Anything Divine in the Bible?

The Bertot writes: Huntard writes:Well I think we have all made our points and I think we can put a fork in this one and call it done, atleast from my perspective. Ill leave you with this expression from yourself to demonstrate my point:"It might not mean anything in the long run". Well there ya go. At any rate happy hunting (no pun intended) in your search for what you believe constitutes morality. I am sure we will cross paths again on this very wonderful website, Ive truely enjoyed our exchanges on this topic. Your all great, I dont care what anybody else says about ya, ha ha.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

C writesAnd certainly you are not so dense to see that murder is a relative term, depending on ones perspective, if ethics and morality are relative. It has to work across the board with and to all species, it cannot be murder for one and simply taking of life for others for some contrived reason. If all species do not have or possess all knowledge, then it would follow that none of them have a standard that is absolute, as all here have indicated.But as I told Huntard you are free presently to believe whatever you choose. If that sort of ideology works for you then I suppose you are happy. Thanks for the excahnge

Why would I try to shift the question to you, I havent in the past. It was Brians and Cavedivers assertions about God being evil that demonstrated that the obligation was thiers to back that assertion. I will try to provide an answer from what i understand the scriptues to say or not say on the matter. It is my understanding that the scriptures condemns CAPTIVITY and mistreatment of individuals in any form. "Do unto others", etc. Captivity is a more accurate term than slavery, because all captivity could include a form of slavery but all slavery is NOT captivity. Hence Babylonian Captivity, etc.. Slavery is not expressedly condemned because it has a broad meaning. Paul says we are SLAVES to Christ. I am a slave to my job, literally, if I want to eat and survive,but in niether instance am I being held against my will as I would be in captivity.If ones response is that God sent them into captivity at times, then it should be understood that he is the creator and supreme judge, to make such a decision. The willful disobedience and punishment fot that sin is his decision based on an absolute standard or morality.Even an average individual in society does not have the right to hold captive another person, but the judge has such authority to act in this manner as a result of persons breaking the law. however, it is from a Biblical perspective that we believe God gave man the ablity to distinquish between right or wrong action and punish it accordingly. Therefore the magistrates actions are jutified in such cases. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers for the powers that be are ordained of God. For if you do that which is wrong, fear them, for they weild not the sword (authority) in vain.I dont know if this helps but I am sure you will let me know. ICANT and Jaywill may have a different perspective. We will see.D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Before I begin a response to this subject, let me make one quick note. The discussion we are in engaged in at present is quite diffferent than the one previous, in the respect it should be fully noted thatin that discussion you made it fully aware that morality and ethics was a relative and non-absolute proposition.I on the other hand make no such claims, in fact quite the opposite. I am maintaining that what an omnipotent God does or allows is correct from an omnipotent absolute morality and eternal perspective.Secondly, actions that the individual human involves himself in and what an omnipotent judge involves himself in or allows is quite different. As is the activity that an earthy judge arbitrates verse the average citizen.That being the case it should be obvious that these two discussions have little to do with eachother and any accusation brought against God should be understood in that context, unless you can provide proof that you possess omniptence.Further, it should be understood that I believe that God possess omnipotence to make such decisions in these matters and we are proceeding from that context, atleast from an argument sake as we did with your admission that morality is subjective. I make no such claims and maintain that morality and an eternal God that possess it, is by nature absolute in his judgments. If that is agreeable then we may proceed.In that context we may start here: The entire article may be seen at http:The Bible and Slavery - Apologetics Press As was stated earlier slavery of some types and situations is both reasonable andcorrect, if done from a positon of authority. Your question to me concerning captivity was made in the context of n individual to an individual. Did not God do and let other nations do to the Isrealites the very samething he allowed, them to do with the disobedient. [PlEASE READ Leviticus 26:14-46]. This is justice across the baord my friend.As a matter of fact he was much more harsh at times with his own children concerning disobedience and slavery, than with others. Slavery then becomes more of a tool in Gods hands than captivity as in the case of indiviulas to individuals. [qs]A Mutually Beneficial Relationship
