Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[RoadRunner79]

I think you are confused, because I was responding to a specific statement. 

IDK RR, doesn;t seem like I'm the one that's confused.  I'm not the one trying to square a circle here, after all.

I also find the words you are attempting to put in my mouth to be unfounded.

You do believe that your god is a genocidal sex slaver...that is your god, and that is the goodness of your god?  I doubt it.  Jesus christ..... show a christian the door that gets him out of all of this and he still protests......

So basically, you are going to tell me what I mean, and then argue from that.  If you are not going to listen, then why bother (or rather why should I bother)?

I do believe that God is genocidal and the large group of people are the wicked.  To you sex slave comment, no, I don't agree.  Much like your comments to me, it is out of context, and an argument in ignorance. 

But since you like changing topics so much, would you like to discuss where you get this high moral perch you are setting on?

[The Grand Nudger]

Same place you get the high moral perch when you declare that god isn't a sex slaver, despite the explicit commands by god in magic book.  

-I think-...just like you think..it's wrong...and if god is a good god, he's not a sex slaver, ergo magic book is wrong about that. That's something that crept in for reasons other than gods wishes or commands or character. The sex slaving god described in magic book is not the god that -either- of us believes in.

Perish the thought.

(now, I might bicker with you about genocide belonging in the "good god" group....but so long as you're fine with genocide as goodness I can at least respect consistency and honesty)

[RoadRunner79]

Same place you get the high moral perch when you declare that god isn't a sex slaver, despite the explicit commands by god in magic book.  

-I think-...just like you think..it's wrong...and if god is a good god, he's not a sex slaver, ergo magic book is wrong about that.  That's something that crept in for reasons other than gods wishes or commands or character.  The sex slaving god described in magic book is not the god that -either- of us believes in.

Perish the thought.

So is it just your opinion then?   If someone else's opinion differs, is your opinion better.... if so why?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's -our- opinion.  Isn't it?  Or do you plan on arguing for the decency of sex trafficking next? What do you think..is -our- opinion of sex trafficking better than the opinion of someone who thinks it's swell?

[RoadRunner79]

It's -our- opinion.  Isn't it?  Or do you plan on arguing for the decency of sex trafficking next?  What do you think..is -our- opinion of sex trafficking better than the opinion of someone who thinks it's swell?

If you are basing it on just a subjective opinion, then no (one is not any better than the other); how could it be.   If you are comparing (and judging) them, then you need to have some standard by which to compare.  Where do you get your standard from?

[The Grand Nudger]

-Then why are you objecting to your gods sex slaving in the first place?

I've already explained where we -both- get our standard from in this instance. We share the opinion that sex trafficking is bad, except...I guess...you don't -exactly- think that, when it comes to standing up for something you don't believe in.

I really don't understand. I show you the way out, and you twist yourself into knots trying to stay in, even though you don't believe it? What's more important, to you..here? Arguing with me, or accurately communicating what you do and don't believe about sex trafficking, the character of your god, and what your god would and wouldn't sign off on?

[Neo-Scholastic]

It is very easy to judge preindustrial social structures from this side of the industrial revolution.

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 says that the Lord did not make plain the evil of slavery. That knowledge is enshrined in the Passover ceremony. 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.

Only a dishonest interpreter 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.” 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.

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.

[RoadRunner79]

-Then why are you objecting to your gods sex slaving in the first place?

I've already explained where we -both- get our standard from in this instance.  We share the opinion that sex trafficking is bad, except...I guess...you don't -exactly- think that, when it comes to standing up for something you don't believe in.

I really don't understand.  I show you the way out, and you twist yourself into knots trying to stay in, even though you don't believe it?

I was trying to find out the basis for your argument... Since you keep dodging the answers, I assume you don't have any basis for it. 

I'm not going to jump through your hoops, and explain why your representation is out of context, when you have the bigger issue of an argument that is incoherent if true.

[SteveII]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.... 

@Chad...just how much arsenic do you intend to toss down that well, and will you ever run out?