Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[The Grand Nudger]

You have a sanitized disney version of slavery in mind when you imagine biblical slavery, Steve.  That pretty much settles the argument, regardless of your idiocy in buying that line.

[Veritas_Vincit]

1) Why does it matter that we choose God? [because he want us to. it is the purpose of the entire universe so this concept becomes paramount in every discussion of why God did...]
2) If God telling everyone what he wants them to do messes with free will then why tell anyone? Telling a handful is a terrible idea. Surely God would know that revelation is only evidence to the person it is revealed to? I don't believe UFO crazies for exactly this reason!  [see 2.3 Billion examples why that reasoning doesn't work]
3) Your point about 2.3billion people believing it is irrelevant as more than that used to believe the world was flat and the sun went round it. They were wrong. [Bad analogy. You are arguing that there was not enough evidence for God. There obviously was and there is.]
4) If we are born with morality why do we need the Bible? [To point us to the source of that morality, among other minor things like outlining the plan of salvation]
5) If you're telling me your God couldn't think of a way for humans to live without slavery, and couldn't think of a way to tell them, then he's an idiot because anyone alive on the planet today could do that. [So, you don't have any idea then...kinda thought that after you avoided the question for the 10th time]
6) Stop going back to the NT - you can't have one without the other. Jesus said all the old stuff still stands, he says it in the sermon on the mount. [You have been told elsewhere you are wrong. Your going to have to put something else in your "let's repeat these points over and over" bullet list of why Christianity is wrong]
7) God could have said Slavery was wrong. He didn't, which is bad enough, but he actually endorsed it, which is immoral. None of this 'cultural context' or 'indentured servitude' gets you anywhere except where you really don't want to be - rationalising slavery. Have you ever considered how similar the dynamic between God and man is to that of an abusive relationship? [Apparently he thought regulating it was a lesser evil then prohibiting it. You will have to prove that to be a morally wrong choice to win your point. "He could have figured out a way...but I have no clue how" is not enough.]

In addition, your idea of slavery has been skewed by the recent version of it. Slaves rose to great responsibility, were to be paid when set free, death penalty for maiming or killing one, etc. You should not be picturing chains and whips. It was a HUGE part of the culture for thousands of years before and thousands of years after. Of course there were abuses and of course people, in many or even most cases, didn't want to be slaves. They also didn't want to be dead either. With the relative safety we live in today, I cannot imagine living back then.

Just to clarify:

I disagree that the purpose of the universe is to choose God. I am not even remotely convinced there is a God, but even if there was I think this choosing him thing is a stupid idea.

I disagree that the flat earth believer analogy is bad - it illustrates the point I was making which is that just because lots of people believe something it doesn't mean they're right, and they are often wrong. It's a good analogy.

I don't give a shit how many people believe in God, I only care why, and from what I've heard so far I think they are mistaken.

I agree there is 'evidence' for God, but I find it all to be bad evidence, and I find the notion does not meet its burden of proof.

I disagree that a God can be the source of morality. I don't believe there is a god, but morality is far better explained by evolution by natural selection.

I disagree with your scriptural interpretation of what Jesus said concerning the Old Testament and I have explained why. As for "You have been told elsewhere you are wrong." Yes, but not convinced in the slightest, so you can shove it up your arse.

I disagree with your interpretation of slavery in the Bible. I think your apologetics for it are weak and unfounded.

BUT - I can see that nothing I say is going to make you change your mind, that's not why you're here, and that's fine. You are welcome to believe whatever you want. I am confident that anyone following this thread will make their own minds up.

[Minimalist]

You have a sanitized disney version of slavery in mind when you imagine biblical slavery, Steve.  That pretty much settles the argument, regardless of your idiocy in buying that line.

Yeah... ancient slavery was Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah and everything.

http://moatmtv.weebly.com/herculaneum-skeletons.html

A 14-year old girl who is most likely a slave was also found. Scars were found on the bones of her upper arms which exhibit how she must have used those muscles for heavier work than she should have. There were also grooves on her teeth which reveal that she suffered from malnutrition when she was roughly 11 months old and that she had been suffering from severe sickness and/or starvation.8 This reveals to us quite a bit about Roman social life as it was obvious that the lower classes, especially slaves were often malnourished and their bodies had been damaged from over exertion while working. This emphasised the gap between the poor like the slave girl who was very malnourished and the wealthy like the ring lady who was very well-nourished and shows us how slavery was very much a part of ancient Roman social life.

