God's law; Your neighbour's goods

reply to post by Prezbo369

Prezbo369
These 'reactions' stem from my empathy for my fellow human beings. It has a natural and neurological origin, no 'Gods' required, regardless of what you've commented on...

I think it is Nurture, not Nature.
If it was Nature, it would hold good for a larger proportion of the human race over a larger part of its history.

You think it was unconsciously placed upon me (without asking for permission) by the master of the universe. Whereas I think the evidence points towards a societal product

To be exact, I think it was unconsciously placed upon you by parental teaching absorbed in early childhood. In other words, nurture, not nature.
Your parents got it from society (to that extent, it is a societal product) and society distilled it from Biblical teaching.
With a different set of parents in a slightly different culture, you might have absorbed a deep-seated hostility towards “other races” instead.

As I have previously explained I was talking about the theft of goods and animals, not aggravated robbery.

This conversation began when you yourself brought up the question of killing burglars, asking;

And why would that be moral or right in any time or place?

So that rhetorical question of yours is what I’ve been discussing.
I took it to be a declaration that the action would never be “moral or right”; and my case has been that this declaration of what is “moral or right” has no purely philosophical basis.
Its ultimate origins are in religious teaching, though you’re not conscious of them.

slavery (which you have refused to condemn)

That statement is a misrepresentation, as well you know.
I simply refused to be drawn out into discussing something I intended to cover at a later date.
My words were;.
“That's a good question, but slavery is such a big issue that I'm giving it a separate thread later in the series.
So I'm coming back to that one later on.”
Meanwhile, to avoid “spoilers”, I was keeping my cards close to my chest about what I intended to say;
“I shall be looking at the laws, hopefully comparing them with other laws of the time, and reflecting on what they say about the God who endorses them.”
If you want to draw me into a discussion of slavery, you must wait for the relevant thread.
You’re not going to open up a second front on this one.

This thread is one of a series which began with;

Settling your disputes

The next topic will be "fields".

DISRAELI
I think it is Nurture, not Nature.
If it was Nature, it would hold good for a larger proportion of the human race over a larger part of its history.

We wouldn't be where we are today without empathy, nor would we have gotten as far as the foot of Mount Sinai or anywhere else. Other animals show empathy for one another, even going as far as to (on occasion) show it to other species so it's entirely natural.....no gods required.

So that rhetorical question of yours is what I’ve been discussing.
I took it to be a declaration that the action would never be “moral or right”; and my case has been that this declaration of what is “moral or right” has no purely philosophical basis.

All it has is a philosophical basis! Every point you argue relies on the existence of a God, and until one god has been shown to exist all you have are the the debased scribbles of a gang of murdering pillaging Jews, no basis whatsoever. Whereas we can be sure that philosophy and philosophers do exist.

Its ultimate origins are in religious teaching, though you’re not conscious of them.

I'm sure you think that.

That statement is a misrepresentation, as well you know.
I simply refused to be drawn out into discussing something I intended to cover at a later date.
My words were;.
“That's a good question, but slavery is such a big issue that I'm giving it a separate thread later in the series.
So I'm coming back to that one later on.”
Meanwhile, to avoid “spoilers”, I was keeping my cards close to my chest about what I intended to say;
“I shall be looking at the laws, hopefully comparing them with other laws of the time, and reflecting on what they say about the God who endorses them.”
If you want to draw me into a discussion of slavery, you must wait for the relevant thread.
You’re not going to open up a second front on this one.

Spoilers? lol your threads are not A Game Of Thrones......

Why do I get the feeling that this stalling will just lead to a pitiful and transparent attempt to justify the slavery endorsed in the bible?

And if you are capable of doing that, then i'm not sure what makes you think you're capable of any moral judgement whatsoever.

Prezbo369
Spoilers? lol your threads are not A Game Of Thrones....

Game of Thrones? Certainly not.
My threads have a protagonist who seems to have been around forever; who has a high opinion of his own sagacity; who meets a variety of antagonists and deals with them by remembering the First Law of Crisis ("Only panic about one thing at a time"); who has a weird sense of humour which Americans don't always understand or appreciate; who is always to be found in eccentric costumes (but you can't see that); who prefers female assistamts but can't always get them...
What else could it be but Doctor Who?

