Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[Homeless Nutter]

To make your point, you can't simply say "God could have...". It is not that easy--you would have to give a plausible scenario. [...]

I'm sorry, but when you base your model of reality on a book which has talking donkeys and the dead rising from their graves in it - you lose the right to use expressions like "plausible scenario".

[T.J.]

I have an alternative theory.

God isn't real. The bible is fake. Slavery was socially acceptable at the time and the writer(s) was/were influenced by his/their culture when writing his/their book.

Wow. That sounds much more rational and I didn't have to strain my brain to come up with it.

[SteveII]

Would God know of a better solution: yes, certainly.

Could a nation of loosely grouped tribes create a centralized government that was capable of providing a safety net for the poor and refugee camps (with a long-term resettlement plan) for the displaced after a military campaign? Highly unlikely. 

To make your point, you can't simply say "God could have...". It is not that easy--you would have to give a plausible scenario. You also did not make the case that God condones slavery. Since the penalty of kidnapping and selling someone into slavery was death, the goal of the system was obviously not for slavery itself. The best thing for the greatest number of people seems to have been to regulate a practice that had been going on for literally thousands of years.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that the best solution that the all loving, all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe can come up with to deal with people keeping slaves is to... tell them to keep slaves on his own authority, tell them who they can enslave, how they can keep them as property to be passed down, how to turn a 7-year slave into a permanent slave, and that it's fine to beat a slave with a rod as long as he doesn't die within two days. 

That's it? That's your moral law giver? That's the best he can do? 


That's just pathetic.

I didn't expect you to actually discuss this...I was not disappointed.  Do you realize that your responses are not thoughtful whatsoever? You don't want to have a discussion--you want everyone to hear your inch-deep thoughts and be congratulated by similar people for you laser insight.  When a point is made that requires a counterpoint...nothing but either 1) mocking incredulity and restate your original point, 2) parrot back someone else's response or 3) change the subject.

[Veritas_Vincit]

You won't be surprised that this is exactly how you seem to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

See, the religious insist upon having a "serious conversation"... regarding their belief in pixies and pixie related inanity.  That they've been given their way for so long, extended that ludicrous privilege, probably accounts for why they think it's deserved in the first place.

Start from the very bottom. Explain why anyone should take this seriously enough to discuss it as you see fit, and accept that you're being granted a rare courtesy in the first place. At least we're not -just- pointing and laughing.

[Veritas_Vincit]

I mean, for you to say that I still need to make the case that God condones slavery, and you say you want a reasonable discussion? Just like previous threads you give the impression that aren't reading my posts or that you forget everything I have said in any other post.

[SteveII]

I mean, for you to say that I still need to make the case that God condones slavery, and you say you want a reasonable discussion? Just like previous threads you give the impression that aren't reading my posts or that you forget everything I have said in any other post.

If I make a series of analytical statement and then you answer the whole post by stating your incredulity--that is not a discussion. Here is my response again:

Would God know of a better solution: yes, certainly.

Could a nation of loosely grouped tribes create a centralized government that was capable of providing a safety net for the poor and refugee camps (with a long-term resettlement plan) for the displaced after a military campaign? Highly unlikely. [1]

To make your point, you can't simply say "God could have...". It is not that easy--you would have to give a plausible scenario. [2] You also did not make the case that God condones slavery. Since the penalty of kidnapping and selling someone into slavery was death, the goal of the system was obviously not for slavery itself. [3] The best thing for the greatest number of people seems to have been to regulate a practice that had been going on for literally thousands of years. [4]

A discussion would be if you disagree with [1], you would state the reason why without any disparaging remarks. If you disagree with my reasoning in [2] you would state specifically why my reasoning is not correct or you could purpose a plausible scenario of accomplishing the same goals without slavery. You imply that God condoned slavery and I am not sure you can draw that conclusion so address [3] and [4] and tell me why you object to that reasoning.

[The Grand Nudger]

1.)  All of the political bodies you see now, capable of doing just that, came out of those "loosely grouped tribes" - not that you actually -need- such a body to help people.. and none of them had the ear of Djinn...in any case.  

2.)  Great Pixie specifically and repeatedly lays out his opinion on slavery in magic book, and if you wish to contend that magic book is the word of Great Pixie..then QED. 

3.)  The best thing for the greatest number of people is not now, nor has it ever been slavery.  Specifically in that the greatest number of people has to include the damned slaves...but make that case if you like, that slavery is the best thing for slaves. Obviously, and I don't see the need to bicker on this one...slavery tends to work out for the slave-holders.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It is very easy to judge preindustrial social structures from this side of the industrial revolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

It is, isn't it?  It's also very easy to imagine that they were actually the terrible people fairy propagandists have made them out to be. Fortunately, no ones -actually- judging those people...we're judging your god..which stands, unchanging and inerrant, on -both- sides of the industrial revolution.

If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.

-Woody Allen.