tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post4228327940526030928..comments2024-03-28T15:22:22.742-07:00Comments on Through These Woods: GraceDan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-59095316872258529062015-07-12T10:14:01.635-07:002015-07-12T10:14:01.635-07:00Of course, you have conveniently left out the part...Of course, you have conveniently left out the part where I have asked that you deal with the issue of the validity of the assumptions that underlie your premise. Of course, you leave out the part where I ask for and you don't provide clarification.<br /><br />So, yes, your demand for unilateral action on my part undercuts your seemingly pleasant request for dialogue.<br /><br />I have told you why my answer is limited, and why I won't go further in the absence of clarification from you. The fact that you want to pretend as if this isn't reality really isn't my problem.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-79972777021921713382015-07-11T13:01:36.008-07:002015-07-11T13:01:36.008-07:00I know you don't get the irony of your last se...I know you don't get the irony of your last sentence, but it's funny nonetheless.<br /><br />Summation:<br /><br />Dan: All slavery is wrong.<br /><br />Craig: "Lifetime (and the lifetime of progeny) chattel slavery<br />based on race, sex, ethnic group or national origin<br />is objectively wrong."<br /><br />Dan: That sounds like you're saying that some slavery types are not immoral, would you mind clarifying?<br /><br />Craig: I've already answered.<br /><br />Dan: No, I know what you said, that "Lifetime (and the lifetime of progeny) chattel slavery based on race, sex, ethnic group or national origin is objectively wrong." but I'm asking specifically about ANY and ALL slavery, the owning of a person against their will... is THAT always wrong?<br /><br />Craig: If you don't understand my answer, that's on you.<br /><br />Dan: Why not clarify directly? Humor me. Are you saying that ALL slavery is wrong or are you making exemptions and exceptions, saying only SOME slavery is wrong.<br /><br />Craig: "While I find chattel slavery sinful, I further believe that to enslave someone for reasons of race, sex, age, national origin, etc. are particularly egregious."<br /><br />Dan: Okay, so NOW it sounds like you and I agree, that the OWNING of human being is wrong, would you mind clarifying? DO you think that ALL owning of another human being is wrong?<br /><br />Craig: I've already answered...<br /><br />Dan: [rolls eyes]<br /><br />...<br /><br />Craig: If you want to dialog, great, if not, great.<br /><br />======<br />I stand ready any time you're ready to clarify your point or, you know, dialog.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-26310377082992022972015-07-11T09:50:36.911-07:002015-07-11T09:50:36.911-07:00Dan,
I see no reason to continue to deal with you...Dan,<br /><br />I see no reason to continue to deal with your inability to understand my clearly stated position. I further see no reason to deal with your presumption that your underlying assumptions must be accepted without being challenged. The fact that you can't deal with the flaws in your assumptions, and instead simply just keep demanding that I answer the same question multiple times. So, if you want to dialogue, great, if not great.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-53715795921483741992015-07-09T15:24:06.854-07:002015-07-09T15:24:06.854-07:00sigh.