And since I am a TimeLord, the timing of my launch into the subject of slavery will be under my own control, not yours.
So if you don't behave yourself, K9 will bite you on the ankles.
Sit, K9, sit! Don't growl at nice Sontaran man!

PS The party has now moved over to this thread;
God's law; Your neighbour's field

Wow
avoiding the question, missing the point, straying off the subject and distraction?

Are you sure you don't want to throw in a few more fallacies before you end this thread?

DISRAELI
For comparison, these laws are to be found in the Code of Hammurabi.

I forgot to mention that the absence of a death penalty for theft, in the Pentateuch laws, also contrasts even with European law of the eighteenth century.
In that period even trivial thefts, down to the picking of pockets, might incur the death sentence (or the similar penalty of exile to Australia).
This gave rise to the proverb that "You might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb".

Prezbo369
Other animals show empathy for one another, even going as far as to (on occasion) show it to other species so it's entirely natural.....no gods required.

So, on the one hand, ordinary animals show empathy towards one another.
On the other hand, the bloody history of the human race makes it evident that many human beings have NOT felt empathy towards one another.
The implication is that something went wrong in the transition between ordinary animals and humans.
Whatever it was, perhaps this was what the story of the Garden of Eden is trying to tell us about.

There's no getting away from it. The state of the world is clear evidence that something has gone wrong at some stage.

reply to [url= by DISRAELI[/url]


The party (the other thread) didn't really get started did it......

DISRAELI

So, on the one hand, ordinary animals show empathy towards one another.

Some do yes.

On the other hand, the bloody history of the human race makes it evident that many human beings have NOT felt empathy towards one another.

And yet there was enough empathy to allow the civilizations we both dwell in to grow to the levels we are at now, so its a fairly significant amount.

The implication is that something went wrong in the transition between ordinary animals and humans.

No that's something you've inferred.

Whatever it was, perhaps this was what the story of the Garden of Eden is trying to tell us about.

You'll get more sense, morality and empathy from an episode of Sesame St.

There's no getting away from it. The state of the world is clear evidence that something has gone wrong at some stage.

Wrong.

The world has never ever known a period of time like this, there has never been such a low level of wars, murders or genocide. The world has never been better, but I know your beliefs probably tell you that we're all worthless sinners worthy of gods wrath and that you're probably looking forward to an Armageddon of some kind like most Christians.

Maybe religion is what inhibits empathy?...

Prezbo369
The world has never ever known a period of time like this, there has never been such a low level of wars, murders or genocide.

That rather proves my point, thank you.
My comment was based on several thousand years of human history, and your answer amounts to "things are not as bad as they used to be", which concedes that they used to be worse.
If the human race was as fully endowed with love and empathy and sweetness and light as it needs to be for the purposes of your argument, things would not have been bad in the past either.

The world has never been better

Now you're coming across sounding like Harold Macmillan; "Some of our people have never had it so good".
There are people in the world, suffering horrible and even nightmarish lives at the hands of their fellow men, who may think that your attitude of smug complacency about the state of the world is achieved by looking through rose-tinted spectacles.

you're probably looking forward to an Armageddon of some kind like most Christians.

You are rather prone to making moral judgements about my views without even knowing what they are, based on your guesswork about what i "probably" think.
No innocent man would want you presiding at their trial.
My views about the concept of Armageddon are outlined in these two threads;
Revelation; The roads to Armageddon
Revelation;Victory and judgement
I suggest that you acquaint yourself with them before passing judgement.
Knowledge, not ignorance, eh?

DISRAELI
That rather proves my point, thank you.

It's utterly and completely in contradiction to your 'point', you claimed:

There's no getting away from it. The state of the world is clear evidence that something has gone wrong at some stage.

Indicating you thought things were at one time better, and are now worse. This is basic grammar.

My comment was based on several thousand years of human history, and your answer amounts to "things are not as bad as they used to be", which concedes that they used to be worse.

Yep things were much, much worse, but here in the 21st century things are much, much better. Are you denying that point??