Frequently, “slavery” in Bible times was much more of an employer/employee relationship than an owner/slave situation. Even the words used to delineate between a hired servant and a slave are difficult to separate. As Herbert Lockyer noted:In the ancient world, service and slavery were closely related, so much so that one can scarcely distinguish the one from the other. The original words used for “servants” and “service” carry a variety of meanings between which it is not always easy to determine what is meant (1969, p. 197).Arndt and Gingrich documented that the Greek word doulos meant “slave,” but that it also was used “in a wider sense” to denote “any kind of dependence.” In 2 Corinthians 4:5, the apostles are called the douloi (plural of doulos) of the Christians. Christ took on the form of a doulos, as stated in Philippians 2:7. Paul designates himself as a doulos of Christ in Romans 1:1, Philippians 1:1, Galatians 1:10, and numerous other passages (1967, pp. 205-206). The term can describe a person who is obligated in some way, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, to another person. Due to this broad use, various translations have employed a wide range of words to render the meaning of doulos in English. Using Romans 1:1 as a case in point, the NKJV has “bondservant,” the New Living Translation has “slave,” the KJV and ASV have “servant,” and the Darby Bible has “bondman.”The Hebrew word ebed is similar to the Greek doulos, in that it can be translated as “slave” or “servant.” In Exodus 4:10, Moses referred to himself as the “servant” (ebed) of God. Abraham called himself the ebed of the angels who came to visit him in Genesis 18:3. In Genesis 39:17-19, Potiphar’s wife described Joseph as the Hebrew ebed, and Genesis 24:2 talks about the eldest ebed in Abraham’s house, who “ruled over all he had.”The purpose of including this brief description of the two most common terms for a slave is to show that our modern use of the word slave generally evokes mental images of cruelty, injustice, and bondage against a person’s will. While such ideas could be included in the biblical usage, they do not necessarily fit every time the words are used. Instead, the picture that we often see when the biblical words for “slave” are employed is a mutually beneficial arrangement similar to an employer/employee relationship. Job describes this relationship quite well:If I have despised the cause of my manservant (ebed) or of my maidservant, when they contended with me; what then shall I do when God riseth up? And when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb (Job 31:13-15)?Obviously, Job’s dealings with his slaves provided a mutually acceptable situation for master as well as slave."
"Even during New Testament times, slavery often provided a mutually beneficial relationship to both owner and slave. As Paul Copan remarked:During Paul’s time, the master-slave relationship provided sufficient benefits and opportunities, such that it dampened any thoughts of revolutionary behavior. One freed slave had inscribed on his tombstone: “Slavery was never unkind to me....” More often than not, it was the free workers rather than slaves who were abused by foremen and bosses. (After all, an owner stood to have an ongoing loss if he abused his slave.) [2001, p. 172, parenthetical item and emp. in orig.].But suppose a master did abuse his slaves in Old Testament times, and those slaves decided to run away. In Deuteronomy 23:15-16, God made it unlawful for runaway slaves to be returned to their masters. The text states:You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him.This passage is particularly revealing because it shows how costly cruelty to slaves was. It also shows that slaves had the freedom to choose where, and with whom, they wanted to live. Wright noted that this passage proves that
[s]lavery as such is not protected or rendered sacrosanct under Israelite law. At the very least it can be said that such a law probably presumes that runaway slaves will be the exception, not the rule. This lends further weight to the view that normally slavery in Israel was not oppressively harsh. It would certainly not have been, if the spirit of the slavery laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy were put into practice (1983, pp. 181-182).Add to this the fact that kidnapping a man and selling him as a slave was a crime punishable by death, as noted in Exodus 21:16: “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.” Certainly, any parallel to slavery in early America can be easily refuted." Same author as above[/qs]Notice that the scriptures makes a distinction between what an omnipotent judge allows and what a man is allowed to do on his own authority.Further: Here is a place for us to start. I will await your response.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

