Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[GrandizerII]

Therefore, subjective morality by your argument with other posters here. Tell me how this is objective the way you define objective?

No... it is still objective, as I have mentioned in other threads.  My knowledge or opinion of what is moral does not affect if it is moral or not (because it is based outside of myself).  I have been wrong on things once or twice in the past, there could be a third  .    I think what you are confusing is epistemology (how we know) with ontology (the nature of) morality.  Subjective morality is dependent on and relative to the subject.  Whereas; objective morality is independent and the same regardless of the subject.

I'm saying that if, epistemologically, if you're pretty much in the same boat as nontheists with regards to morality, then any moral ontological argument one makes in favor of God is rendered moot.

So God has his own morality? So what? You're not getting your morality from such an entity, from what I have been shown thus far.

[Redbeard The Pink]

He never said everyone was your neighbor. Samaritans were, after all, still literally neighbors to the Jews. And again, this could've been interpreted as not including slaves because slaves were their own group according to these interpreters. Perhaps the lesson is that who you perceive as an enemy may be the one to show you mercy, so show mercy and love to them as well. But furthermore, even if this applied to slaves, it doesn't mean Jesus was moving them to stop owning slaves.

Examples of vague commandments are the ones listed in your quotes. What does it mean in full details to love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, in terms of action, and then love your neighbor as yourself? Does it mean "stop owning slaves"? Then why not say so? Does it mean "polygamy is ok or not"? Why not just make it clear if polygamy is strictly not ok? Is pirating Christian movies ok? When does talking about someone in their absence become gossip? Is abortion really wrong? Or is it wrong that we are not loving the women of this world enough to respect their bodily/reproductive rights? Is smoking sinful? etc.

You need to read everything together and you'll understand the message of Jesus was decidedly not conducive to slavery. Paul expounded on a lot of things (that was kind of his job).

Galatians 3:27 "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

I would argue that "love your neighbor as yourself" is incompatible with owning a slave so therefore teaches slavery is wrong. Polygamy not clear except that church leaders should be the "husband of one wife". Pirating movies is stealing. Proverbs deals harshly with gossip. Abortion falls under the murder prohibition so it trumps anyone's 'rights'. Smoking is harmful to the body and harming the body is sinful -- gray area. 

As I said above to Veritas-Vincit, we encounter many situations that are not found in the Bible, so basic principles of morality are extracted and used to apply to the new situation. Is that process flawless, no.

Playing fast and loose with the translation of vaguely-related passages might seem ok for subjects that aren't overtly covered by scripture, but slavery is not one of those subjects.


The ad hoc scriptural doctrine you've cobbled together is cute, even pleasant, and it might even pass muster if the rest of scripture had nothing to say about slavery. Unfortunately for you, that isn't the case, and your argument falls apart when we get to passages that say things like:

Your slaves are to come from the nations around you. From them, you may buy slaves.

If you enslave a fellow Hebrew, you are to release him after 6 years. If he had a wife when he became your slave, she is to go free with him. If, however, you gave the slave a wife, she and any children she may have are your property and must be left behind. If your slave does not wish to leave his family, he may stand at the door and say: "I don't want to leave my family. I will not go free." You may then pierce his ear, and he may be kept as your slave for life.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters just as you would obey Christ.

In light of all that, it's practically impossible to bend anything else in the Bible into being an implicit condemnation of slavery. You're simply making an out-of-context interpretation that flatly contradicts lines of actual scripture

[SteveII]

You need to read everything together and you'll understand the message of Jesus was decidedly not conducive to slavery. Paul expounded on a lot of things (that was kind of his job).

Galatians 3:27 "For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

I would argue that "love your neighbor as yourself" is incompatible with owning a slave so therefore teaches slavery is wrong. Polygamy not clear except that church leaders should be the "husband of one wife". Pirating movies is stealing. Proverbs deals harshly with gossip. Abortion falls under the murder prohibition so it trumps anyone's 'rights'. Smoking is harmful to the body and harming the body is sinful -- gray area. 

As I said above to Veritas-Vincit, we encounter many situations that are not found in the Bible, so basic principles of morality are extracted and used to apply to the new situation. Is that process flawless, no.

Playing fast and loose with the translation of vaguely-related passages might seem ok for subjects that aren't overtly covered by scripture, but slavery is not one of those subjects.


The ad hoc scriptural doctrine you've cobbled together is cute, even pleasant, and it might even pass muster if the rest of scripture had nothing to say about slavery. Unfortunately for you, that isn't the case, and your argument falls apart when we get to passages that say things like:

Your slaves are to come from the nations around you. From them, you may buy slaves.

If you enslave a fellow Hebrew, you are to release him after 6 years. If he had a wife when he became your slave, she is to go free with him. If, however, you gave the slave a wife, she and any children she may have are your property and must be left behind. If your slave does not wish to leave his family, he may stand at the door and say: "I don't want to leave my family. I will not go free." You may then pierce his ear, and he may be kept as your slave for life.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters just as you would obey Christ.

