144 posts / 0 new
Last post
Burn Your Bible's picture
You equated slavery with

You equated slavery with divorce... and you are asserting that divorce is wrong!

The sad part is I know you are smart, yet I do not understand how you have allowed this death cult to suck you in... divorce, condoms , sex oh my! It's silly to think these are bad things, you may not want to join in but to tell others it's bad is almost criminal!

jonthecatholic's picture
I actually live in the only

I actually live in the only country that does not permit divorce. If we do hear about it though, it's always a sad thing.

The reason I think divorce is wrong is that I believe marriage to be a lifetime commitment. Allowing a "just-in-case" exit strategy actually diminishes the value that marriage has. While you say that divorce should be available and is good, I say what we should endorse the idea of the permanence of marriage.

Anyway, we won't be convincing each other on this. Just so you know my thought process.

Sheldon's picture
"While you say that divorce

"While you say that divorce should be available and is good, I say what we should endorse the idea of the permanence of marriage.

Anyway, we won't be convincing each other on this. Just so you know my thought process."
There's a fundamental difference between those two positions you seem to have missed, his position doesn't tell anyone how they should live, instead to offers a choice to live as they choose, your position in stark contrast wants to insist people stay married in line with your beliefs. If Divorce is allowed you and anyone else who shares your beliefs can still stay married until they die, but you got your way and divorce was 'not allowed' people who didn't share your beliefs would be forced to stay married when they didn't want to. Yet religious apologetics never seem to acknowledge that what they'#re offering is not choice, though they dress it up with cliches like free will, in the end they always want to tell others how to live..

Incidentally I'm married, and the fact that divorce is allowed doesn't diminish my marriage at all, quite the opposite. I can't speak for others, not being religious, but the fact that my wife could leave me if I made her unhappy is an added incentive to keep her happy as i want to stay married to her. I also don't accept your 'just in case' misnomer, it's to sneer at divorce as a failure or a cop out but before when churches held power women were condemned into abusive marriages that they could never leave, and that is far worse for everyone concernned than divorce, as sad it may sometimes be.

Tin-Man's picture
To: Sheldon Re: Marriage

To: Sheldon Re: Marriage/Divorce

Sheldon, my man, you hit the nail on the head. The fact that my wife could leave me whenever she wants if I fail to keep her satisfied and happy is DEFINITELY a great incentive for me to faithfully fulfill my obligations as a husband and always let her know how much I love her and how much she means to me. Good call, bud.

Burn Your Bible's picture
And I'm sure the woman that


And I'm sure the woman that can't get divorced and are in abusive marriages love the no divorce law!!!

Really funny how it's usually men that are pro divorce laws!!! Hmmmmm

algebe's picture
@JoC: "The reason I think

@JoC: "The reason I think divorce is wrong is that I believe marriage to be a lifetime commitment."

I agree with you. I've been married for 44 years, and it would be easier for me to cut my own arm off than to get divorced. But I also recognize that other people have different lives and different views. I've been very lucky . Others are not so lucky. They make mistakes as people sometimes do, and mistakes shouldn't be a life sentence.

Another thing you need to recognize is that in ancient times when marriage first began people didn't usually live into their 70s and 80s. They were married long enough to raise some children, and then they died. Twenty years would have been a long marriage. People live longer today. How can you be sure in your twenties that you want to spend 60 or 70 years with the same person?

Sky Pilot's picture


Do you know how much the first hooker in the Bible charged? A young goat. Her John was her father-in-law except he didn't know who she was because she was wrapped up in a burka. He knocked her up with twins and when he found out his widowed daughter-in-law was pregnant he told his henchmen to roast her alive. Then he found out that he was the one who caused it so he wimped out. Genesis chapter 38.

jonthecatholic's picture
And? What does this prove?

And? What does this prove? That Judah wasn’t a saintly person? We already knew that. Just because it’s recorded in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s being endorsed. The Biblical authors have their ways of showing you the ugly sides of the characters and showing you the effects of their actions afterwards. Especially Genesis.

Sky Pilot's picture


Be sure that you don't miss the point. Remember the mob that caught the woman in the act of "adultery" and Yeshua stepped in and challenged the first one who was without sin to cast the first stone? All of the stories are intertwined and are meant to illustrate the Ten Commandments in action. And don't forget that a number of Yeshua's women ancestors were hookers.

