Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[ukatheist]

Hmm, how about 'and if you kill another in battle you shall treat those dependant on them as your own family, treat their children as your own children' or 'if a man comes to you to offer himself as a slave, you shall not take him as a slave, but treat him as your brother' etc etc. No need for refugee camps, or formation of a centralised government. No need for slavery. Much more in keeping with what xtians prefer to believe the bible says.

Your god *could* have said that. Well, if he existed.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

First, welcome to the forum and thank you for the thoughtful comment. Why do you use "xtians"?

I found this link this morning after searching for Jewish thought on the subject. I found it interesting. It's long but if you really are interested in the subject...

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...e-Jews.htm

Thanks for the link. It seems to me that what it boils down to if that

1. If your god just told people straight up that certain actions were wrong, people wouldn't be truly 'good' because people would only be doing 'good' because they were told to do, not because they were truly 'good'.
2. By not explicitly saying that slavery is wrong, your god has given people the chance to 'learn' for themselves that slavery is wrong.

So essentially people are 'good' despite the babble, and not because of it?

I use xtians for two reasons, one because it saves key depressions, and two because I think the term 'cross'tians is apt, giving that my view is that the majority of xtians are cross/irritated/angry that the whole world does not share their beliefs and we object to having their particular brand of religion shoved in our faces. And I use 'babble' because IMO that is all the bible contains - meaningless nonsense.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk