Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[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.

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.

Ok, let's give it one more go.

[1] Could that nation of tribes get a civilization together? Yes, if that's what your God wanted. The question is, what were his choices? Option 1. is do nothing, don't intervene with their free will, watch the universe unfold but have no interaction and wait for cultural evolution to gradually give rise to ethics, since this will ultimately give rise to more successful societies. But then we wouldn't have the Bible or Jesus - or if we did, they would be false, man made delusions no having come from God even though he was there. Option 2. is give humanity moral guidance. How best to do this? Lots of ways - he could simply appear to each human being, or to whole groups at a time, and clearly explain the world and what is good and bad. There are so many ways he could achieve this, so many creative possibilities.
 
What option does he take? Neither. We are told that he takes option 3. where he chooses only to appear only to a very few humans, meaning that everyone else has to take their word for it and accept extraordinary claims on very weak evidence. He further chooses not to appear after this, meaning that as time goes on the strength of the evidence gets weaker, the message is diluted and corrupted by translation and scribal error, and the heresay evidence gets less and less believable. He only gives them a bizarre selection of very strict and narrow instructions that include barbaric behaviour - by which I mean teachings directly instruct humans to kill and [2]enslave each other [Leviticus 25:44-46; Exodus 21:2-6, 7-11 and 20-21; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-2] and consequently create a society based on injustice. 

He also leaves out some very obvious moral instructions such as to protect/not harm children. He threatens humans with wrath and pain and suffering and torture if they disobey him. At no point does he explain the concept of morality as having anything to do with the wellbeing or suffering of conscious creature, and the rules he lays down are a-moral - it isn't a moral system at all, it's a system of laws. It doesn't explain that things are wrong because they cause suffering to others, only that they will be punished - teaching that it is their own suffering that matters, not other people's. God doesn't want moral agents, he want soldiers who will 'just follow orders'. Going back to Genesis, God didn’t ever want people to think for themselves, he wanted them to live in ignorance, and punished them for curiosity which is the seed from which grows knowledge. Once humans become aware of good and evil, he doesn’t stop to explain an morality to them, he simply punishes them. And what's worse, he initially gives them a scapegoat morality based on animal sacrifice - as though killing animals has anything to do with morality or ethics? I really hope I don't have to explain what's wrong with that one.
 
What would be a reasonable characterization of these choices? Do they appear to be the intentions and actions of a moral being? A loving being? An all knowing being? No, on all counts. Moral? No, because he directly instructs immoral behaviour. All knowing? No, if he didn’t know that putting a talking snake in the Garden of Eden was a bad idea, or that first person revelation to a handful of people was a terrible way to instruct the whole of humanity of his message was a terrible idea, clearly not. Loving? When he sanctions infinite punishment for finite crimes? When he clearly does not care about the needless suffering of millions upon millions of human beings? When 5 million children under the age of 5 die every year from treatable diseases? You see, this is why I ridicule religion – because it is ridiculous, and frankly I find it insulting not only to my intelligence but to the dignity of our species.