If the human race was as fully endowed with love and empathy and sweetness and light as it needs to be for the purposes of your argument, things would not have been bad in the past either.

Another dishonest tactic, my 'argument' doesn't require any of the above, just a bit of common courtesy and care for our fellow man. If youre going to bother to reply, at least reply with an honest response and break the mold....

Now you're coming across sounding like Harold Macmillan; "Some of our people have never had it so good".
There are people in the world, suffering horrible and even nightmarish lives at the hands of their fellow men, who may think that your attitude of smug complacency about the state of the world is achieved by looking through rose-tinted spectacles.

Yes nightmarish things happen, and unfortunately they probably always will. But that doesn't take anything away from the fact that mankind has never been in a better position. The doom mongering and fear spreading you perpetuate won't change that.

You are rather prone to making moral judgements about my views without even knowing what they are, based on your guesswork about what i "probably" think.
No innocent man would want you presiding at their trial.
My views about the concept of Armageddon are outlined in these two threads;

[url= and judgement
I suggest that you acquaint yourself with them before passing judgement.
Knowledge, not ignorance, eh?

Ha, I wade through those overindulgent threads of yours (that never receive much attention) to find you say nothing whatsoever on your personal feelings or opinion on the Christian end of the world, just descriptions based on your interpretation of the bible passages that mention it.

This is why less and less people take you Christians seriously, you cant even argue your case without resorting to dishonest methods...

Prezbo369
It's utterly and completely in contradiction to your 'point',...you thought things were at one time better, and are now worse. This is basic grammar.

Let me try to explain this in simple language.

My assertion about things being bad was always being made about the overall state of human history.
Based on your comments, I made a negative comparison with what had gone on before.
That is, you said empathy was natural and found among animals, and I observed the lack of empathy frequently found in overall human history ("man's inhumanity to man" is so well-known that it has become proverbial); from which i inferred that things had become worse in the course of the transition from one to the other.
When you claimed that the human world was better now than it had been in the past, you were unconsciously conceding that past human history had been worse- which confirmed and conceded my point about the badness of overall human history.
Even if it is true, as you claim, that we are coming out of that dip, that does nothing against my suggestion that overall human history has been less "naturally" empathetic than what went on before.
Especially since I have already suggested a reason why the rise might have been taking place.

I can do this in an outline summary;
Stage A; Animals, natural empathy.
Stage B; Overall human history, "Man's inhumanity to man".
Stage C; Present generation, "the world is better than it has ever been".
My argument was that B has been worse than A.
Your response has been to argue vigorously that C is better than B- but how does that do anything against the suggestion that B has been worse than A?
On the contrary, your claim that C is better than B actually concedes and confirms my own case that B has been in a very bad way. As I said, it went towards proving my point.
Do you see?
It's just a question of keeping the mind clear as to which "before-and-after" is being discussed.

DISRAELI

Let me try to wriggle out of this indefensible position I've found myself in with an incredibly long winded and contrived attempt at an explanation.

Fixed for you.

My assertion about things being bad was always being made about the overall state of human history.
Based on your comments, I made a negative comparison with what had gone on before.
That is, you said empathy was natural and found among animals, and I observed the lack of empathy frequently found in overall human history ("man's inhumanity to man" is so well-known that it has become proverbial); from which i inferred that things had become worse in the course of the transition from one to the other.

The transition from one to the other? what are you talking about? You may not know this, but the natural world is a violent bloodbath, filled with nightmarish horrors we rarely come close to. If you actually think that the animal/natural world was at any time more empathetic that the human world at any stage, you're living in a cartoon world.

I said that animals have been shown to have empathy, not that all animals have it or that those that do have empathy show it often. We've developed it to the stage we're at now, and it's taken a very long time.

When you claimed that the human world was better now than it had been in the past, you were unconsciously conceding that past human history had been worse.

Lol unconsciously? I know exactly what I said and consciously decided to infer that things were at one time human history was worse that they are right now. It was an essential part of my argument for petes sake!

which confirmed and conceded my point about the badness of overall human history.

Yes it was bad, it is now less so i.e. better

Even if it is true, as you claim, that we are coming out of that dip, that does nothing against my suggestion that overall human history has been less "naturally" empathetic than what went on before.
Especially since I have already suggested a reason why the rise might have been taking place.