Just a reminder of where we are. I asked......sigh.<br /><br />Just a reminder of where we are. I asked...<br /><br /><b>"So, what IS your opinion? Is slavery "objectively wrong..." and if so, in what sense? If not, why not?"</b><br /><br />You responded...<br /><br /><i><b>Lifetime</b> (and the lifetime of progeny) chattel slavery <br /><br /><b>based on</b> race, sex, ethnic group or national origin <br /><br />is objectively wrong.</i><br /><br />You, Craig, said that chattel slavery (ie, slavery - the owning of people for forced labor or sex) is wrong... BUT then YOU, Craig, put some caveats on it...<br /><br />"Lifetime," you said.<br /><br />"Based on certain conditions" you said.<br /><br />I responded that that's all fine and good, as far as it goes, but it begs the question: Do you think that ALL slavery - ALL owning of people against their will - is immoral. You've responded several times with versions of "I believe chattel slavery to be wrong." and you offered the additional... "I have said that I find chattel slavery based on race, gender, or national origin to be particularly egregious."<br /><br />And so I asked for clarification because, after all this, you appear to be agreeing with me. So I am asking very specifically, do you think that ALL owning of a person by another person against their will (ie, slavery) is wrong, regardless of conditions or the caveats you placed. You appear to be saying Yes, AND I think these caveats are especially wrong, but Yes, all owning of people by other people is wrong... IS that the case? I'm just asking for a very simple clarification of your words, I think you should be able to say "Yes, that's the case..." but we shall see if you keep sputtering or if you make yourself clear.<br /><br />I ask because you have not been clear, to me. Why not clarify?<br />Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-72990630258176574012015-07-09T15:11:56.683-07:002015-07-09T15:11:56.683-07:00"Meaning you're not the guy to answer a r..."Meaning you're not the guy to answer a reasonable clarifying question about something as vital as slavery?"<br /><br />Except I have.<br /><br />" The other question is, why is that so hard for you?'<br /><br />It's not, because I have. One could ask why it is so hard for you to ignore the flaws I pointed out in your presumptions, and why you have not addressed them.<br /><br />So, now I've answered both of your questions. But, you just keep pretending otherwise if it helps keep your focus off of the flaws in your underlying assumptions.<br />Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-40776259267736199742015-07-08T19:20:23.569-07:002015-07-08T19:20:23.569-07:00Meaning you're not the guy to answer a reasona...Meaning you're not the guy to answer a reasonable clarifying question about something as vital as slavery?<br /><br />That much is clear. The other question is, why is that so hard for you?<br /><br />You're apparently not the guy to answer that question, either.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-37108939155842905822015-07-08T18:48:23.144-07:002015-07-08T18:48:23.144-07:00Dan,
I see no point in either simply repeating wh...Dan,<br /><br />I see no point in either simply repeating what seems to have become a mantra "I believe that chattel slavery is a sin." again, or in simply regurgitating whatever words you would like me to say in a way that is acceptable to you. In point of fact, I have answered your question, multiple times, in very direct and specific ways. If you choose to believe otherwise, I can do nothing for you. If you choose to base your entire line of reasoning on a series of assumptions, yet won't defend, support, or even acknowledges that flaws of doing so it becomes clear that what you are looking for is not dialogue but simply for someone to uncritically affirm your assumptions.<br /><br />I hope you find what you are looking for, but I'm not the guy to give it to you.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-68249386245254302902015-07-06T15:34:42.549-07:002015-07-06T15:34:42.549-07:00? Now that I've grasped...? I'm still aski...? Now that I've grasped...? I'm still asking, Craig. What is it with folk like you that you are unable to read to comprehend or answer direct questions directly? <br /><br />Do you see the question marks in my questions above? Those indicate "questions." Questions where I'm still not sure of your answer and so, seeking "answers" I've asked the questions to give you a chance to clarify.<br /><br />So, Craig, Are you saying that owning a person in ANY situation is immoral and that some situations (slavery by race, without option of getting out, etc) are especially immoral? Is that what you're trying to say?<br /><br />Or, as I already asked: <br /><br /><b>Craig: Is owning a human being and forcing them either into labor or sex against their will - regardless of if it's "chattel-based on race, sex," etc, regardless if it's for a lifetime... is OWNING a human being (ie, slavery) immoral? Is it grossly, grotesquely monstrously immoral every time?