Burn Your Bible's picture
Please show me where it says

Please show me where it says in the Bible that slavery is ok for the time "being"
You make shit up in order to make your god sound better!
“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.”
‭‭Leviticus‬ ‭25:44-46‬ ‭ESV‬‬

This passage seems to be in direct conflict with your indentured servitude argument... so how does god not want people to own others?? Or what is the context that I am missing here??????

jonthecatholic's picture
Debt Slavery was one type of

Debt Slavery was one type of slavery in ancient Israel. The other type is the regular kind which involves foreigners. Look at how they are treated though. Leviticus 24:22. "You shall have one law for the sojourner and for the native." This means they have one law for foreign slaves and local ones. They are still to be treated with fairly.

There is a small indirect clue that points at foreign slaves actually wanting to be sold into slavery in Israel as opposed to their home country. The evidence I'm pointing to are the laws that forbade the returning or oppressing fugitive slaves from other countries. (Which I think John Breezy has touched on in the OP). Why would slaves run away from their masters and take refuge with another master in Israel knowing it would much of the same thing. Maybe because it wasn't much of the same thing.

There were even laws that provide for some slaves who choose to be slaves for longer than six years. You'd think that freedom would be the ultimate goal, right? Maybe in today's world. Back then, I think it was simply survival.

Burn Your Bible's picture
What law that allows a slave

What law that allows a slave to choose to be a slave for longer than 6 years??

And I know you're not talking about if you give the slave a wife and she bears children and the slave then says I love my master and my wife and my children so I will be a slave for life. Because that would just be bullshit, and excuse on top of an excuse on top of an excuse

jonthecatholic's picture
Deuteronomy 15:12-17..

Deuteronomy 15:12-17.. especially 16.

12 If your kin, a Hebrew man or woman, sells himself or herself to you, he or she is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year you shall release him or her as a free person.
When you release a male from your service, as a free person, you shall not send him away empty-handed,
but shall weigh him down with gifts from your flock and threshing floor and wine press; as the LORD, your God, has blessed you, so you shall give to him.
For remember that you too were slaves in the land of Egypt, and the LORD, your God, redeemed you. That is why I am giving you this command today.
But if he says to you, “I do not wish to leave you,” because he loves you and your household, since he is well off with you,
you shall take an awl and put it through his ear* into the door, and he shall be your slave forever. Your female slave, also, you shall treat in the same way.

Burn Your Bible's picture
So this applies to Hebrew

So this applies to Hebrew slaves only and as I have stated on other threads there was a clear difference between Hebrew slaves and the heathen slaves.
Also have you ever heard of Stockholm syndrome?

jonthecatholic's picture
You still haven’t answered to

You still haven’t answered to the idea that foreigner slaves would rather be a slave in Israel where the slaves actually had value as opposed to other nations where they didnt. (Check the OP).

Also I have heard of stockholm syndrome. But that doesn’t apply. Stockholm syndrome is when the captives defend their captors or talk about them in positive light. Not when they want to remain captives of their captors.

Burn Your Bible's picture
What is there to answer?? No

What is there to answer?? No outside slaves from other nations didn't want to be slaves under Hebrews!! So now what evidence do you have to back up that slaves were running into the arms of Hebrew masters in mass numbers? To me you have done nothing more than assert that slaves preferred to be slaves under Hebrew rules.

Here let me break this down to a simple question...
Do you feel that it is moral to harm another human for making a mistake? Let's say you told a worker to give your cows water and he forgot, and the cow died as a result... do you think it would be morally ok to beat this worker?

jonthecatholic's picture
Well, first of all, I'd

Well, first of all, I'd charge the worker as a form of punishment. Remember though, these slaves didn't have any money to pay for the dead cows that cost money. Some other form of punishment would have been preferred. Being jailed or left in a holding cell? Then the master would've lost a day's worth of work that slave could've done.

Remember the driving force at this time was survival. The master still had to feed every one of his slaves and couldn't spare one servant to make sure the slave stays in his cell. Did I mention prisons weren't a thing yet? I wouldn't say to beat up the worker would be morally right but to strike to send a message might be enough. It might surprise you but most cultures around the world still hit kids when they misbehave.

Burn Your Bible's picture
So you believe in fear

So you believe in fear tactics in order to keep people in line?
Do you think this is the most effective way of keeping people in line?
Does god agree with you that beating a slave that misbehaves is wrong?
Does this still apply today?
Should we allow business owners to "strike" employees that misbehave?
Do you think children in households that use fear and physical punishment suffer?
As a society that is constantly evolving towards a better moral understanding of what should and shouldn't be done to the youth, should we ignore research that doesn't follow the Bible's view on hurting children?

jonthecatholic's picture
Fear tactics to keep people

Fear tactics to keep people in line.