Yeah.......despite the fact that we've always had empathy you think someone that you think was a god gave it to us.......

I can do this in an outline summary;
Stage A; Animals, natural empathy.
Stage B; Overall human history, "Man's inhumanity to man".
Stage C; Present generation, "the world is better than it has ever been".
My argument was that B has been worse than A.
Your response has been to argue vigorously that C is better than B- but how does that do anything against the suggestion that B has been worse than A?
On the contrary, your claim that C is better than B actually concedes and confirms my own case that B has been in a very bad way. As I said, it went towards proving my point.
Do you see?
It's just a question of keeping the mind clear as to which "before-and-after" is being discussed.

A clear mind?? this displays anything but...

But you could show otherwise by condemning the ownership of human beings.........at any point.......especially in a thread concerning what the bible says about the ownership of property...

To do otherwise is a sign or irrationality.

Prezbo369
" DISRAELI"
Let me try to wriggle out of this indefensible position I've found myself in with an incredibly long winded and contrived attempt at an explanation.

Far from it. I was just clarifying the waters which you had muddied with misunderstanding and wilful misunderstanding.
Incidentally, that trick you played in the above- inventing a quotation to be quoted in my name-
That is not a safe habit to fall into on ATS.
I have seen Mods disapprove and remove posts.
A word to the wise, old son, a word to the wise.

The transition from one to the other? what are you talking about? You may not know this, but the natural world is a violent bloodbath, filled with nightmarish horrors we rarely come close to.

Fne.
You were the one who introduced the theme of empathy among animals, to support your thesis that love was natural and did not need encouragement from gods.
If you are now backing away from that theme, we arrive back at the possibility that love which includes more than close kin may not be quite so natural, and may need the encouragement of religion after all.

Yes it was bad, it is now less so i.e. better

Yes, and I have suggested a possible explanation for the improvement.

DISRAELI (a genuine quote, this time)
To be exact, I think [morality] was unconsciously placed upon you by parental teaching absorbed in early childhood. In other words, nurture, not nature.
Your parents got it from society (to that extent, it is a societal product) and society distilled it from Biblical teaching.
With a different set of parents in a slightly different culture, you might have absorbed a deep-seated hostility towards “other races” instead.

A clear mind?? this displays anything but..

Neither I nor anyone else can help you grasp anything you don't want to grasp.
"Sir, I have given you an argument.
I am not obliged to give you an understanding"
Doctor Samuel Johnson, 1784

You could show otherwise by condemning the ownership of human beings.........at any point.......especially in a thread concerning what the bible says about the ownership of property...
To do otherwise is a sign or irrationality.

This thread is not about the ownership of property. It is about the treatment of other people's property, as announced in the title and in the opening lines.
But there are no laws in the Bible about the theft of other people's slaves, so there is nothing to talk about.
I have already explained the simple, practical reason why slavery is not included in this theme;

DISRAELI
I have to break up my material into chunks of 7500 characters.
There is quite a lot of law to quote on the subject of slavery, a lot of things that I would want to say in commentary, and a lot of things that people will want to say in discussion.
It is an important issue in its own right, and therefore one that deserves separate treatment.

The inheritance of land, which is another kind of property, is also given separate treatment, for exactly the same reason.

Perhaps I should explain to you how this series has been planned, and give you some insight into my methods of working.
Then you might realise that these rather desperate attempts to goad me into changing my plans are a waste of time.
Given the character limits already mentioned, I have split the material into a series of topics which will fit within those limits.
I thought it might be another series of twelve, but this time there are fourteen of them.
All these themes have been given their due date, marked up on my wall calendar.
The subject of homicide and "cities of refuge" has been placed as the climax, coming in just before Easter (there is a reason for this).
The first discussions of family law will probably be coniciding with another landmark, but that plan is still under wraps.

The timing of the discussion of slavery involves another point which you haven't thought about.
Most of the slavery in that society will have been debt-slavery. In fact the law on the treatment of slaves in Leviticus and Deuteronomy is a sub-topic of the law on debt.
How, then, can I talk about slavery until I've prepared the ground by talking about poverty and debt?
The series has ben planned in this way because I've thought these questions through and you haven't.

