Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[Neo-Scholastic]

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

That is an interesting thing for you to say, Chad.  I think of you as defending objective morals.  If that is right then aren't you basically saying the reprehensibility of slavery didn't exist or was only a misdemeanor before the industrial revolution.  Now of course it is a capital offense but only because there exist less cruel ways to get work done.  So which is it?  Conditional morals or the bible got slavery wrong?

As it relates to the topic of slavery, I fully realize that nothing I write will be given fair consideration by hardened skeptics. It is not my role to persuade; but merely to present. The purpose of the Mosaic code has always been governance of a theocratic state within a dispensation that begins with the Exodus and ends with the Resurrection. (For nitpickers, Biblical Hebrew uses the same word for everlasting and perpetual. Perpetual has a slightly different connotation that fits with the interpretation I here offer.)

Only a dishonest interpreter says that the Lord did not make plain the evil of slavery. That knowledge is enshrined in the Passover ceremony. And several times the Lord prefaces His pronouncements with “I am the Lord your God who brought you from the Land of Egypt, out of the House of Bondage” thereby reminding them of their 400 years in bitter slavery.

Only a dishonest interpreter says that the Lord promoted or endorsed slavery just because He allowed it to happen and placed restrictions on it. It is like a parent who says to his son, “You know I disapprove of premarital sex, but if you do at least use a condom.” The Lord bemoans the fact that the Hebrew people were often stubborn and rebellious and, just like a concerned parent, tried to mitigate the damage caused by poor choices.

The OP and its defenders hypocritically accuse Christians of selecting only the passages they like and ignoring the rest. As seen in multiple replies above, the objecting atheists are not remotely interested in comprehensive exegesis. They would rather object to any god who would allow human history to play itself out instead of simply mandating a post-industrial utopia in the style of today’s liberal Western democracies. The OP has nothing to do with biblical contradictions; but rather, just a covert set-up to discuss theodicy.