Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[RoadRunner79]

Now we're in full on fantasy mode RR... wherein you pretend that all these responses I've been giving you don't exist...so that you can maintain the decency, or at least nuetrality, of something you think is bad, as it relates to a description of god you don't believe in, provided by magic book that you do.

All of this..because you can't bring yourself to say, "That's not my god, he wouldn't tell anyone to do that"...for whatever godforsaken reason.... 

I missed it then... what was your answer to what basis outside of (or greater than) yourself are you basing these moral judgments on?  Why is your opinion any better than someone else's?   Saying something is better implies a comparison and that one thing is closer to an ideal than the other. 

Again, I would ask that you stop telling me, what I think and believe.  Let's discuss this (if you really want to listen and not just poison the well).  I think that the basis of what your are calling good is paramount to your case.  How can we call one opinion good and another bad, if it is just our opinion?

[The Grand Nudger]

Both you and I agree.....or don't we?  I don't require any further basis for a consensus -between you and I- on this issue. Our agreement on the issue of sex trafficking is sufficient foundation for my comments on the pointlessness of your nipple twisting.

[Mr.wizard]

Steve,

Why can't god give a command to stop enslaving people? You acknowledged he commands slaves to obey their masters, why can't he just give a command to the masters to not own slaves?

It doesn't matter whether or not you treat your slaves nicely or poorly, it doesn't matter whether they are forced into slavery or they do it willingly, the concept of a person being owned as property is wrong.

I am assuming you are talking about the NT. Wouldn't a command not to own slaves be the same as telling slaves they should not be owned? What do you think the result of that would be? Additionally, I think taking the teachings of the NT as a whole you cannot conclude that forced slavery is in keeping with "love your neighbor as yourself, etc.". Paul in in his letter to Philemon is asking him to do the right thing...free his slave for the right reasons. Read it, it's very short. The NT was not espousing a political change (which condemning slavery would be very political) but an internal change of the heart and attitude. Properly applied this would result in abolishing slavery for the right reasons--that is, even the best applied slavery is morally inferior to no slavery.

What!? I'm saying if god is against slavery why would he command the slaves to obey their masters, instead of just commanding people to not own slaves? Is a law telling people not to rape, the same as a law telling people to not get raped?

[RetiredArmy]

That is an interesting thing for you to say, Chad.  I think of you as defending objective morals.  If that is right then aren't you basically saying the reprehensibility of slavery didn't exist or was only a misdemeanor before the industrial revolution.  Now of course it is a capital offense but only because there exist less cruel ways to get work done.  So which is it?  Conditional morals or the bible got slavery wrong?

As it relates to the topic of slavery, I fully realize that nothing I write will be given fair consideration by hardened skeptics. It is not my role to persuade; but merely to present. The purpose of the Mosaic code has always been governance of a theocratic state within a dispensation that begins with the Exodus and ends with the Resurrection. (For nitpickers, Biblical Hebrew uses the same word for everlasting and perpetual. Perpetual has a slightly different connotation that fits with the interpretation I here offer.)

Only a dishonest interpreter (fuck you) says that the Lord did not make plain the evil of slavery (and this make condoning it ok?). That knowledge is enshrined in the Passover ceremony (preach much?). And several times the Lord prefaces His pronouncements with “I am the Lord your God who brought you from the Land of Egypt, out of the House of Bondage” thereby reminding them of their 400 years in bitter slavery (he only allowed it for 400 years? what a great guy!)

Only a dishonest interpreter (fuck you very much) says that the Lord promoted or endorsed slavery just because He allowed it to happen and placed restrictions on it. It is like a parent who says to his son, “You know I disapprove of premarital sex, but if you do at least use a condom.” (are you seriously comparing slavery with consenting adults getting laid?).  The Lord bemoans the fact that the Hebrew people were often stubborn and rebellious and, just like a concerned parent, tried to mitigate the damage caused by poor choices (Exodus 21 is like a condom?)

The OP and its defenders hypocritically accuse Christians of selecting only the passages they like and ignoring the rest. As seen in multiple replies above, the objecting atheists are not remotely interested in comprehensive exegesis. They would rather object to any god who would allow human history to play itself out instead of simply mandating a post-industrial utopia in the style of today’s liberal Western democracies. The OP has nothing to do with biblical contradictions; but rather, just a covert set-up to discuss theodicy.