</b><br /><br />Or don't answer directly, but if you can't answer directly, don't bother commenting, this is just way too difficult.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-54018323212724960832015-07-06T12:14:30.411-07:002015-07-06T12:14:30.411-07:00Now, that you've grasped the basics of what I ...Now, that you've grasped the basics of what I have been saying for quite come time, let's move on with another small step.<br /><br />While I find chattel slavery sinful, I further believe that to enslave someone for reasons of race, sex, age, national origin, etc. are particularly egregious. Further, I also find the practice of trying to enslave someone for their entire lifetime, or to extend slavery to the children of slaves to again be especially distressing. In short, the type of slavery that we see in the growing in this progressive and enlightened 21st century, is where I choose to focus my concern.<br /><br />Now, that your confusion about my (simple and direct) point has finally been cleared up, is there any possibility that you might yet address the unsupported assumptions upon which you based your outrage?<br /><br />Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-55175456845173629242015-07-05T19:33:53.230-07:002015-07-05T19:33:53.230-07:00My question, revised for clarity, to you:
Craig: ...My question, revised for clarity, to you:<br /><br /><b>Craig: Is owning a human being and forcing them either into labor or sex against their will - regardless of if it's "chattel-based on race, sex," etc, regardless if it's for a lifetime... is OWNING a human being (ie, slavery) immoral? Is it grossly, grotesquely monstrously immoral every time?</b><br /><br />You appear to be hedging your bets, placing limits on SOME sorts of slavery that may not be immoral, so I clarified what specifically I am asking you. THAT is the question you're not being clear on.<br /><br />If by "chattel slavery" you mean the owning of another human being" then we are saying the same thing but YOU INTRODUCED some limitations (the "life time" and "race-based" limitations.) I'm asking in ANY situation, is it ALWAYS wrong for one human to own another human being?<br /><br />Maybe you agree, I'm just seeking a clear and direct answer, since you inserted provisos and caveats. Don't blame me for wanting clarity to your less-than-clear position.<br /><br />DanDan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-49718670836558041692015-07-05T19:18:38.810-07:002015-07-05T19:18:38.810-07:00Dan,
I have repeatedly told you that I believe th...Dan,<br /><br />I have repeatedly told you that I believe that chattel slavery is sinful, I have explained why I believe this. I'm not sure what about that is insufficient for you. <br /><br />"Why is that difficult to affirm?"<br /><br />I have repeatedly affirmed that I believe chattel slavery is a sin and why, I fail to see why you are failing to acknowledge that indisputable fact. Clearly, you are hung up on the semantics of the word chattel. Yet, that makes absolutely no sense. I apologize that I can't go beyond this answer as long as you refuse to clarify your underlying assumptions.<br /><br />As to your introduction of rape, that is just a stupid example, and doesn't help progress in any way.<br /><br />So, what you are saying is that you have "read" my comments, and that you are choosing to ignore the multiple lists of flaws in your unproven underlying assumptions, and that you are choosing not to address those flaws, even though your addressing those flaws would be helpful as a try to elaborate on my previous answer.<br /><br />So, there you have it, I have clearly and specifically stated my position. You haven't supported your underlying assumptions, and somehow would like to portray this as my fault.<br /><br />Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-53854133672927167852015-07-04T22:03:07.862-07:002015-07-04T22:03:07.862-07:00I'm asking a specific question, Craig. You can...I'm asking a specific question, Craig. You can keep saying "I've answered it..." but that does not mean you have. Look, if you don't care that it sounds like you might support slavery in some instances, or rape in some instances, that's on you.<br /><br />If you HAVE specifically answered my questions, then all you'd have to do is copy and paste the existing answer in there. You have not done so because you have not answered the specific questions asked.<br /><br />So, again, I ask you THIS question that has also gone unanswered: <br /><br /><b>I'm not clear why it's difficult for you to say, "I think all forms of slavery - of one person OWNING another person - are wrong, whatever the circumstances..."<br /><br />Why is that difficult to affirm?</b><br /><br />Answer the questions being asked of you - not some other questions that may be slightly related but that I have not asked - or just go away and let your silence speak for you, either way. Just don't come back again and say "I answered it already..." because that adds nothing.<br /><br />And where you say...<br /><br /><i>If you don't know what "specific weaknesses" your foundational assumptions/positions have, then you clearly haven't read me comments.</i><br /><br />Well, clearly I HAVE read your comments and I'm telling you I don't know what you're speaking of so, again, you can make your case or not, but simply saying "I already did!" doesn't help. Don't bother saying it again.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-36537032140988288652015-07-04T21:50:13.465-07:002015-07-04T21:50:13.465-07:00Dan,
