This here has more potential for an interesting discussion.

Science is unable to describe nothing. Will it ever?

Tell me. The passing of time. Registers in any way, to an unconscious/dead person?

Ah. So slavery is wrong but the world would be better if we had it today for some forms of it. Ok.

He is an expert on religion and says so so this cant be. To be fair though the bible was use to help end slavery too.

I'm aware of everything evil in the bible - I've taken great delight making Christians squirm with it. I'm not aware of all the good stuff, however.
Really? The only way? What about the actions of Christians in ending slavery, opposing slavery, outlawing in their own cultures, fighting to the death to stop it?

Compare with say, Islam (where it's socially sanctioned and encouraged and made up a vast industry for a millenia and was woven deep into the fabric of society), and the difference is night and day.

Christianity has been the greatest anti slavery force in history, whether you like it or not.
Yes of course. Lots of things fit into this category. Moral choices wouldn't be hard, otherwise.

Yeah. Thanks for the enlightenment you are truly a great thinker.

God gives man free will, divorcing man from Nature. (per the traditional theocratic narrative)

Nature creates malaria; man creates slavery.


Slavery is not God's creation, and man is judged for the morality of his own actions, including the enslavement of his fellow man.

The only way to indict God for slavery is to circle back to the problem of Evil generally.


As for the benefits of slavery, imparted unto the slaves, ToothSayer should improve his life by agreeing to be treated as the legal property of a total stranger.

re: the OP


If you really want to find the answer to your question, as opposed to a rhetorically-raised critique, you should consider the meaning of the principle of a singular "God".

You have to start by stripping away the anthropomorphic accounts (including the notion of "consciousness" as-we-know-it (opposed to the consciousness of trees or ants)) and the politically motivated narratives.


Then contemplate the principles of "totality" and "infinity".

At that point, you may reintroduce your anthropocentric considerations of causality and emotion to glean the human-experience-of-God as a clouded, bent reflection of God.


Consider whether your critiques are more appropriately leveled at The Universe itself or at individuals' attempts to claim Destiny as a veil for their own self-interest.

I don't know enough to talk confidently about slavery and make comparisons between now and in the past, but from what I do know I think that in the past it was a part of society and that it wasn't always necessarily immoral. Life today, as I know it (as a Canadian), does not require slavery, but there are still people who are not having their needs met (needs which may have been met as a slave two thousand years ago) so as a Canadian my concern should not be how to profitably work slavery into the economic reality I am facing but in how I can help those facing situations less fortunate than mine. Are there situations in the world today that would benefit from slavery similar to what existed two thousand years ago? It seems possible. Would that be the most ideal situation? Considering how much we can help those living in countries where poverty is so present, it doesn't seem like it. As a Christian and follower of Christ, I would hope that these countries develop to the point where slavery is not needed and that situations are as equitable as possible for everyone.

No problem.

I can understand that, and I suspect that was possible for some people at least some of time.

In terms of being unsaved, yes. (Is this what you meant?) Slave-traders are specifically mentioned here as people who are practicing something immoral though.

All of the above is probably true but is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

1. It has nothing to do with the reason people owned slaves. Any more than if I shot you and the ensuing surgery resulting in them finding a tumor that now can be removed and would have otherwise killed you. A slave would be doing nothing immoral if he murdered his owner to attain freedom even if his life would have been better if he remained a slave. Its thus pretty hard to argue that a slaveholder is doing good if its moral to kill him to stop it.

2. Many people would prefer a significantly lousier life if it meant freedom. That is for them to decide.

3. If you truly felt that a person would be better off as your slave then the right thing to do with him is to give him a choice. Free him and see if he chooses to stay. And promise that if he sees that he can't make it on his own you will take him back.

Using the fact that he might be better off as a slave is rationalizing claptrap.

I could ask when it went from moral to immoral but...alright i guess fair enough.

I don't accept your premise that it's moral for the slave to kill his owner, so I don't accept your conclusion/last sentence.

Christianity is very clear on this point: "slaves, obey your masters". I'm not sure where Judaism stands.