DA writes:Lets try this again DA. There are numerous things that an omnipotent God can and will do that are not allowable for the average human being. While it may be jutifiable for him from an eternal perspective to take the life of a child, it is not for me. If I were able to create a Mr. Data, ther are certain things I would allow him to do. However, Idoubt I wold allow him to discipline or correct my childrens action, even if both he and my children are under my control. I have the charge and rule over both of them, correct? Your problem is that you are trying to compare human actions with omnipotence. It simply cannot be done.To answer your question directly NO, slavery is not wrong according to the Bibe. However, before you get hyperactive let me explain. I do not indorse salvery from a human standpoint anymore than I do say homosexuality. While the current laws allow homosexuality and gay marriage, God specifically condems it. So while the current societys abhor the idea of slavery, Gods view is that there are many forms of slavery and how we act or treat people within that context is what is at issue. You may contend as much as you wish that the above examples are not really slavery but they are. I would not agree to this limited definition of slavery although the thoughts expressed in it are valid. However, did you notice the very first word "Legal". Now, within that definition you cited it specifically uses words ( thier capture), and others to which your argument say that slavery is not. How do you explain that?Further, the Biblical guidlines specifically reject some of the guidliness expressed in that definition.D Bertot Again slavery has a broad meaning. What is condemned in both the OT and NT is the mistreatment of such people in those situations. God allowed slavery for many reasons, but never the mistreatment of people. God conducts and participates in actions that are not allowable for his creation, in the same way a father would not allow his children to participate in the discipline of a brother or a sister.Further, there are certain things that God allows man to dictate and slavery is one of them. If man from his God give authority as a government decides to abolish slavery, then that is OK with God as well. God has not made an arbitration on the category of slavery, because slavery has a very broad meaning and there are may reason to which one finds themselves in that conditionEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

GM writes:In fact I did answer his question and it is not a matter of what I think, that is what got us in this mess in the first place, man trying to decide what is right or wrong. I thought we were discussing what God does as evil or not. Have you been following along?I personally do not understand all there is in the talking of the life of a child anymore than I agree with slavery, but what does my opinion have to do with an omnipotent God?

DA here is another good example. You are in the Navy and I was in a real service,the Air Force, ha ha Now if we were drafted and held in that status aginst our will, could we not be condidered as slaves of a sort. We could not leave without consequences correct. Think about it? Slavery has a very broad meaning, correct?Do you know what kind of movies pirates and Navy personel are not allowed to see? Rrrrrr, moviesD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

DA writes:It is not always a vol force and that is the point. Go tell the people of the civil war and WW2 about you convinences. Should God intervine here to tell govs that they are wrong for imposing the draft against peoples will, or does he view it as a nature course of affairs that he lets people decide upon.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

GM writes:You fellas really dont get it do you. I cant believe anyone is this stupid. Listen up and think about it logically. You have no way to proceed to make the above statements. They are nonsensical idiocy for anyone that claims that morality is relative. Terms which you employ only have reference in your and only your application, they are pointless when trying to advance a position of subjective morality. They may have use in a society where said action is currently acceptable and benificial to a group of people, however, they cannot be used to label or catoragize behavior as goo or bad, evil or immoral.There is not going to be any consistency in subjective, relative, human behavior that uses it self and present norms as a condition for morality.How in the world could you make an idiotic statement that there are good and bad measures in the Bible, when you have no standard to measure that statement with. It reminds me of the definition of "nothing". Nothing is what rocks dream about. By what standard are they appalling, abhorent and repugnant?It never fails to amaze me how each time I hear these types of arguments advanced from a perspective of relative subjectivity and basically nothing how ignorant they are and how obviously evasive one is when they continue to suppport a hopeless, ignorant, idiotic position, Thomas Paine notwithstanding. Then by all means please set it out for us all to see. And after you do I will set back and show contradiction after contradiction after contradiction, in not only the behavior of humans presently in the so-called social morality from human to human, but human to animals and humans in the past. No morality will work without a frame of reference and you have none because your position is stupid, idiotic from the start. Yet you sit here and claim that everyone elses is cruel, evil, bad, inconsistent and immoral.How stupid must one be to see that if you admit morality is subjective, you have no leg to stand on, muchless a platform? Your emotions, heredity and social upbringing are not a valid frame of reference to claim that others positions on anything are evil or good, including slavery or any topic you choose. Your EMOTIONS, your display in your post concerning the way in which God does this or that are groundless, pointless, ignorant, baseless, illogical and any other word that I could use to show complete, hopeless, irretrivable contradiction and fallacy.Oh by the way this is my summation before the thread closes, have a nice day. Wow.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