I've answered your specific questions sp...Dan,<br /><br />I've answered your specific questions specifically. The fact that those answers don't set well with you really isn't the point. I've gone into detail why I have answered the way I have, and until you can deal with the foundational weaknesses of your underlying assumptions, I can't give you any more than I have. As long as you make unproven assertions, and then expect others to validate them, there is a problem.<br /><br />If you don't know what "specific weaknesses" your foundational assumptions/positions have, then you clearly haven't read me comments. If all you are going to do is just continue to ask the same thing over and over without any sort of clarification of the specifics of your response to the issues raised, then just tell me now and I'll walk away all one my own. I don't need to waste my time with your graceless expletive laden screeds and simply regurgitating the same question over and over in the apparent hope that I'll just copy/paste your exact words.<br /><br />So, if you have a different question, ask it. If you really just want me to copy/paste your position tell me what exactly you want. Or if you just want to spew expletives, do that. Delete me, ban me, do whatever, I'm just not all that invested on your argument built on unsupported assumptions.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-29075035388607987822015-07-03T15:05:41.168-07:002015-07-03T15:05:41.168-07:00Craig, I ask specific questions because I want to ...Craig, I ask specific questions because I want to know specifically what you believe. I'm not clear why it's difficult for you to say, "I think all forms of slavery - of one person OWNING another person - are wrong, whatever the circumstances..." <br /><br />Why is that difficult to affirm?<br /><br />Do you understand that when one hems and haws about what seems like an easy question that all decent modern humans can agree upon, that it raises questions?<br /><br />I mean, if I ask: Is rape - the involuntary forcing of sex upon another person - always morally wrong? ...would you similarly seek to outline some specific set of circumstances where it's wrong? It's as if you are saying, "Well, usually, yes, but in some circumstances..."<br /><br />It's hardly semantics to be able, in this day and age, to clearly affirm Yeah, slavery is wrong, rape is wrong. <br /><br />For my part, I have no problem saying slavery and rape are always wrong, always immoral. Am I wrong to hold that view? If so, why?<br /><br />As to "specific weaknesses" you've pointed out, I don't know what weaknesses you speak of. Other than the "weakness" that we are fallible humans with imperfect knowledge. But that's just a reality, so I don't see reality as a weakness. It just is.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-24080941076430005802015-07-03T14:47:57.799-07:002015-07-03T14:47:57.799-07:00Dan
I have understood and responded to your "...Dan<br /><br />I have understood and responded to your "question" multiple times. I have said that I believe chattel slavery to be wrong. I have said that I find chattel slavery based on race, gender, or national origin to be particularly egregious. It should go without saying that I do not approve of involuntary slavery. Other than your desire to dictate my word choice, I fail to see what is unsatisfactory about my repeated answer. <br /><br />If your goal is to get my answer in my own words, you've had it multiple times. If your goal is to simply get a quote for you to use out of context, I fail to see why I should accommodate you. <br />I have tried to address this in a specific manner in order to say exactly what I wanted and no more. I have outlined the various problems with your assertions and you have simply re asked the same question. My answer is the same I oppose involuntary chattel slavery, I believe it violated the second greatest commandment. <br /><br />If you just want a blanket agreement with your opinion just write something for me to copy/paste. <br /><br />So delete me, ban me, swear at me, withhold your bountiful grace from me, I really don't care that much. <br /><br />Or you could address the specific weaknesses I have pointed out, correct them ( or me) and go forward. But seriously if all you're going to do is whine about semantics let's just give up now. If you can't respect my desire for a specific and nuanced discussion but just want to deal a in sweeping generalities then by all means just say so and you won't have to delete anything. <br /><br />Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-20944996092743629832015-07-03T14:19:33.570-07:002015-07-03T14:19:33.570-07:00Stuff that's owned as property. So, no, there&...Stuff that's owned as property. So, no, there's no problem there and I don't see how that helps you any. Unless, that is, you are defining chattel in some non-standard way... how are YOU defining chattel?