The question that makes fundies hostile

[Esquilax]

I dont refuse to use the bible in debates.
I refuse to do so with people who knock over the chess pieces and demonstrate that even when you do cite verses to support your position, they simply say stuff like....
Yeah, you're right: I guess the bible is a contradictory mess, that shouldn't be believed because of that.

I dunno, maybe you should stop believing such ridiculous things, then?

Anyway, I did try to make sure that wasn't the extent of my argument, by going on to ask why you thought your interpretation was the correct one over mine, when we've both brought the same level of evidence to bear, but since that didn't match with the image of me you wanted to portray, I guess you chose to ignore it here.

Yep. They had slaves in those days. No argument from me about that.
What part of my position is that verse supposed to refute?

The part where I said- quite rightly, it turns out- that your god endorses racist slavery that would disadvantage you, and you said no, and didn't go any further.

BTW - did you know that selling yourself into slavery was quite common and necessary in those days. Work or die. And thats what slavery was/is.

Work for nothing more than is needed to keep you alive. Thats pretty much what the greedy Western money worshippers force upon slum dwellers in India and Bangladesh and China.

And you're fine with that, so long as god says it's okay? Thanks for making excuses for slavery. Way to show off that superior moral character.

The biblical context of slavery is "harm minimisation" of an EXISTING practical reality - not an endorsement of it.

Really now? Is that why it authorizes slave owners to beat their slaves, assuming they don't die right away? That's "harm minimization?"

Is that why the bible doesn't just instead say that one should release your slaves and offer them work doing the same jobs as they would do indentured, just with the option to leave when they want?

Is that why there's a method there by which you can trick even temporary slaves- the only kind of temporary slave was a jewish slave, by the way- into permanent slavery by giving them a wife that stays your property when he leaves, and emotionally blackmailing him into staying?

Is that why the bible authorizes the kidnapping of virgin women as slave brides and prisoners of war?

All that is harm minimization, to you? Or are you just ignoring that, like you're ignoring everything else in the bible that's inconvenient to the morality that you already possess, outside of the bible?

Where? I dont see it.

Because you're an idiot: in one verse it says Jesus is everyone's savior, and in another he himself says he isn't. Contradiction.

They are both true.

They can't be: Jesus states he is the savior of Israel alone. You've provided verses saying that he is the salvation of the entire world. One of those must, by definition, be untrue.

There WAS institutional slavery in the Old Testament!!!
And war. And murder. And capital punishment.
You seem to think I wish certain "nasty" parts of the bible werent there for all to see. (If you want to keep doing that, you will need to find another strawman to play with OK.)

No, the issue is that the bible endorses them all, and you're just ignoring that.

Your claim was that I would be a victim of the bible's answer to racism. And that is not only false, but it is also an argument from silence because we dont have a time machine to go back and find out.
I may have been a slave or a slave owner or neither and you wouldnt know.

You missed my point: there's no retraction of those slave rules. At all. In a strictly biblical context, a jewish person could enslave you, a foreigner of Israel, and be justified in doing so.

You are also conflating the bible which writes about slavery, with the actual cause of slavery - greed/economics.

So... what? Your bible just decides to add another cause on top of that by making the entire arrangement holy?