Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[Redbeard The Pink]

[1] Again, regulating, not commanding.

So what? If he thought there was anything morally wrong with slavery, he would have made a commandment or law against it (because, again, making laws about various line item little things is one of the most basic traits he has). He didn't, though. I'll say it again: if your god is the source of morality, and the Bible is his message to us about how to behave, then there is no moral admonition against slavery. According to the belief system you profess to uphold, nothing tells us slavery is wrong.

[2] Your list was for a specific people for a specific time. You are mixing moral laws with dietary laws with social laws--all of which had their meaning to those people. I am listening to myself. You repeating the objection does not change my answer which I have typed out at least 10 times. No one has yet suggested a method to achieve the same goals in this type of society except the "God could have because...omnipotence" line which is a philosophical cop-out.

No it isn't, Steve. Omnipotent means omnipotent. If you or your religion assigns a trait to god, you must answer for all the implications of that trait when your opponents invoke them.


It's a philosophical cop-out to arbitrarily limit an omnipotent being, and it's also a philosophical cop-out to throw up a smoke screen about the different types of Hebrew law. The bottom line is that the commandment "Do not treat human beings as property" does not appear amongst any of those laws, moral or otherwise, nor does anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. Regardless of the time period, you want me to believe that the perfect source of morality was at one time so concerned with the consumption of shellfish that he wrote a law about it in your magic book, and yet the immoral and brutal practice of slavery was such an afterthought that he didn't put it in there, except to use language suggesting that he is more or less OK with slavery in all its most common forms.


Also...what exactly do you think slavery achieved? Feeding and housing the poor could have easily been handled with commandments, or with food falling from the sky, or by multiplying fish...it seems most of your god's miracles are there to either frighten us or show us that he could totally solve all the world's problems if he wanted, he just doesn't. In any case, an all-powerful being shouldn't need slavery as a means of doing anything, so if he does use it, it either means that he is evil or slavery isn't.

[3] The NT does not endorse slavery. Instructing slaves to obey their masters is perfectly in line with the gospel. What was the alternative instruction? "Slaves do not obey your masters"? That would have led to violence and death in yet another society that practiced slavery.

How about "Do not own other people as property. He who owns another or forces another to work without wages or freedom shall be taken to the edge of the village, drawn, quartered, stoned, and burned at the stake. Their blood will be on their own heads. I am the Lord."?


The Old Testament is full of shit like that concerning a stoopid-long list of things, but not slavery.


"If two men fight, and one man's wife stops the brawl by squeezing his assailant's genitals, chop off her hand. Nobody in the village may take pity on her."


Your god took the time to tell us this, and yet all we have on slavery is rules about how to be a proper slave owner and a proper slave. If your god and your Bible are your measures of right and wrong, by what measure can you say that slavery is immoral?

There were also references instructing people not to mistreat their slaves/servants. I think it is clear that truly following the NT teachings will convict you of even the most modest forms of slavery. 

Purely a philosophical question: what is the precise problem with this type of slavery (not based on a race having less value)? If you do answer, please address voluntary slavery and if and why that is wrong. I am not saying there isn't a problem, I would just like to hear people articulate it.

You do know that American slavery was expressly based on the Law of Moses, right?


You do know that, right?


Old Testament law lays out rules for properly beating slaves. You're allowed to use a rod as long as you don't knock out eyes or teeth, and you get in trouble for beating your slaves to death...but only if they die within two days of the beating. After that it's not on you.


Nowhere in the Bible are these directives contradicted or updated with laws forbidding the beating of slaves altogether. Jesus himself says that every word of OT law is just as binding as ever, so any mention of "not mistreating slaves" kinda has to come with a grain of salt when you consider what constituted mistreating slaves to them.


So what's wrong with that? It's barbaric and unethical, that's what. It involves owning people as property and beating that property if it doesn't do the job you're forcing on it (jobs which historically include sex on demand, aka rape). What ISN'T wrong with that? Voluntary indentured servitude tends to also be an abusive system, which is probably why civilized people don't really do that any more, either.