<br /><br />My position, again, is that it is immoral for one human being to own another human being as property- any race, any reason, any time length. What I'm asking you is pretty specific and clear, I think: Do you agree that ANY slavery (ie, any owning of another human being as property to work or for sex against their will) is immoral?<br /><br />Is it the case that you are not understanding the question? or that you are embarrassed to admit that you do not think all slavery is immoral? Or what is the reason why you can't simply address the question that is being asked of you?<br /><br />A follow up question: IF you think it is "objectively immoral" to own certain sorts of slaves (re: your limited list), on what basis is it "objectively immoral" in a way that claims that ALL slavery is not objectively immoral/wrong?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-92218978030417178562015-07-03T13:38:16.643-07:002015-07-03T13:38:16.643-07:00Perhaps your problem is that you don't know wh...Perhaps your problem is that you don't know what chattel meansCraighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-45233510025743239092015-07-02T20:32:13.522-07:002015-07-02T20:32:13.522-07:00I have given you a clear and concise answer about ...<i>I have given you a clear and concise answer about what specifically I believe and why. </i><br /><br />What you said...<br /><br /><i>Lifetime (and the lifetime of progeny) chattel slavery based on race, sex, ethnic group or national origin is objectively wrong.</i><br /><br />What I asked...<br /><br /><b>Is owning a human being and forcing them either into labor or sex against their will - regardless of if it's "chattel-based on race, sex," etc, regardless if it's for a lifetime... is OWNING a human being (ie, slavery) immoral? Is it grossly, grotesquely monstrously immoral every time?<br /><br />That is my view of the matter, what is yours?</b><br /><br />I'm not asking you if you believe what you said you believe already. I'm asking for clarification BEYOND what you believe. IF you believe, "Nope, nope, ONLY what I said is objectively wrong, so, 'owning a human being for seven years' is not immoral in and of itself, only for life..." then say it. I'm asking for clarification.<br /><br />Please answer the question asked or don't bother coming back. I don't mind dealing with your many misunderstandings of my positions and other points later, but I do want the question I asked to be answered, to be clear.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-12597998602415402612015-06-30T20:33:06.889-07:002015-06-30T20:33:06.889-07:00Dan,
I have given you a clear and concise answer ...Dan,<br /><br />I have given you a clear and concise answer about what specifically I believe and why. <br /><br />The fact that I don't agree with "your view" doesn't seem material. Unless, of course, you are going to suggest that "your view" is somehow more than simply "your view". The fact that I don't simply broad brush a topic with my view, but instead try to ascertain the detail and nuance is not a bad thing.<br /><br />The problem remains, and will remain no matter how often you pretend otherwise. You continue to make assertions, and act as if they are True, without having supported them.<br /><br />1. You continue to assert that there is a standard of "moral". (This is more in the nature if you continue to assert that certain things are "moral" or "immoral", but without a standard of "moral" then this is simply an assertion of personal preference) Obviously for a standard of "moral" to have meaning beyond the individual, said standard must be objective and transcendent.<br />2. You continue to assert that "slavery" is "immoral", yet without a standard for "moral" one cannot make declarations of morality.<br />3. You keep asserting that Deut 20 is referring to slavery<br />4. You keep asserting the God is commanding His people to take slaves, in the absence of any actual command to do so.<br />5. You keep asserting (more by failing to respond) that there is only one arrangement that the word slavery is used to define.<br />6. You keep asserting that simply finding one proof text and asserting "The Bible says..", is an appropriate standard when you do it.<br />7. You keep asserting that "the Bible says..." is somehow a ridiculous reason, while "My (Dan's) Reason says..." is somehow less laughable.<br /><br /><br />So, as long as you choose not to support your assertions, so that I can answer your questions based on more complete information that I currently have, I'm at a loss.<br /><br />"...SEEMS like you're hedging your bets, being very limited in what you want to denounce as slavery, which makes people wonder, Is he actually defending slavery in some cases?"<br /><br />1. Seems is a very subjective term, and frankly I submit that how things seem to you is not something that concerns me a great deal.