A Former Atheist

[Esquilax]

How could the Bible have corrected its reporting of the human interaction of slavery?

So you're telling me that an all powerful, universe creating god cannot correct the bible? That's beyond his power? Or are you just being obtuse?

You are not very well informed of the meaning of the Bible because you see it as a moral compass.

A view that the bible itself confirms, given all its talk about this and that thing being an abomination, all the commandments and so on. What were the purpose of the hundreds of commandments within the bible, if not that they be obeyed?

The Bible is the history of mankind's imperfection by choice, and the possible alternative solution. To point at examples of moral failings from your position thousands of years later is, ironically, a bit premature and missing the point. All you really need to do is recognize a very simple Biblical truth, which is this: put simply. The first man was given the planet given that he keep in mind his creator's advice and protection were essential, much like that of a parent. He rejected this guidance and protection and everything we see around us is an alleged result of that. All the suffering, all of the injustice is a product of that which you continue to reject. Adam said, in a sense: I'm going to run this show, and God, in a sense, responded okay, fair enough, let's see how that goes.

You're just trying to put a pleasant spin in what I've been saying all along; for all your bluster about me not being well informed regarding the bible (which, it must be said, is simply an assertion on your part; you haven't yet backed up a single part of your argument with anything nearing evidence) the actual content of your point here is largely the same. You have a god who could possibly stop slavery from happening, but just doesn't because someone completely unrelated disobeyed once. For that, he's willing to let innocent people, completely unconnected to that disobedience, suffer the kinds of indignities you'd find unacceptable from other people. You aren't improving the moral content of the scenario, you're just making half-hearted excuses for it.

It seems strange to me that a god that doesn't exist gets the blame for our stupidity.

Don't be obtuse, I've repeatedly explained that my position is that, were one to come away from reading the bible convinced that the christian god exists, worship of that god would be entirely immoral. You claim to have become christian via reading the bible, meaning you saw all the immorality that god either directly participated in or just let happen because he was having a millenia long temper tantrum over a dude eating a piece of his fruit, and you decided to worship that god anyway. I don't believe that god exists, but you do, and therefore this is a problem for your worldview.

It seems strange to me that my willingness to entertain your beliefs on their own merits is such an alien concept to you.

What is your problem with slavery as presented in the Bible? That God did it?

That god allowed it to happen under his watch and, in fact, facilitated it by providing rules for it, when he had the power and authority to simply put a stop to it.

All the while not existing?

Within the context of your beliefs, he does exist. I'm talking to you, not to objective reality.

Who created slavery, man or God?

God, ultimately, since obviously he had the power to create a world without it, but went the other way.

But regardless, what you're saying is irrelevant: if person A creates a machine that does nothing but enslave people, and person B has constant access to a switch that turns that machine off, but he just doesn't, for no relevant reason, isn't it true that person B is behaving immorally, even though he didn't create the machine in the first place? Inaction can be immoral too, you know.

And, again, what is specifically your problem with slavery, not in general, but specifically as presented by the Bible?

So, you're seriously asking me what I find objectionable about a concept that treats people as property and allows them to be abused, killed and raped? That's actually the question you're asking me now?

What are you even talking about? What is morality? What is presented by people of a specific time and place as being right, correct?

Incorrect, I'm not a moral relativist; we can objectively derive what benefits or harms thinking agents, as we live in a universe with predictable physical effects both to ourselves and the world around us. Thus, we can determine what is immoral and moral based around that simple measure, and add complexity from there; slavery, as described in the bible, causes harm to people.

Your moral judgement of the ancients is irrelevant.

Why? Because you said so?

First of all, to kidnap anyone for the purpose of selling them into slavery was punishable by death.

Yeah, you had to rely on the foreigners neighboring you to do that.

A Jewish person could sell themselves into slavery in order to work off a debt, or pay for theft or property damage and then be released.

Irrelevant.

A slave could have their own business, make their own money, live life as they choose and often were a trusted authority figure in the household or community. Joseph, for example, a slave in Egypt, was the second most powerful and wealthy man in Egypt.

Citation needed.

Slaves taken from the nations outside of Israel were prisoners of war, and were protected by the law.

That law being "they are your property." The entire system is immoral, regardless of how nice you might make certain parts of it.

Intent to kill or the murder of ones slave was a capital offense. These are just a few things.

This is a lie: if you beat your slaves so that they died a few days later, you were in the clear.

Again, you need to be more specific and logically you need to more carefully grasp the meaning of the Bible. In the case of claims of genocide, for example, who specifically are you referring to, what were the normal policies of warfare of the Israelite once Jehovah began to deal specifically with them? What was the purpose of the alleged genocide? Things like that.

I get the distinct feeling you're about to make excuses for, say, the genocide of the Amalekites, which is pretty gross.

Again, you are giving vague examples based upon your uninformed interpretation and judging the moral fiber of a people that lived thousands of years ago by your current standards. So your case is weak even though your heart is in the right place. Even if you had a point it would be, unfortunately lost.

Vague examples? I provided the verse. Uninformed? You won't say how, you just assert that it is so as though that's sufficient to dismiss me out of hand. I can't judge people from thousands of years ago? The fuck I can't: morality is not relative to time periods.

Now stop this sophistic dodging and answer the questions.

Secondly, I can name respected scientists in many fields who not only not believe in evolution, but also teach the Bible in their spare time. So there may be some disagreement with current science and the Bible regarding the flood and evolution but there isn't as much disagreement as you might suspect.

Betcha you can't name a single scientist in a field relevant to biology (read: who would actually be in a position to know) that doesn't accept evolution; given that 97% of scientists accept evolution, when you say that there isn't as much disagreement as you might think, that's true, but it doesn't serve your side at all. That lack of disagreement leans almost exclusively toward acceptance of evolution.

Remember, science can't test the supernatural so they have no authority to state a position on it, really.

Science can't test the supernatural? Because you say so? As though fiat assertion is enough to absolve your religion of its burden of proof?