Pointing and laughing...

[RoadRunner79]

Both you and I agree.....or don't we?  I don't require any further basis for a consensus -between you and I- on this issue.  Our agreement on the issue of sex trafficking is sufficient foundation for my comments on the pointlessness of your nipple twisting.

It appears that you do not care that you have no basis for your argument (or morality) to begin with.... I'm not looking to discuss opinion's (unless you want to talk about your favorite ice cream). 

I think that you are only interested in distorting what is said... both of me, and the Scriptures.   I do agree that sex trafficking or sex slaves is wrong.  I don't agree that the Bible condones it.   We could get into the details, but right now, I don't have a trust, that you are interested in anything more than taking things out of context to argue a straw man.

[The Grand Nudger]

I just told you the basis of -my- comments.  Do we or do we not agree that sex trafficking is shitty?  If we do...then it doesn't belong in the character of a good god.....so far as -we're- concerned.  Right?

If the purpose of your attempt at apologetics is to find a way to believe that the bible does not say what it does....then why are you objecting to -anything- I've said? Pretty obvious, just on the basis of that, that we agree...and your god isn't the sex slaving god of biblical fame. I don't want to hear about context, unless you think that there's some context in which sex trafficking -isn't- shitty. Do you?

These aren't trick questions ffs RR..........and there's hardly a need to dive down the rabbit hole of the nature of morality.

[RoadRunner79]

I just told you the basis of -my- comments.  Do we or do we not agree that sex trafficking is shitty?  If we do...then it doesn't belong in the character of a good god.....so far as -we're- concerned.  Right?

If the purpose of your attempt at apologetics is to find a way to believe that the bible does not say what it does....then why are you objecting to -anything- I've said?  Pretty obvious, just on the basis of that, that we agree...and your god isn't a sex slaving god.  I don't want to hear about context, unless you think that there's some context in which sex trafficking -isn't- shitty.  Do you?

As I said, if it's just your opinion, then I'm not really interested.... In the end, it doesn't matter.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wait a minute...isn't it -our- opinion?  Am I talking to a person willing to rise to the defense of the goodness of sex trafficking? It doesn't matter whether or not a god commanded his chosen people to enslave little girls after eradicating their parents?

Then why do you object in the first place? We already know you don't object to genocide - "cuz evil people"..or somesuch bullshit...why not just tack on sex trafficking to that as well? What's the problem...?

[RoadRunner79]

Wait a minute...isn't it -our- opinion?  Am I talking to a person willing to rise to the defense of the goodness of sex trafficking?  It doesn't matter whether or not a god commanded his chosen people to enslave little girls after eradicating their parents?

Then why do you object in the first place?  We already know you don't object to genocide - "cuz evil people"..or somesuch bullshit...why not just tack on sex trafficking to that as well?  What's the problem...?

Cut out the sophism, and we can continue.   Good day!

[SteveII]

I am assuming you are talking about the NT. Wouldn't a command not to own slaves be the same as telling slaves they should not be owned? What do you think the result of that would be? Additionally, I think taking the teachings of the NT as a whole you cannot conclude that forced slavery is in keeping with "love your neighbor as yourself, etc.". Paul in in his letter to Philemon is asking him to do the right thing...free his slave for the right reasons. Read it, it's very short. The NT was not espousing a political change (which condemning slavery would be very political) but an internal change of the heart and attitude. Properly applied this would result in abolishing slavery for the right reasons--that is, even the best applied slavery is morally inferior to no slavery.

What!? I'm saying if god is against slavery why would he command the slaves to obey their masters, instead of just commanding people to not own slaves? Is a law telling people not to rape, the same as a law telling people to not get raped?

Slavery and rape are not morally equivalent.

From Paul's letter to Philemon. Notice the bold. 

8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— 10 that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus,[b] who became my son while I was in chains. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.

12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. 15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.

This explains the Christian response: choosing for the right reasons what is morally superior. Jesus did not come with a list of dos and don'ts. He preached a change from the inside.