<br />2. Given your lack of specificity, I am forced to be specific. If I am specific, it makes it harder for you to take me out of context, and twist what I actually said. Again, your lack of specificity about the possibility that arrangements exist which might be referred to as slavery (in English), but that might not fit the definition which you feel helps you, forces me to be specific. <br />3. When you say "some people" you really just mean you, why not just be honest.<br />4. I have been specific about the type of slavery I am prepared to condemn and why. As long as you refuse to deal with your lapses in specificity and support of your assertions, I don't see any reason to be any more specific than I already have.<br /><br />I'm not sure what it is about you that thinks that asking the same question over and over again, while ignoring my response is helpful. I guess it's better than your grace filled expletive laden screed, though.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-10093652574154507682015-06-30T20:01:42.723-07:002015-06-30T20:01:42.723-07:00Lifetime (and the lifetime of progeny) chattel sla...<i>Lifetime (and the lifetime of progeny) chattel slavery based on race, sex, ethnic group or national origin is objectively wrong.</i><br /><br />Craig: Is owning a human being and forcing them either into labor or sex against their will - regardless of if it's "chattel-based on race, sex," etc, regardless if it's for a lifetime... is OWNING a human being (ie, slavery) immoral? Is it grossly, grotesquely monstrously immoral every time?<br /><br />That is my view of the matter, what is yours?<br /><br />And this is what I mean by it SEEMS like you're hedging your bets, being very limited in what you want to denounce as slavery, which makes people wonder, Is he actually defending slavery in some cases?<br /><br />So, I'm asking very specifically about the simple owning of another human being, forcing them against their will into labor or sex... is that immoral?<br /><br />If so, why? Are your reasons objective?<br /><br />If not, why not?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-41661838992135679852015-06-30T19:50:04.633-07:002015-06-30T19:50:04.633-07:00"So, what IS your opinion? Is slavery "o..."So, what IS your opinion? Is slavery "objectively wrong..." and if so, in what sense? If not, why not?"<br /><br />Lifetime (and the lifetime of progeny) chattel slavery based on race, sex, ethnic group or national origin is objectively wrong. It clearly violates (at a minimum) Jesus second greatest commandment.<br /><br />The problem is that you haven't demonstrated that every arrangement that might be described using the English term slavery is lifetime, chattel slavery based on race, sex, ethnic or national origin is what is being described in your proof text. The problem is that there are arrangements that might be encompassed by the English word "slavery" which might be of a different nature. The problem is that you have not been able to demonstrate (certainly not with your selective "The Bible says.") what the specific arrangement described in your proof text actually is. The problem is that your proof text does not say "Thou shalt take slaves..". The problem is that the translators and many commentators don't agree with your opinion. The problem is that you can't even demonstrate an objective transcendent morality. <br /><br />So, while I've been clear and brief, you have chosen to resort to expletives and all caps instead of objective proof.<br /><br />If you can provide an objective transcendent definition of "human rights", I'd be happy to see that. I'm not sure how quoting the founding documents of a secular republic has to do with establishing any sort of transcendent objective anything, but I'm willing to be educated. <br /><br />Anyway, if you can show me where the text says "literally", "This is God speaking, and I command all of you to take slaves." or words to that effect, then you might have a point. If you could point to one translation that uses the term slavery in your proof text, you might have a point. If you could point to commentators who agree with your hunch, it would help. If you could even point out how applying one out of context proof text to underpin your whole argument is the best way to make your point, then you might have a point.<br /><br />Unfortunately, you haven't done any of those.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-14726378985408713662015-06-30T19:30:28.112-07:002015-06-30T19:30:28.112-07:00Dan,