I am the Doctor, and this series is my TARDIS. I can fly her, and you can't.
So if you can keep your hot and angry little hands off the control switches, i would be grateful.

DISRAELI
You were the one who introduced the theme of empathy among animals, to support your thesis that love was natural and did not need encouragement from gods.
If you are now backing away from that theme, we arrive back at the possibility that love which includes more than close kin may not be quite so natural, and may need the encouragement of religion after all.

I'm not even slightly backing away from that 'theme', empathy amongst animals is a fact, that they do not show it constantly or even often is irrelevant. No ghouls or ghosts required.

Yes, and I have suggested a possible explanation for the improvement.

Yes the laziest, most overly convoluted and least convincing explanation possible..........'god did it'

DISRAELI (a genuine quote, this time)
To be exact, I think [morality] was unconsciously placed upon you by parental teaching absorbed in early childhood. In other words, nurture, not nature.
Your parents got it from society (to that extent, it is a societal product) and society distilled it from Biblical teaching.
With a different set of parents in a slightly different culture, you might have absorbed a deep-seated hostility towards “other races” instead.

Quoting yourself like this is a big narcissism indicator.

Neither I nor anyone else can help you grasp anything you don't want to grasp.
"Sir, I have given you an argument.
I am not obliged to give you an understanding"
Doctor Samuel Johnson, 1784

And to finish it off, comparing yourself to Dr Johnson.............1784 lol

This thread is not about the ownership of property. It is about the treatment of other people's property, as announced in the title and in the opening lines.

The bible considers people to be other peoples property, and gives instructions on how to treat said slaves. It's not topic drift.

But there are no laws in the Bible about the theft of other people's slaves, so there is nothing to talk about.
I have already explained the simple, practical reason why slavery is not included in this theme;

Annnnnd your quoting yourself once again.....as if it's convincing...

Perhaps I should explain to you how this series has been planned, and give you some insight into my methods of working.

Why would you think this is of any interest to me or anyone else? All I've asked is whether or not you condemn slavery. You do not need 1000's of characters to answer the question.........3 should suffice.....but your continued and pointless refusal to answer this question has made it more than completely clear how you feel about one human being owning another...

The timing of the discussion of slavery involves another point which you haven't thought about.
Most of the slavery in that society will have been debt-slavery.

Lol I haven't? you really think this excuse hasn't been rolled out by every single irrational and immoral Christian before you?

Cheese and crackers, all this time and you've not even been paying attention. In one of my very first replies to you I mentioned the immorality of indentured servitude.....and most??? thats debatable....but so what if that was the case, there were still human beings being treated like cattle.

And that a man living in the west in 2014 can convince himself that slavery was just fine......maybe you're in need of a time machine...

Prezbo369
The bible considers people to be other peoples property, and gives instructions on how to treat said slaves.

Ingenious, but missing the point.
It is not giving instructions about slaves as other people's property.
This thread is about other people's property. if there were laws about the theft of slaves- but there aren't any mentioned.

Lol I haven't? you really think this excuse hasn't been rolled out by every single irrational and immoral Christian before you?

Missing the point again.
I rolled out no excuses for slavery.
I referred to the connection between debt and slavery as a reason for talking about debt first.

And that a man living in the west in 2014 can convince himself that slavery was just fine......maybe you're in need of a time machine...

I have never said so, and you are not entitled to make that assumption.
That a man living in the west in 2014 can be willing to condemn someone else's opinions purely on the basis of not knowing what they are! You really should be ashamed of yourself.
That kind of attitude would have won you rapid promotion in the Inquisition or the K.G.B. or any other organisation where the prosecutors were utterly indifferent to the basic principles of justice.

DISRAELI
Ingenious, but missing the point.
It is not giving instructions about slaves as other people's property.
This thread is about other people's property. if there were laws about the theft of slaves- but there aren't any mentioned.

There are no rules for the theft of sandles or underwear either, yet they are in most cases other peoples property. And in the bible people are other peoples property, so in a general sense slaves do apply to the tread topic.

