(January 24, 2016 at 1:33 pm)LastPoet Wrote:(January 24, 2016 at 12:08 pm)athrock Wrote: Nice try. I've just re-read the passage this morning.
The man who went into slavery was allowed to be freed, but the wife (given to him by the slaveholder) as well as any of their children remained the property of the slave owner.
We moderns may disagree with this (see the fallacy of presentism in the OP), but the Mosaic law was unquestionably a major improvement over the codes of the ANE.
Thus, the charge that God is a moral monster simply DOES NOT STICK.
Dude, god is just a fantasy. I worked under the assumption that god exists (define the thing, the make proof of it please), only to reduce that to the absurd. Carefull, as shoehorning 'presentism' denies objective morality. Your god didn't say simply: slavery is an abomination unto me.
Until you can find a passage in your storybook saying that, my point stands, it is a valid RA+ and said point just flew over your head. I understand why it did.
What flew over your head, apparently, is the reason why God could not simply do that.
But hey, I know you are loathe to let God off the hook. You really, really, really need to continue believing the lie that God is a moral monster.