You are correct that your expletive laden sc...Dan,<br /><br />You are correct that your expletive laden screed directed at "some people" was not effective, it was simply a contrived, silly, childish exercise in shock devoid of the grace you demand others practice.<br /><br />As I have pointed out multiple times, it is you who are making a claim of fact here. You are claiming that the "slavery" in Deut 20 (this ignores the fact that virtually no translation uses the term slavery, that there are plenty of commentary authors who disagree with your opinion, and none that I saw that agreed with your opinion) has a specific definition. Yet, you have provided nothing specific that objectively supports your underlying premise.<br /><br />As long as you fail to provide objective support for your premise that the arrangement described in Deut 20 meets your objective transcendent definition of slavery, then I will be less than enthusiastic about agreeing with you simply because "Dan says so..."<br /><br />Of course, one now needs to ask was your expletive laden screed needed because "I am upset because some people seem prepared to defend slavery as not sinful" or was it to "help you understand". I ask because those seem to be contradictory and if so, then it would follow, that one of the two is a lie. Since I have not tried to "defend slavery as not sinful", I'm just not sure what your point is.<br /><br />Again, you have not provided any scripture that says "Thou shalt own people".<br />You have not even proven objectively that your proof text is referring to chattel slavery.<br />Despite the fact that you can't demonstrate that your first proof text says what you claim it says, you skip that and throw out another proof text that also doesn't seem to say what you think it says.<br /><br />The Deut 21 passage you chose says clearly "...would take her as a wife for yourself,..." it specifically does not say slave, it says wife. Further the Deut 21 proof text is what is known as an "if/then statement". IN other words, IF (not must) you see a woman..., THEN this is what you must do in order to take her as your wife. Again, note the lack of the term slave. What seems likely is that God was trying to stop the Hebrews from acting in the passion of the heat of battle, but instead to slow down, take your time, see if there is more than simply physical beauty (ie cut the hair etc. and see if you still feel the same way), if after that period you still want to marry her, then it's OK. No where is there a command to take random women and turn them into sex slaves. It's just not there.<br /><br />Look, you can use FUCKING expletives, you can use ALL CAPS, you can use FUCKING EXPLETIVES IN ALL CAPS WITH EXCLAMATION POINTS for all I care. That still doesn't mean you don't have to demonstrate is some relatively objective way that your underlying premise is correct. <br /><br />You deride someone who says "The Bible says...", yet all you offer in return is is "That's what I (Dan) says..." or the more equivocal "My opinion is...". Look, if you want to have opinions fine, If you want to make claims about what things are objectively "moral", then the bar gets higher.<br /><br />As long as you substitute expletive and all caps for objective support, you will find that it is hard to get reasonable people to agree with you. Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-46247886277553298452015-06-30T19:29:28.108-07:002015-06-30T19:29:28.108-07:00We all understand that this is your opinion, yet y...<i>We all understand that this is your opinion, yet you really haven't laid any groundwork (beyond restating your opinion) that would allow one to conclude that slavery is objectively wrong. </i><br /><br />So, what IS your opinion? Is slavery "objectively wrong..." and if so, in what sense? If not, why not?<br /><br />I say it is clearly objectively wrong as it is a gross violation of human rights, those liberties of life and liberty that are "self-evident" as someone once put it. And, if the bible IS saying what it clearly seems to be saying - that God commanded slavery and forced marriages/sex slavery as moral options, if you take the stories literally - then I think that points against the notion of trying to take some of these stories as perfectly literally accurate history, told in the modern style (which didn't exist at the time, by all evidence I've seen). Otherwise, you are having to defend a god who might sometimes command what would normally be atrocities, which is self-contradicting to the Christian notion of a good and just God.<br /><br />Which I'm guessing is why I have such a hard time getting straight answers to these sorts of questions...Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-17691082254150693572015-06-30T16:31:45.652-07:002015-06-30T16:31:45.652-07:00Okay, the force of profanity did not help you unde...Okay, the force of profanity did not help you understand. Let me shoot for short:<br /><br />Slavery: THE OWNING OF PEOPLE.<br /><br />ONE HUMAN BEING OWNING ANOTHER HUMAN AGAINST THEIR WILL.<br /><br />DO you understand, now, what I mean by slavery? Do you join with me in condemning it as always immoral and always a blow against human rights of the most horrible sort?<br /><br />And this happens, you know, in the bible stories. For instance, when God commanded Israel to kill off the Midianites and other enemies and capture the young women and make them their wives. <br /><br />That is <br /><br /><b>owning another human being, <br />against their will and <br />forcing them into marriage against their will.</b><br /><br />You know, SLAVERY as it is normally understood by English speakers.