In light of all that, it's practically impossible to bend anything else in the Bible into being an implicit condemnation of slavery. You're simply making an out-of-context interpretation that flatly contradicts lines of actual scripture

You do this a lot. You mix Old and New Testament together. One was written for Jews under a theocracy, the other written to us. There was 1300 years between Moses and Jesus. The question was related to what morality can we glean from the NT. I think we have sufficient reasons to believe slavery is immoral. A verse about christian slaves obeying their masters does not get you to Paul condoning slavery--especially when you read Philemon. Here is your verse in context:

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear and sincerity of heart, just as you would show to Christ. 6And do this not only to please them while they are watching, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve with good will, as to the Lord and not to men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

9And masters, do the same for your slaves. Give up your use of threats, because you know that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him.

[RoadRunner79]

No... it is still objective, as I have mentioned in other threads.  My knowledge or opinion of what is moral does not affect if it is moral or not (because it is based outside of myself).  I have been wrong on things once or twice in the past, there could be a third  .    I think what you are confusing is epistemology (how we know) with ontology (the nature of) morality.  Subjective morality is dependent on and relative to the subject.  Whereas; objective morality is independent and the same regardless of the subject.

I'm saying that if, epistemologically, if you're pretty much in the same boat as nontheists with regards to morality, then any moral ontological argument one makes in favor of God is rendered moot.

So God has his own morality? So what? You're not getting your morality from such an entity, from what I have been shown thus far.

I don't see where the argument from morality is effected by what we know, or don't know.  The argument isn't dependent on you or me either way.

I didn't say that, (that God isn't the prime source for my moral judgements) but you haven't shown much thus far either. For instance, what is it that makes you think that a non-theist is pretty much in the same boat epistemologically?

[GrandizerII]

I'm saying that if, epistemologically, if you're pretty much in the same boat as nontheists with regards to morality, then any moral ontological argument one makes in favor of God is rendered moot.

So God has his own morality? So what? You're not getting your morality from such an entity, from what I have been shown thus far.

I don't see where the argument from morality is effected by what we know, or don't know.  The argument isn't dependent on you or me either way.

I didn't say that, (that God isn't the prime source for my moral judgements)  but you haven't shown much thus far either.   For instance, what is it that makes you think that a non-theist is pretty much in the same boat epistemologically?

Because I haven't seen evidence to the contrary.

[robvalue]

I don't think a few very obvious moral statements from Jesus balances all the horrific immorality of the Old Testament. The fact that people so readily focus on the NT, and then only on specific popular passages in that, shows people are just looking to see their morality reflected back at them. The rest of it doesn't apply, for some reason or another. I find it astonishing people don't see what they are doing. Obviously you have your own standard of morality, if you're able to discern which parts are worth following.

Oh, until of course they want to protect their bigotry. Then suddenly, out comes the OT to beat on gays and such.

If you have to read a book to understand the basics of morality, there is something very wrong with you and you should seek professional help. You might be a psychopath, or maybe you've had barely any human interaction. Either way, reading this death/torture manual is about the worst thing you could do.

[Veritas_Vincit]

Even if we concede that a few of the teachings in the Bible are good, they are not good because they are in the Bible or because of who said them, they are good because they are good, and would be even if they were said by someone else or in another book. The flip side is that there are countless teachings in the Bible that are decidedly evil, immoral, barbaric and utterly worthless.

Now granted, they don't mean the Bible is all bad. But the point is - the Bible is just a book. Behaviours, morals, and teaching are either good or bad on their own merits, no matter who says them or what book they are printed in.

What "teachings in the Bible that are decidedly evil, immoral, barbaric and utterly worthless."? Let's limit it to the moral discussion earlier and only have examples of what we "ought" personally to do. 

Of course civil penalties for law violations in a theocracy are decidedly not teachings.

Wow, that's a bullshit answer! Anything that is attributed to God is a teaching. If it says "And God said..." That isn't just a matter of civil law, it still counts I'm afraid. You aren't getting your Bible off the hook that easily.

Keeping slaves, owning people as property and being able to beat them, on any level, at any time, is immoral. And no, God wasn't just regulating it, he was condoning and instructing it, so don't waste your time with that answer. It isn't good enough and I'm sick of hearing it.

Administering the death penalty for adultery is immoral. It's too harsh of a sentence by far.

Administering the death penalty for two men having sex is immoral. It does no harm to anyone and is often an expression of love.

The idea that the creator of the universe has rights over our lives is immoral. We have the power to squish bugs but that doesn't morally justify our doing so. I didn't ask to be created and I do not recognise anyone's right to own me or rule my life - so the ball is back in God's court. If your imaginary God punishes me, maybe he can, but that doesn't make it right.

The idea that you can sacrifice your child is evil. It isn't sacrifice, it's murder, infanticide. The fact that a God at any time under any circumstances would do this is immoral. And the fact that Abraham would have gone through with it is morally despicable.

[robvalue]

God used to be immoral, I guess.

[GrandizerII]

God used to be immoral, I guess.

At least the Mormons get the concept more right, it seems. From what a Mormon once told me, they believe God evolves morally just like us humans, which explains why he may have been so barbaric in the OT days.

[robvalue]

Really? Well, I respect them at least owning up to it. Trying to pretend he's always stayed the same, contradicting not only reality but their own book, must be exhausting.