Is the universe God?

[Esquilax]

If you want to interpret it in a modern context you can apply it someone in a low status poorly paid job as slavery in the classical world was more an equivalent to that than say the African slave trade. It depend who you were owned by and what your role was some slaves were in a privileged position or had a professional trade of some kind and so had a reasonably decent standard of life. Slaves working down say a silver mine were much less fortunate.

So, slavery in the bible is excusable because some slavery might be comparable to having a low paying job, are you kidding me?

Of course you don't want to be enslaved yourself but you live in the advanced developed world with all the military power.

No I don't, I'm Australian.

So we could go back to Africa kick some ass establish some new colonies there and reinstate a thriving slave trade. If you have enough money you could afford to have a slave in your house, they could do all your house work and choirs and generally be rather handy. You can keep them locked in your basement at night and whatever.

... Yes, I suppose so. I have no wish to do that, for the reasons I outlined in my previous post. Looking at the rest of your writing, I see that you've entirely ignored what I actually said in favor of the moral relativism narrative that you'd prefer I believe in. That's quite a pity; I hate having to repeat myself.

If we get to decide whats right and wrong all we have to do is decide that doing this right and it will be right there won't be any problem at all.

But I never said that we get to decide what's right or wrong. Things I don't subscribe to aren't problems for my position.

Again, this isn't a decision we get to make; it's a decision reality gets to make. Harm, a thing that is objectively harmful, is immoral because there is no sense in which it is preferable, and therefore anything that causes harm can generally be said to be immoral. It's a general rule- the harm you sustain from getting a flu shot is easily balanced out by the benefits you get from it- but it's easily applied to slavery.

Please, try to address what I've actually said next time, in place of your religious talking points.

The Africans in question may not like to be enslaved but we care about what they like because?

Because they're human beings, and I happen to care about the well being of humans. Because the social contract I enter into equally saves me from being enslaved by them should the situation change. Because it's far, far more easy to conduct a civil system of society when we aren't encouraging enmity like that.

Easy. No god required.

You have no reason why you should care other than the Christian/spiritual values you have had handed down to you which are derived from God.

... The ones that say slavery is okay?

Demonstrably untrue, and no amount of scrambling to take ownership of positive concepts that existed long before your religion will change that. In fact, what you're doing here is horribly dishonest.

God is your moral foundation not peoples opinions. You damn well know as a fact that slavery is wrong, it's not your in opinion it just is. Facts need to be based in something.

Facts do need to be based on something: reality. You know, as I've been saying from the beginning?

Meanwhile, god's word still says that slavery is okay, so we're clearly not getting that foundation from him.

There's nothing stopping us from enslaving some Africans again they wouldn't be able to stand up to us and they could some good work for our benefit. The only reason why we don't do this is because we have come to the understanding that this is wrong. Again this is wrong as a fact not as a cultural preference.

I know, I've been saying that all along. Why do you think that human empathy is insufficient for this?

I really think that says more about you than it does about me.

Empathy as the kind that Jesus and the Bible teaches? Do onto others as they would do unto you? You still have Christian/religious morality even if you have nothing to base it upon because you don't believe in any of it.

Even a small amount of research shows that the golden rule you're quoting predates christianity, and in fact has a secular origin in Babylon.

Wrong again.

It would benefit us to have some unpaid slaves doing some good hard work on our behalf, that would be profitable. It would harm the Africans but you're not explaining why we should care about the Africans. You just feel within yourself that we should? If you feel that you may want to ask why.

I already know why I feel that way; the human capacity for empathy is an evolved trait that helped us survive to become the dominant species on the planet. We're social animals that require cooperation to survive, hence the social groups that have tracked with us through out entire evolutionary development.

Africans, being humans, fall easily within that group of "humans," even not taking into account all the other reasons I've given. Try not to ignore them all next time.

You can't logically explain why we shouldn't be able to buy some African slaves. They would be damn useful to have there isn't really a downside to this proposition. Other than the fact that you "feel that's it's wrong".

Are you even reading my post? The harm is that the Africans would be trapped in a potentially abusive situation that they can't escape from and receive no remuneration! You know, they'd be enslaved?

Why are you not getting that this is a downside?!

The idea is you don't really need to be told because you already know. It's internal within you and the teachings of Jesus and the overall message of the Bible will help to confirm what you already know to be true. You know morality isn't merely a cultural taste or a trend it is a reality of some kind which is based on something.

Given that I've never said anything other than that morality is based upon reality and not cultural opinion, you're preaching to the choir here. However, your claim that this specific moral teaching is based upon a biblical source is simply wrong, since no such teaching exists in the bible.

The abolitionists were Christians inspired by the teachings of Christ and genuine empathy for their fellow man, it was Christianity that helped to pave the away toward the abolition and other great social progress and human rights. These are all religiously inspired values and you share in them yourself as much as you like to deny their source.

The slave owners similarly were inspired by the teachings of Christ to keep their slaves. I already know you can spin the bible to say whatever you happen to want it to, this isn't news. That doesn't mean that the specific interpretations you've endorsed happen to be divinely inspired.

It means you worship a book of multiple choice teachings.

So if you saw a guy mugging/beating an old woman in the street you would use force to try and fight them off you would stand there and watch?

That's not an apt comparison to the story we're talking about, however. How very dishonest of you.

You can use force if it's justified to so and in the case of Jesus in the Temple he shoved out people who were running a scam to make money from the poor. If you think that was an immoral act then fine but I would disagree.

Lacking immediate physical danger, there were far more peaceful and rational efforts Jesus could have made, other than acting like a thug.

However, given that the people who wrote the bible were a band of bronze age thugs, it makes sense that their characters would behave that way too.

Like yourself I have a well developed understanding of morality so I can object to the same parts of the Bible you would object to. This was a 3000 year old culture and they got some things wrong, this has been a work in process. But it's a real progress towards something and Jesus was a big part in this moral development. With God or a foundation for this morality then it's just cultural taste there isn't a definitive right or wrong.

That doesn't answer the question; you say that god is the foundation for morality, but then you continue to say that there are parts of god's moral teachings that are wrong... how do you know what you've chosen to ignore conforms to god's real moral law?

More importantly, how do you intend to demonstrate god's moral foundation at all?

I have exactly the opinions on these issues as yourself only I have what I believe is a reason for them while you are just having to copy the morality of your historically Christian culture.

So, your reason is "god says so," even though he actually doesn't, and mine is "slavery harms my fellow man," but somehow your reason is superior to mine, and I'm copying yours?

The two reasons aren't actually the same, you know.

It does not say anything about killing non-believers in the Bible, you may have been reading the Quran perhaps?

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)"

You were saying?

What it actually says is that the alien (non-believer) in your midst must be treated as an equal. Sure you can pick out some dubious passages from the Bible, that stuff is in there and you can't do much about it. But the people who wrote it were flawed, more flawed than us perhaps as we have advanced in many ways. It is through God we have advanced in the case of our moral values however science has nothing at all to do with it.

How can our moral advancement be through god when the only record you have of what god actually wants says literally the opposite of what your moral sense is telling you?

The Jewish prophets made some mistakes being human and subject to sin, Jesus who was free from sin/God is a better presentation of what the ideal form of God given human morality is supposed to be. So that will help to clear all that up. Nothing is being ignored here just explained.

Jesus said that not a word of the law would be changed... just saying.