Missing the point again.
I rolled out no excuses for slavery.
I referred to the connection between debt and slavery as a reason for talking about debt first.

I've not asked you to 'talk' about slavery or debt, I've asked a very specific question that requires a succinct answer. More stalling...

I have never said so, and you are not entitled to make that assumption.
That a man living in the west in 2014 can be willing to condemn someone else's opinions purely on the basis of not knowing what they are! You really should be ashamed of yourself.

Haha seems I've hit a nerve?

I've condemned your opinion not on not knowing your opinion(??who does that??), but on all the evidence pointing to my conclusion....I've asked many times now whether or not you condemn slavery as endorsed in the bible, or just slavery in general....and each time you've refused to answer......each time using excuses such as potential 'spoilers'!

It's a very basic question, one that should be easily answerable for any human being. Not answering such a basic and fundamental question and instead attempting to stall or dodge it is something to be ashamed of IMHO.

That kind of attitude would have won you rapid promotion in the Inquisition or the K.G.B. or any other organisation where the prosecutors were utterly indifferent to the basic principles of justice.

Or an organisation that uses evidence?

And it's no surprise that you have the gall to talk about justice while refusing to say whether or not you condemn slavery.

Prezbo369
There are no rules for the theft of sandles or underwear either, yet they are in most cases other peoples property. And in the bible people are other peoples property, so in a general sense slaves do apply to the tread topic.

This series is about the laws which do exist, and this thread is about the laws on STOLEN property.
No laws found about stolen slaves, so nothing within the range of this thread.

I've asked a very specific question that requires a succinct answer.

I have told you- there will be a specific thread on a specific date on the specific subject of slavery.
Nothing you say, and nothing you "require", will change the set plan, so you may as well settle down and wait.

Haha seems I've hit a nerve?

Ah, is that what you were hoping to achieve with all this unsubtle and ineffective barracking?
No, my little bullnecked Sontaran warrior, I'm quite relaxed and comfortable, and I can keep this up until the cows come home.

DISRAELI
This series is about the laws which do exist, and this thread is about the laws on STOLEN property.
No laws found about stolen slaves, so nothing within the range of this thread.

The bible considers human beings as slaves to be peoples property. And as such slaves can be stolen no?

I have told you- there will be a specific thread on a specific date on the specific subject of slavery.
Nothing you say, and nothing you "require", will change the set plan, so you may as well settle down and wait.

Why do you think my question requires a thread to answer it?

....makes me even more convinced that you intend to defend slavery as described in the bible...pretty vile...pretty disgusting...

No, my little bullnecked Sontaran warrior, I'm quite relaxed and comfortable, and I can keep this up until the cows come home.

Haha i'm sure you could, slavery was around for a very very long time and people even went to war against their neighbors to defend their right to own other human beings as property.....because it was endorsed by the good ol' bible.....

....some people even refuse to condemn slavery, one of our most reprehensible and despicable legacies, in 2014.....

Prezbo369
The bible considers human beings as slaves to be peoples property. And as such slaves can be stolen no?

This series is about the laws which do exist, and this thread is about the LAWS on stolen property.
No laws found about stolen slaves, so nothing within the range of this thread.

Why do you think my question requires a thread to answer it?

Because it concerns a subject which is important enough to deserve separate treatment and is going to get separate treatment.
My comments on slavery will be kept in one place instead of being scattered around all over the shop.
I am working through these laws methodically and systematically, one topic at a time.

Talking of which- "husbands and wives" will be coming up later tonight.
You can get your teeth into that one, if you like.

DISRAELI
This series is about the laws which do exist, and this thread is about the LAWS on stolen property.
No laws found about stolen slaves, so nothing within the range of this thread.

Biblical LAWS on stolen goods and animals, the bible considers people (slaves) as other peoples property. It applies directly to this self indulgent thread and your stalling fools no-one (other than maybe yourself).

What are the chances that upon the arrival of your next eagerly awaited set of beliefs and interpretations of a primitive and debased book, that you will infact condemn the promotion of slavery in the said book and the 'God' than inspired it?

Slim and none come to mind.......but there's always hope