<br /><br />Deut 21: <br /><br /><i>“When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, <br /><br />then you shall bring her home to your house, <br />and <b>she SHALL shave her head and trim her nails. <br />She SHALL also remove the clothes of her captivity <br />and SHALL remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; <br /><br />and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and <br />B<>she shall be your wife.</b> <br /><br />It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her."</i><br /><br />Humbled her. Heh, that's putting it mildly.<br /><br />That is, you shall not mistreat her... OTHER THAN forcing her into sex slavery/forced marriage against her will. And the normal rules for marriage don't apply here, you will see, by the way. The man can "let her go" if he is "not pleased with her..."<br /><br />Generous slavery, that.<br /><br />So, my question to you remains: IF you eventually found out that these verses ARE indeed speaking about what they very obviously seem to be speaking about - slavery and forced marriage - would you then conclude that, because they happen in the bible at God's command that there must be some circumstances where forced marriage and slavery are not immoral?<br /><br />Or would you stand with the rest of humanity (including many conservatives, as you note) and say NO! slavery - the OWNING of another human being and forcing another human being into sex against their will - is NEVER moral?<br /><br />That is, will your opinion of morality be tied to a literal interpretation of the Bible or will you recognize God's revelation of morality BEYOND just literally read bible texts?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-16555622046658749582015-06-30T15:57:24.199-07:002015-06-30T15:57:24.199-07:00"I am upset because some people seem prepared..."I am upset because some people seem prepared to defend slavery as not sinful and they are doing so by misusing/abusing the Bible,..."<br /><br />So your grace filled rational response to "some people" "seem"ing to do something, it to spew out an expletive laden rant directed at me. Not directed at the people who made you mad, but someone else. Do you realize how irrational it is to simply lump people into categories and deal with them as categories rather than as individuals? Do you realize how dehumanizing it is to know that no matter what I say or how effective my specific arguments might be, they will be dismissed or overshadowed by "some people"? I've asked this before, and haven't gotten a response, let alone an answer; why are you so unwilling to deal with people as individuals? Why have you insisted that I assume responsibility for something Glenn might have said? I've noticed this as something that is common to those on the left, but more importantly I've called you out on this numerous times. I don't understand that there could be any reason beyond simple laziness.<br /><br /> "I DO think that slavery is a fucked up institution and that the owning of people is monstrous and an atrocity..."<br /><br />We all understand that this is your opinion, yet you really haven't laid any groundwork (beyond restating your opinion) that would allow one to conclude that slavery is objectively wrong. <br /><br />To be clear, I'm not trying to justify anything. I would hope that you could provide some specifics and definitions that would clarify specifically what arrangement has you so worked up and by what objective measure you are making your judgements. I have my own thoughts, and my own basis for those thoughts, but I really haven't asserted much to this point, and am hoping that you will provide some more clarity before I go any further.<br /><br /><br />"Slavery is something to be upset about. Human rights abuses are things to stand one's ground against and call for the gross immorality that it is."<br /><br />Chattel slavery (particularly when based on race or gender or tribe) is certainly something to get upset about, I'm sure are aware of the people who are taking concrete steps to get people out of slavery right now. Many of them are even people more conservative than you. This does not, however, automatically mean that arrangement that is (potentially) covered by the English language term "slavery" is equal. That is why I would hope that you could be more specific in differentiating different arrangements, rather than broad brushing them in to a one-size-fits-all target. As long as you do that you will not get the blanket agreement that you seem to crave.<br /><br /><br />"I would hope that a reasonable conservative would agree."<br /><br />I would hope that you would acknowledge that there are numerous conservatives, some of whom are even rich conservatives who are (as we speak) actively engaged in removing people from slavery. I would also hope you could agree that said conservatives are doing more to alleviate the real world sufferings of actual individuals, than simply complaining about something that (you don't even believe happened) thousands of years ago.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.com