Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[RetiredArmy]

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 (fuck you) says that the Lord did not make plain the evil of slavery (and this make condoning it ok?). That knowledge is enshrined in the Passover ceremony (preach much?). 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 (he only allowed it for 400 years? what a great guy!)

Only a dishonest interpreter (fuck you very much) 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.” (are you seriously comparing slavery with consenting adults getting laid?).  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 (Exodus 21 is like a condom?)

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.

Pointing and laughing...