, got it
>>17282633>I hold the Old Testament's legal system to be morally correct because it was established by God.Ummm actually it was established by long-nosed browns in a desert>So? Fuck "most people". What kind of cuck let's other people determine his morality?It's not a point about morality but about definitions. The common meaning of personhood is not one that draws a distinction between a free man and a slave>Because God said soAnd you know this because desert people told you>They apply their own false understanding of what it means to be loving and then demaing God abides by itNo. What you struggle to understand is that words have meanings; when you tell someone your God is all-loving, they will understand what is commonly meant by all-loving. If you or your desert religion have a different definition, that is your problem and you cannot expect others to understand what you mean or be persuaded by it
>>17282653>when you tell someone your God is all-loving, they will understand what is commonly meant by all-loving.Which is wrong, this is what it actually means:>>17282633God being all-loving is probably one the the most misuderstood concepts by secularists. They apply their own false understanding of what it means to be loving and then demaing God abides by it. What God being all loving means is that He does not start anything out of hatred or malice, but love, what happens after that once His creation acts out on its own is a different matter. Like a Father who has children, he begins with love, but if those children end up being scum, criminals, cheaters, thiefs, liars, frauds, well, he's not gonna take that lightly.
>>17282639>>17282653>we wuz the real jewsnever gets old
>>17282638>Until you fuck up and start doing evilWhich is not the case with, say, a boy who was born a slave and did nothing to deserve his cruel fate
>>17282659>the common definition of a word is wrong because... it just is ok??
>>17282662>Which is not the case with, say, a boy who was born a slave and did nothing to deserve his cruel fateThe more I study slavery, the more I realize that it has very little to do with morality at all, the modern world abhors slavery because it's obsessed with freedom and hates anything that could inhibit it. Slavery is just a state of being, it doesn't necessarily have to entail abuse, at least no more than an employee having a tyrannical boss.
>>17282663God doesn't have to love you the way you think you should be loved. You can get the love you deserve in the way you deserve, like having a slave having a caring master instead of a cruel one. That is the love, like crumbs from the table for which you should be grateful, which Jesus set out for those who are not his people.
>>17282663If you're engaging with a religion, you should understanding it on its own terms, rather than imposing your own over it and demand the followers of said religion to abide by them.
>>17282665>There is nothing wrong with convicted child rapists adopting children. Being a child rapist is just a state of being, it doesn't necessarily have to entail raping your child, at least no more than a man having a nymphomaniac wife
>>17282674>>There is nothing wrong with convicted child rapists adopting children........there obviously is, idiot.
>>17282667>the child who did nothing wrong before he was born into slavery should be grateful to the supernatural, all-powerful being that decided this fate for him>>17282668No, if someone uses words that have a commonly accepted meaning, that meaning is what will be understood. It is incumbent upon you to make yourself understood from those you are trying to convince>>>17282680...yesIt's called reductio ad absurdium
>>17282694>No, if someone uses words that have a commonly accepted meaning, that meaning is what will be understood.Unless you know you're engaging with a group of people that uses different definitions.>It is incumbent upon you to make yourself understood from those you are trying to convinceI already have:>>17282659>It's called reductio ad absurdiumYeah I know, you're being absurd.
>>17282694>the child who did nothing wrong before he was born into slaveryIf the cow on my farm births a calf should I feel guilt over my new responsibility or should I tend it with a godly hand and see that it is set to serve in the ways for which it was designed by God?
>>17282633>and its colonies.do you actually believe colonial subjects from India or New Zealand saw themselves as non-human?
>>17282701Except that you're the one who pushes your religion on others using these terms. You use "all-loving" while meaning something completely different from that. Well you could use a different word. Except, you only use "all-loving" in the first place because you know what it means to others, and you think that once you got them hooked you can just change the meaning of that word. Otherwise, you would have no reason to use this language. It's intellectually dishonest>>It's called reductio ad absurdium>Yeah I know, you're being absurd.I have to say you're one of the most unintentionally funny people I have met on this website
>>17282708Stop making comparisons between innocent children being born into slavery and domesticated animals. The child deserves freedom (and not to suffer in general)
>>17282722You are only repeating your very modern worldview which is that non whites are also persons. What you seem to not understand is how strange that is and how alien when compared to the views which preceded it for all of known history.