D A writes:Will you also tell her your position on abortion and killing and eating of other species?. Or will you gloss over this and pretend the glaring contradiction does not exist. Will you tell her that you have no way to justify any of your actions, no way to describe them as moral or immoral? When you are telling her your opinion on the Bible, will you tell her that you dont really have a platform and that is just your opinion verses someone elses. I wish I could be a fly on the wall for that father daughter, discussion. But if I were a fly on the wall, you would probably smash it or spray it in the face with insecticide, correct?When she asks you why abortion is ok and why its a crime to break or eat an eagles egg, will yu tell her how immoral or subjective human behavior is, or will you gloss over it as you have in this discussion?When she asks you the question of why it is ok for humans to treat animals in a way that humans do not treat eachother, what will be your response, more relative nonsense. When you are explaining the Bible to her and your positions on it, will you explain why it is evil for humans to treat eachother poorly and that your reasons are simply that you are human and it appears to be evil based on your intelligence and emotions but disregardt the same behavior any where else? Will you explain to her that because you are more intelligent than other species, your actions are justified, for reasons of survival or simple causation?When she asks you why you have to go away to another country will you tell her that there were some fellas that were drafted (slavery} against thier will, forced to fight and die against thier will, or go to prison, then proceed to explain this as an indentured servitude, verses simply forced servitude or slavery, or will you gloss over this while you are explaing your contempt for the scriptrues.When she says, wait a minute daddy, your against the Bible because it condones slavery, but your in an organization (the military) that also condones slavery, when they feel it is necessary, what will be your response.Or will you be man enough to say to her sweetie, I suppose I have no way to justify my contempt for the God of the Bible or my actions.But then I could go on and on and on about your morality, correct? What you mean here is simply more relative nonsense against more subjectivism.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Huntard writes:DA writes:DA writes:DA the Navy dude, hows it going holmes? Believe me it was not my intention to take you off topic, I am sorry if you think that was my purpose. I certainly dont mean to sound superior here, because I am not. I dont want to sound condesending either, yet as I read your responses above, to my questions it is obvious to me that you are still very simplistic in your thinking in these matters. Matters such as, subjective, objective, relative, moral, immoral, evil and the application of them against logic and logical contradictions and implied, direct and indirect implications. It took me a while as well to understand the implications of the positions I held and the things for which I contended. You called me a hoot and I think that is funny. I would say kindly that you are a child in your understanding. Trust me I was in the military and retired out of it. Hwever, as regards you implication that I have insulted anyone, misses the the point exacally, as I indicated. In the Warren-Matson debate, on the existence of the God of the Bible, Dr. Matson called God a logical monster, to which Dr. Warren took great offense. Dr. Matson said this was not an attack on Gods character but a direct implication of the arguments that flowed from those premises. Ofcourse he was wrong and Dr Warren soon dismissed any idea of God being illogical. But Dr Matsons implication was misunderstood perhaps. Ofcourse while he meant no offense, he like yourselves had no platform from which to make such a statement. Do you see what I am saying?Now it is in that same context that I make the statement that the draft is for all intents and purposes slavery, it is. Slavery is just a term to describe a situation or state of being, you can not apply only one definition to its meaning. The conditions and terms of the draft equate nearly perfectly to a slavery situation, the same as a captive of war or a criminal. Both are against peoples will AT TIMES and there are consequences if you try and leave against the will of those in charge. No insult was intended or given. You simply need to step out of your simplistic thinking and think in logical terms, concepts and ideas.For example I was not talking about eagles eggs or the military personnel directly, but using it as an example to demonstrate a logical point.You and Huntard dont seem to understand the implications of holding and having standards against a relative moral position. So be it. Jaywill is proceeding in a fine fashion as he usually does and I will be happy to let him proceed with the direct Biblical approach, from which he is so masterful.Thanks for the exchange.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Ok, it must have been a dream for 22 years, but if you want to believe I am lying about such a simple things , then OK. Oooo pottie mouth, to quote Jaywill.Bertot Writes:DA writes:My point exacally but never mind we will leave it there for now, ehBertot writes:DA writes:Why you worthless sack of c..., no Im just kidding ofcourse. Well I never, again IM just kidding, Ill now make my point with your following quote. DA answer the following questions:Are some draftees pulled in and forced to serve against thier will, yes or no?Are there severe consequences, prison and other punishments if they choose to exercise thier will to leave that situation, Yes or No.?Now you can add any terms and conditions to the word slave you wish, but the above will most certainly involve the word slave, or forced servitude.If not maybe you would like to provide a word that does not inmply slavery.Your problem and frustration is that you have been offered an example of a situation where you are condemning something but a part of an organization that has some of the same practices, regardless of thier benifits, other freedoms and rights, correct? Heck even the Hebrew slaves had bennies and alot of rights, correct?This my friend is a double standard and demonstrates again why you do not have a platform. The first reason is that you are proceeding from a subjective morality, by your own admission, which you dont seem to understand or you are being very evasive. This is my reason for saying your thinking was simple, it was not meant as an insult.I gots to go to work homie. Now see that term is not insulting, I believe it means friend. Now if I called you home spun, that would mean you were homlie and that would be an insult, ha haD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