Is it moral for a man locked up for life on a drugs charge, which he doesn't agree with, to kill his prison warden if it allows him to escape? Or a simpler case: to kill his arresting officer, who's about to take away his freedom for the rest of his life, in something worse than slavery, because he has pot and it's his third strike? The cop profits from this enterprise just as a slave owner would.

So I'm not sure I'm down with your rationalizing of murder.
Yes but we're talking about this in the context of the morality of God quasi endorsing slavery - or at least not condemning before Jesus. Would God be right to end slavery so that people could have lousier, free lives?

I contend that from a sufficiently far perspective, the world is richer in experience and emotion and spiritual growth and cultural exploration with slavery in it. Given that, what is a God to do?
I'm coming from the perspective of what a God should do, not if it is moral for an individual to own slaves.

Also, in the old world, most slaves - without property, without cultural connections, are guaranteed to die or live horrible lives. Much of the Muslim world is like that right now for women - they can't leave the house without a male relative escort, they can't work or socialize outside their ownership circle, and are essentially trapped slaves because all of society would shun them if they tried to go out on their own.

No.

Out of interest (Sklansky always makes the conversation more interesting):
How many Christians and Jews would agree with this statement or consider it in line with their religion?

Sklansky seems to have a line for where it's ok to murder and steal (he thinks it's fine to steal from rich people who don't do much & waste the money rather shamelessly) that's not in line with community standards. Do people agree with him?

Who cares. Its off the subject. I go to extremes to make a point but I don't need to. Super rich who spend their money on gold toilets don't deserve their great wealth. Slaveowners who are only trying to enrich themselves at the expense of completely innocent slaves should not be our concern if they get their legs broken while trying to capture a runaway slave. And your analogy regarding wardens is obviously flawed because it was not he who decided to imprison the convict and also flawed because the convict was not completely innocent like the slave was.

I am surprised you are trying to deflect my good arguments by alluding to my hyperbole.

Yeah it was a weak analogy. Unworthy of a reply on your part.

I'm more interested in the moral propositions you've put forward, they're appealing even though I reject them. You have a knack for finding moral (and gambling) propositions that make people think twice.

I just can't believe that it's so obvious there is a God

Only a person with a BIG FAT ego who thinks they are smart would come to the conclusion that there is no God.

Just because you do not have the answers and can't figure life out, doesn't mean that God does not exist.

What's so comical to me is that people worship their own minds, and their own conjured up belief system. Everything you know you were taught or you learned from stimulation outside of your own self. That does not make you smart, that just makes you a good follower. You pick and choose what you lke and want to believe and then it becomes your philosophy.

Creation itself proves that there is something greater and more intelligent than the mind of man, but some men think they are so smart, lol, make a tree, or bird or anything that breathes air... smart man....

Out of the mouths of babes

The conceit here is yours. The existence of stuff doesn't prove anything except the existence of stuff. First God moved the clouds and made the crops grow. Then he made the sun move. Then he made the stars. Now he's reduced to a quantum level fluctuation 13 billion years ago. Kind of sad.

What's consistent, however, is the reliable and silly mental biases of humans who see wilful action in impersonal forces and events. Why is your particular point, shoved back 13 billion years, any more clever than the guy who saw clouds move and was sure that God decided whether it would rain, so he better kill his firstborn to keep God happy?

Give it 30 years or so and we'll crush God on these metrics. Then what? Are we God then? Cause we can make stuff better than a ****ty designer?

Bull****, I will bet you anything you want.....

I'm not actually sure whether you accept that Christianity was used to justify both slavery and abolition.

So you are familiar with those passages? Do they fall under 'squirm-worthy'?

You're not going to get far with a Dinesh D'Souza article (was there nothing from Rush Limbaugh on the topic?! lol)

The fact that you're looking to blame something outside yourself for your experience of "The Universe" is the exact reason you find yourself in the predicament you're in. Accidents and coincidences are words that unaware people use to explain their perception of life events bc everything they see is in pieces and any concept or picture of the whole seems out of reach, this is why you're alive, to rejoin the feeling of WHOLENESS

This is the most ass-backwards missing of the point and yet I see it so often from the lolbertarian types and political right in general.

Nobody's judging the morality of the people so desperate that they have to work in a sweatshop. It's the sweatshop owner that's despicable.