A regular piece of cake!  And this would have been a house slave, not a field hand or an industrial worker.

[SteveII]

Just to clarify:

[1] I disagree that the purpose of the universe is to choose God. I am not even remotely convinced there is a God, but even if there was I think this choosing him thing is a stupid idea.

I disagree that the flat earth believer analogy is bad - it illustrates the point I was making which is that just because lots of people believe something it doesn't mean they're right, and they are often wrong. It's a good analogy.

don't give a shit how many people believe in God, I only care why, and from what I've heard so far I think they are mistaken.

[2] I agree there is 'evidence' for God, but I find it all to be bad evidence, and I find the notion does not meet its burden of proof.

[3] I disagree that a God can be the source of morality. I don't believe there is a god, but morality is far better explained by evolution by natural selection.

[4] I disagree with your scriptural interpretation of what Jesus said concerning the Old Testament and I have explained why. As for "You have been told elsewhere you are wrong." Yes, but not convinced in the slightest, so you can shove it up your arse.

[5] I disagree with your interpretation of slavery in the Bible. I think your apologetics for it are weak and unfounded.

[6] BUT - I can see that nothing I say is going to make you change your mind, that's not why you're here, and that's fine. You are welcome to believe whatever you want. I am confident that anyone following this thread will make their own minds up.

I'm bored...

1. Of course you do. But you can't argue about the existence of characteristics of God that you don't define.
2. I am glad you believe there is evidence for God. 
3. Evolution does not explain objective morality. So if not objective morality then it is subjective morality. If slavery bettered out chances at surviving, why do you think it was 'wrong'?
4. See, you don't get to interpret scriptures for a systematic theology you do not understand. You are cutting and pasting some stupid atheist top 10 objections that have been so thoroughly refuted it really shows how shallow your understanding of what it is you arguing about. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you make beginner mistakes?
5. Fine. I only argued about it because the OP suggest that Christians ignore the difficult passages. I don't think anything should be ignored. 
6. I had no illusions as to what my responses would accomplish. I do it as an exercise for my own benefit. 

That being said, I am done with this topic for now.

[Minimalist]

I'm bored...

Not to mention boring.

[Veritas_Vincit]

For the sake of the thread...

I don't claim to disprove God, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that a God exists to define what he/it is and demonstrate that he is real. All the definitions and attempted arguments, justifications and evidences I have come across in many years of studying this topic are unconvincing and so far have failed to meet their burden of proof, therefore I am not rationally justified in accepting them.

'Objective morality' doesn't exist abstract from humans, it is a social construct. I don't see how that makes it any less valid or valuable. Morality is meaningless without conscious creatures as it concerns their wellbeing and suffering.

I can interpret scriptures however I like thanks. I don't see what makes your interpretation better than mine.

I will believe the alleged refutations of these 'top 10 atheist objections' when I am presented with them and convinced by them. I am amazed that they have eluded me thus far... And I won't hold my breathe.

[SteveII]

'Objective morality' doesn't exist abstract from humans, it is a social construct. I don't see how that makes it any less valid or valuable. Morality is meaningless without conscious creatures as it concerns their wellbeing and suffering.

It's less valuable because it is subjective. 

This brings up a question. How do you justify your moral indignation for slavery in the OT times? If morality is a social construct and society decided it was a benefit in ages past, who are you to judge it now? It seems to me on your view, morality is rooted in habit, custom, feeling and/or fashion--nothing objective about those.

[RetiredArmy]

Pointing, laughing

[The Grand Nudger]

Obviously, a person who's a-ok with slavery won't find the character in magic book abhorrent, and so it would be useless to point that out to them. If you, Steve, are such a person..because "subjective yadda yadda yadda" let's just make that clear so no one wastes their time, or your time?

[GrandizerII]

'Objective morality' doesn't exist abstract from humans, it is a social construct. I don't see how that makes it any less valid or valuable. Morality is meaningless without conscious creatures as it concerns their wellbeing and suffering.

It's less valuable because it is subjective. 

This brings up a question. How do you justify your moral indignation for slavery in the OT times? If morality is a social construct and society decided it was a benefit in ages past, who are you to judge it now? It seems to me on your view, morality is rooted in habit, custom, feeling and/or fashion--nothing objective about those.

Yes, you might want to give this a good think yourself. Maybe one day you'll realize morality isn't as simple as you make it out to be.