DA writes:Ofcourse and that is my point DA, slavery has many meanings and cannot be restricted to a certain definition. The only problem with the above examples you provide, while very true, is you missed the point and avoided the first question I asked. I asked, are people (draftees) taken against thier will, yes or no?When this action happens, whether you call them prisoners or indentured servents acting against thier will they are slaves of a sort and by definition. The fact that anyone that leaves the military has consequenses has nothing to do with the fact that draftees (slaves), or what ever you wish to describe them, are taken against thier will an FORCED to serve in places and situations that are against thier beliefs, not to mention the fact that they do not wish to be there in the first place.I noticed you did not provide another word to discribe the situation of those taken against thier will as in the case of draftees. Now this may be what the government calls them, but what do you think the people that are in that situation against thier will call it?DA writes:OK. Take a look at 2 and 10. Take a look at 1 and 3. Yes DA there may be some differences but the start and finish of the draftee and slave in any situation are exacally the same, they are TAKEN AGAINST THIER WILL, for the purposes of the abductor to serve thier wishes, whether it is the government or an individual.Your initial contention or question was, Is slavery wrong or right, it mentioned nothing about a certain type, time or place of that condition. My example of the draftee demonstrates beyond any doubt that the term slavery is broad in character and meaning.If this is not what the Bible or anyother definition of slavery are implying, then you are saying it is ok to take people against thier will (draftee) if you or someone else thinks it appropriate or if we simply redefine the word, or think that our actions are justified.DA please provide an example where it is ok to take someone against thier will, make them work for you and punish them if they leave. In other words, in your view, is there any situation or circumstances that these actions would be justified and WHY?No my friend they are not two different creatures, its simply that you will not acknowledge that forcing a person in any situation is not acceptable. You make concessions in one instance because it contradicts your conclusions. When you answer the questions I asked you fairly in your mind, there will be no distinction.A slave is a slave, a prisoner is a slave, a draftee is a slave, a kiddnaped person is a slave. When there are no choices but to obey or disobey with or without consequenses and be soley under the influence of that person or situation, with no choices of your own except to escape, that my friend is slavery, no matter what other condition you ascribe to it, correct? Ofcourse not. You entered into that CONTRACT OF YOU OWN FREE WILL and are therefore obligated to honor that contract as you would the purchase of an automobile. Draftees did not agree to anything or enter into any contract of thier own free will, but are forced into those situations as is a slave of any time, place or country. Notice you even used the word "contract".Besides that to help you know that I was in the military, what do we usually call 77-134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? What term describes those articles. Ill give you a hint it starts with a "P"D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

DA writes:Its simple and I will demonstrte why once again.I will get to this latest response as quickly as I can today, busy with a few things, but will get to it soon as I can.D Bertot