>>17282715>Except that you're the one who pushes your religion on others using these terms. Anon, quit being a bitch. I started a thread, not knocking on your door, you're free to stop replying at any moment. I'm not "pushing my religion" on anyone or forcing you to anything.>You use "all-loving" while meaning something completely different from that. No, I explicitly told you what my understanding of all-loving is, and told you that's the deifintion I'm using. I'm not lying to you about anything, you care here with a pre-conceived understanding of all loving and now are tripping over yourself not getting that it's not the definition I'm using.>Well you could use a different word.Make me.>Except, you only use "all-loving" in the first place because you know what it means to others, I already told you I don't care what other people think.>and you think that once you got them hooked you can just change the meaning of that word. I'm trying to have a constructive discussion, if what you said were true I would've never bothered clarifying what I mean by all-loving.
>>17282722>The child deserves freedom (and not to suffer in general)I hope you can make a proper case for this claim and not just assert it expecing everyone else to agree.
>>17282725This is just meaningless pilpul. You just redefine terms until you can make a propostion that is correct only insofar as it ignores the common meaning of words, and is thus meaningless. It's the most talmudic argumentation tactic there is and it's ironic a supposed White supremacist would employ it>>17282726Your understanding of "all-loving" is so different from the actual meaning that any proposition you make becomes meaningless. It's like if you told someone you abused that you loved them, and then justified the blatant contradiction by redefining love how you like. What's the point if not dishonesty?>Make meGay>>17282729He deserves freedom from the point of view of an all-loving all-powerful being. Unless of course you redefine all-loving to the point if meaninglessness, which, you know, will not convince anyone
>>17282752>Your understanding of "all-loving" is so different from the actual meaningYou're a linguistic prescriptivist now? There is no "actual meaning". It means what we say it means.>He deserves freedom from the point of view of an all-loving all-powerful being.That's awfully presumptuous of you, anon.
>>17282752>You just redefine termsThat is literally how it came to be today that non whites are considered people... by redefining "people" to include non whites.
Evil? Its all in the eye of the beholder, god is the only judge. You know what i am saying dawg? Now get to scooping the shit pile and send your wife upstairs you fucking slave.
>>17282755>You're a linguistic prescriptivist now?Always have been>There is no "actual meaning". It means what we say it means.There is the commonly accepted meaning, that being the first thing that is understood without further qualifications. My point is that you cope with your erroneous beliefs redefining words until that makes your propositions formally correct, which however makes them meaningless>>17282759The Greeks and the Romans considered free non-Whites people, and I already brought up free Blacks in slave-holding America. You're just wrong
>>17282659How about a different word like considerate or liberal? Loving just doesn't make sense if its before you have a free will
>>17282764>The Greeks and the Romans considered free non-Whites people, and I already brought up free Blacks in slave-holding America. You're just wrongThere were some occasional bouts of experimentation with the idea of considering non whites people but they always ended poorly, Rome for example collapsed because of being an early adopter of multiculturalism. Then relative stability and white hegemony for over a thousand years until european states gradually began to again flirt with the dangerous idea of broadening the definition of people, and even American too eventually succumbed to the heresy. The world now suffers the consequences of such an unwise policy. What you see as progressive egalitarianism is in fact the dangerous destruction of civilizations because they are only bound together by the will of those that create them.
>>17282773>Rome for example collapsed because of being an early adopter of multiculturalismI'm sure you've heard this statement be repeated a lot, I guess that makes it true>What you see as progressive egalitarianism is in fact the dangerous destruction of civilizationsI am not a progressive nor do I believe in egalitarianism; I simply made the point that slavery is incompatible with an all-loving God (as the term is commonly understood)
>>17282783But slavery is not incompatable with an all-loving God. God gave the world white people because he loves the world, and he gave white people his son because they are his and he loves them most. To each their own, etc. You not getting the love you think you deserve is not disproof that God loves you in the way you deserve. A child needs not see it as does the father.
if slavery is inherently evil, it follows that there must be some objective universal standard that can judge the merits of individuals, acts, and institutionsthere is no other standard that meets this definition but God himself
