The question that makes fundies hostile

[Jacob(smooth)]

Yep. The Barnham principle.

[Esquilax]

No I wouldn't.

Alright, let's play. Since you, a practicing christian, refuse to use your own holy book in a debate, then I, an atheist, will. Strange how that works, isn't it?

...According to the bible, being from anywhere else means you can be killed, enslaved, lots of things.

Nope. False.

" However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)" So, slavery. And as the Amelekites, Benjamites, and a long list of others show, any tribe not of god's chosen people are fair game.

But please, continue with your baseless, blanket denials. They're much more compelling than evidence.

People who don't accept Jesus' offer of salvation get what choose.

And Jesus offers it to everyone. (that's in the bible)
Anyone can be saved if they a) know what salvation is and b) repent and believe. (that's in the bible)

So at most you've got a contradiction. That's your best case scenario, that your perfect, never wrong god, got something wrong multiple times. But since you've provided nothing but a "nuh uh!" as support for your claim, and have been given bible verses as support for mine, why should we give you the benefit of the most charitable scenario?

Yes.
For God so loved "the world"...(that's in the bible)
The Gospel is to be offered to ALL NATIONS. (thats in the bible)
Jews. Gentiles. We are all one in Christ. (that's in the bible)

Yeah, you're right: I guess the bible is a contradictory mess, that shouldn't be believed because of that.

Incidentally, how do you know, given this, that the happy, shiny parts are the ones that are true, and not the bad, nasty ones that I posted? You've given no support for your claim that I'm wrong, you've just pointed out equally unbased claims from the same source. Mine were from Jesus, though: are you saying you know more about god's will than Jesus?

[Lion IRC]

No I wouldn't.

Alright, let's play. Since you, a practicing christian, refuse to use your own holy book in a debate, then I, an atheist, will. Strange how that works, isn't it?

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.

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

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


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.

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

To say that the bible supports slavery is like saying that government funded safe injecting rooms for heroin users amounts to...encouraging people to use heroin.

People who don't accept Jesus' offer of salvation get what choose.
And Jesus offers it to everyone. (that's in the bible)
Anyone can be saved if they a) know what salvation is and b) repent and believe. (that's in the bible)

So at most you've got a contradiction.

Where? I dont see it.
Can you be a bit more specific?
For God so loved the world...anyone can be saved...ye are all one in Christ...spread the Gospel to all nations.
These verses dont contradict any earlier position I have stated.

Can you believe some ignorant people here demanded citations from me to prove that these are actually in the bible.

Incidentally, how do you know, given this, that the happy, shiny parts are the ones that are true, and not the bad, nasty ones that I posted?

They are both true.
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.)

You've given no support for your claim that I'm wrong...

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 are also conflating the bible which writes about slavery, with the actual cause of slavery - greed/economics.
And the bible has a LOT to say about greed and the love of money.

[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?

[Mystical]

I dont refuse to use the bible in debates.

No, you just chicken out of them altogether.

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

Slaves, obey your Masters.

Sounds like an endorsement to me.

You are also conflating the bible which writes about slavery, with the actual cause of slavery - greed/economics.
And the bible has a LOT to say about greed and the love of money.

It also has a lot to say about slavery and how to beat your slave to near death, righteously.

[Ben Davis]

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

So why isn't the biblical context 'abolition'? That would not only minimise the harm but eradicate it. We are talking about the 'omnipotent' christian god here; surely this would be well within his power. Certainly any infringement on the right to self-determination impinges on our our ability to practice free will (a key factor in our salvation) so I'd have thought that god would be in favour of abolition. There are ways to minimise the harm of cutural practices whilst simultaneously seeking their resolution. Why didn't god come up with means that address both ends? If we humans, in all our frailties, can recognise the immorality of slavery, why didn't god?

To say that the bible supports slavery is like saying that government funded safe injecting rooms for heroin users amounts to...encouraging people to use heroin.

Not quite an accurate analogy. This is exactly the type of approach that I referred to above: the government is trying to end drug use whilst simultaneously recognising that users are generally victims who need support if resolution is to be effective. This type of multi-pronged approach is common in human government. If it's within the ken of mortal man, I'd expect much more from an omnipotent god.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Sadly, the omnipotent God has only fuckwit humans to work with!

Sadly, the rate of change, of evolution, in society is not something which can be externally manipulated or imposed. One has only to look at the Arab spring to see that. Democracy, for example, cannot just be grafted onto people who are not ready for it. Look at Iraq! Or indeed Syria. Not for second to downplay how evil and despotic the old regimes were, they are far more dangerous places to be now!

Here's an interesting historical and sociopolitical question. If Jesus had met up with Caesar and convinced him to pass a law freeing all slaves, what would have happened in the Roman occupied world? How would the economies and infrastructure have faired?

[Raven]

Sadly, the omnipotent God has only fuckwit humans to work with!

Sadly, the rate of change, of evolution, in society is not something which can be externally manipulated or imposed. One has only to look at the Arab spring to see that. Democracy, for example, cannot just be grafted onto people who are not ready for it. Look at Iraq! Or indeed Syria. Not for second to downplay how evil and despotic the old regimes were, they are far more dangerous places to be now!

Here's an interesting historical and sociopolitical question. If Jesus had met up with Caesar and convinced him to pass a law freeing all slaves, what would have happened in the Roman occupied world? How would the economies and infrastructure have faired?

I would imagine that they'd probably pull the same sort of sleight-of-hand that was pulled in the post-bellum south. Find all sorts of excuses to arrest the now-free slaves and then put them to work as convicts. Just make them slaves with a different name. Granted, the south did not rise to it's former *ahem* magnificence, but they'd gotten their collective ass kicked pretty good and that had a lot to do with it.

In your scenario no one would have lost any wars, so the infrastructure would not be all burned and blasted. Labor costs had just gone up, is all. I'm no economist, but it might not be so bad as you think.

But what, may I ask, has any of this have to do with the price of borscht in Minsk?
edit for spelling

[Jacob(smooth)]

Sadly, the omnipotent God has only fuckwit humans to work with!

Sadly, the rate of change, of evolution, in society is not something which can be externally manipulated or imposed. One has only to look at the Arab spring to see that. Democracy, for example, cannot just be grafted onto people who are not ready for it. Look at Iraq! Or indeed Syria. Not for second to downplay how evil and despotic the old regimes were, they are far more dangerous places to be now!

Here's an interesting historical and sociopolitical question. If Jesus had met up with Caesar and convinced him to pass a law freeing all slaves, what would have happened in the Roman occupied world? How would the economies and infrastructure have faired?

I would imagine that they'd probably pull the same sort of sleight-of-hand that was pulled in the post-bellum south. Find all sorts of excuses to arrest the now-free slaves and then put them to work as convicts. Just make them slaves with a different name. Granted, the south did not rise to it's former *ahem* magnificence, but they'd gotten their collective ass kicked pretty good and that had a lot to do with it.

In your scenario no one would have lost any wars, so the infrastructure would not be all burned and blasted. Labor costs had just gone up, is all. I'm no economist, but it might not be so bad as you think.

But what, may I ask, has any of this have to do with the price of borscht in Minsk?
edit for spelling

Oh nothing. Just thinking out loud.

[Raven]

Well, why we are thinking out loud, if your little scenario had actually occurred then there would be no doubt as to had He existed. There would be no question, would there? How might that effect what came after?