DA writes:Let me say first of all thanks for the excahnge on the issue. I had to untangle 5 bags of Christmas lights and the only thing more difficult, is trying to understand your way of thinking, ha ha.C.O. is a way of thinking DA it was not always a method of excaping forced servitude in the military. You cannot excape the fact that many members of the armed forces were taken, held and forced to serve, or go to prison against thier will.While you did offer to speak to stop loss and national emergencies, you all but ignored my question as to whether it is wrong to hold someone against thier will. If these are the examples you wished to use, then I would say that these are both from the perspective of the person imposing them and not from the perspective of the person taken agains thier will.Yes there are degrees and categories of slavery, as you indicate but it still constitues slavery nonethe less.Your objections to slavery and its practices are a product of your upbringing and current social order. In the days of the Greeks and Egyptians, that behavior would have been perfectly acceptable.Let me use another illustration. The Bible not only condons but commands that women be in subjection to men, atleast in the Church and in Gods family. Now there are those today that would be down right offended by this and say that it is immoral, yet God commanded it, as such.So while societies standards may change, it is only Gods declarations based on an eternal perspective that can have any OBJECTIVE reality. Quite obviously you are misrepresenting my position. No, simply doing something agaisnt you will, does not constitute slavery. If someone else physically restrains me and enforces consequenses against my will if I resist, and enforces punishments if I resist,, then that is slavery, no matter how you desribe it otherwise. You know darn well that draftees did not ALWAYS have these exemptions and classifications. Many through the years were treated as criminals, imprisoned and even put to death for such actions. Your attempts to rationalize this behavior, while noble are fallacous.Your problem since the start of this debate has been that you have a preconcieved and limited definition of the word slavery. While it most certainly includes those things you include, it is not limited to either your definition, types in past history or classifications within the designation of slavery. The simplest definition would ofcourse be anyone taken against thier will, forced to serve and punishments if they do not. Now there may be other types, conditions and levels within that context, but it is slavery nonetheless, if it is against a persons will. Slavery in these countries, or more specifically TIMES was acceptable behavior. Your objections to the pratice of slavery is due to your current upbringing and a society that percieves it as objectionable. You can justify your actions in the responses to the draft and in other areas due to the fact that you percieve such actions against another human being as deplorable, yet do not show the same consistency with regard to species of lower intelligence. This demonstrates that your position is nothing more that subjective relativism and there is no way to condemn the actions or others, no matter the time period.God did not abolish these actions because the buying and selling of another person as property is not a crime in his view, as is indicated by the condoning of such behavior. God in many instances allowed behavior for a time, to demonstrate his mercy, while he still considered it sa a sin in principle. If slavery is not one of these things, he allowed it for a reason and more importantly it is based on an absolute morality. Again as I have clearly indicated by your own admissions, you find valid reasons to justify the taking or holding a individual against thier will, if you BELIEVE the REASON to be worthy enough. Remember, the current standard of what should take place in society could change with the passage of time.Now I most certainly agree with you, but if that standard is not based on an absolute standard then it would follow that the persons with the most power and influence, have the position to decide what actions are right or wrong, moral or immoral, and thats assuming we can use those terms in light of aso-called morality, which turns out to be nothing more than an opinion after all.Standards within a species are only deplorable and objectionable if the collective masses at this or that time deem it as such. Try and step back and take an objective look at why you are outraged. If there is no categorical and absolute standard, then it would follow that your "morality" is nothing more than a product of the current society, your upbringing in that society and your emotions and understanding applied against those conditions. You find HUMAN slavery deplorable because you are a human being. As a human being you may find it deplorable that a women should be in subjection to a man, but by what principle will you rail against it, when it is based on an absolute standard and your own human actions are not consistent with your own beliefs. Many or most did not use the term "slavery" because it was not in vouge. If however, there was no real problem as you suggest, what was the big outcry? Why were people sent to prison or forced to stay in the military and work against thier will.Why and how did the changes come about in the draft system, if there was no problem? Clearly without saying it outright (and I am sure several did that were never heard) most belived it to be problem that needed correcting, atleast in thier view. Correct, I hereby authorize you to advance to the next rank. Because slavery is not limited to a time or place. Further, while it has several levels and categories, it has a root meanings by the definitons I supplied.Subjective "morality" will never get you any closer to questions of morality. Because it will only be a matter of perspective.Have a nice trip to Chi-ca-go man. "We dont need no stinking badges, man"D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.