- I teach part time. It’s useful to threaten the students once in a while. Point is asserting your authority is fine but I agree certain lines should not be crossed. This is actually expressed in scripture.

Today, “striking” employees is no longer applicable. They can be fired or some other form of punishment. As to hitting children, do you realize that almost all cultures hit their kids to discipline them? One comedian even made it a joke that only white people don’t hit their kids. (Search Russel Peters). For you to say that not hitting kids is an effect of “better moral understanding” you’re simply stating an opinion which doesn’t necessarily have universal truth value.

When is comes to “beating slaves” take note of the “weapon” being specified. It’s a rod

Burn Your Bible's picture
First off I would say it's

First off I would say it's pretty clear from my posts that I believe children are our future and we should not harm them... I believe we can educate vs abuse... as my family would say "if everyone jumped of a bridge would you?" I don't care if every culture hits children I believe education is better than abuse!

Did you know that there are cultures that dunk their kids in water because they believe in an old fairytale?

When it comes to employees not getting hit... is your job more important than god? You allow yourself to make your own judgements (good job) but why do you not hit employees like you would a slave? Did you not pay your employee for their time? Did they not misbehave?

So beating a slave with a rod is ok?? Got it...

jonthecatholic's picture
The point of saying that the

The point of saying that the thing used to discipline slaves was a rod. It's not a sword or even your fist. A rod as referenced in the Bible isn't a hard thing. Your fist is harder. A whip even hurts more. I've been on a receiving end of a "rod" and those things break pretty easily when you hit hard enough. These "rods" were meant to only give light punishment. That's why if a slave ever died from a beating, it was sure that there was malice in the intent and therefore death would await the master.

All I'm saying about hitting kids to discipline them is that it actually works. Me and my friends actually exchange stories of how we were punished and how it has helped is through the years. I'm not saying it's the only way, I'm saying it's a way that works.

Sky Pilot's picture


According to Isaiah 14:1-2 the Jews will end up with a lot of Gentile slaves. And in the Babylonian Talmud each one will get 2,800 slaves in the afterlife. Their slavery will be permanent.

jonthecatholic's picture
I can’t speak for the Talmud.

I can’t speak for the Talmud. But the Isaiah text seems like a prophesy more than an endorsement of slavery. Again, slavery in the ancient world was an institution. It would be natural to capture aggressors you defeat in battle and enslave them, which this text seems to imply. Read past verse two. It might become more evident.

Sky Pilot's picture
Burn Your Bible,

Burn Your Bible,

Did you hear about the idiot who questions if slavery existed in America?

"First he said the Earth is flat. Now rapper B.o.B isn’t sure slavery happened, either"


NOVEMBER 03, 2017 12:16 PM

UPDATED NOVEMBER 03, 2017 12:53 PM

"Rapper B.o.B likes to ask the big questions.

It’s just that, on two high-profile occasions now, he’s asked really big questions that have already been answered by science and history.

His latest came Wednesday, when he captioned a video on Instagram disagreeing with Pan-Africanism, the widely held belief that black people categorically come from Africa and have been scattered throughout the world throughout history, away from their ancestral homeland.

“They say slavery lasted 400 yrs... America is only 250 yrs old... You ever seen a slave ship? They can find a billion year old dinosaur bone but can’t find any slave ships,” he wrote."

So if people are that stupid it's easy to see why others would think that slavery was a bed of roses.

Burn Your Bible's picture
True true

True true

Sky Pilot's picture


So you would be completely happy to have been a "slave" of the ancient Hebrews because you would have been a "servant" and not a slave in chains and shackles.

If slavery was still legal for individuals how many "servants" would you want to have?

Sheldon's picture


Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Not that hard really, is it?

jonthecatholic's picture
"...except as a punishment

"...except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted..."

looks like your constitution doesn't quite ban slavery in all cases. It's right there in your text. There exists an exception.

Sky Pilot's picture


Of course slavery is still legal in America. That's why the justice system is so intent on locking up every black person it can get its hands on. And in the South, like in Texas, a lot of the prisons are located on old slave plantations.

jonthecatholic's picture
I think you missed that point

I think you missed that point that Sheldon was trying to make. I missed it too as he actually missed the mark by quite a lot.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.