Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[The Grand Nudger]

I do think slavery is "shitty". So is death, disease, natural disasters, crime, emotional damage, etc. I just happen to think that God allowing them has a higher purpose. You are right, it can become difficult to remain consistent from topic to topic.

I'm glad we share that opinion.  Bible god doesn't just allow slavery, however, he directly commands it.  I don't think that's going to get him off the hook of our shared opinion.

[robvalue]

But God couldn't do any better than that back then, for some reason.

[Veritas_Vincit]

[GrandizerII]

The morality we go by is certainly not determined by something concrete from the divine. If slavery is wrong, how did God let you know?

Because Jesus' message contained things like "love your neighbor as yourself", the beatitudes (Matthew 5), meekness, turning the other cheek, 'fruits of the spirit', etc. The path that Jesus wants us to walk has no room for things like slavery. That is why I feel confident in "backing into" God's position on slavery in the OT.

Love your neighbor as yourself was in the OT as well, yet no one interpreted it as implying that slavery is wrong back then.

But you see how you have to go by your own subjective interpretation of what it means to love your neighbor as yourself in order to come to your personal conclusion that slavery is wrong. Some people may think that loving your neighbor as yourself does not apply to slaves in the same way that others thought this did not apply to non-Israelites. Many Americans in the days prior to, and during the Civil War, certainly did not interpret that command to mean stop owning slaves. So if subjective interpretations (of the scriptures, mind you) is what you have to go by, you're not in any better position than us.

[ukatheist]

Would God know of a better solution: yes, certainly.

Could a nation of loosely grouped tribes create a centralized government that was capable of providing a safety net for the poor and refugee camps (with a long-term resettlement plan) for the displaced after a military campaign? Highly unlikely. 

To make your point, you can't simply say "God could have...". It is not that easy--you would have to give a plausible scenario.

Hmm, how about 'and if you kill another in battle you shall treat those dependant on them as your own family, treat their children as your own children' or 'if a man comes to you to offer himself as a slave, you shall not take him as a slave, but treat him as your brother' etc etc. No need for refugee camps, or formation of a centralised government. No need for slavery. Much more in keeping with what xtians prefer to believe the bible says.

Your god *could* have said that. Well, if he existed.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

[robvalue]

I want to know why god doesn't speak these days. He used to have no problem just turning up and saying stuff. What happened?

[SteveII]

Because Jesus' message contained things like "love your neighbor as yourself", the beatitudes (Matthew 5), meekness, turning the other cheek, 'fruits of the spirit', etc. The path that Jesus wants us to walk has no room for things like slavery. That is why I feel confident in "backing into" God's position on slavery in the OT.

Love your neighbor as yourself was in the OT as well, yet no one interpreted it as implying that slavery is wrong back then.

But you see how you have to go by your own subjective interpretation of what it means to love your neighbor as yourself in order to come to your personal conclusion that slavery is wrong. Some people may think that loving your neighbor as yourself does not apply to slaves in the same way that others thought this did not apply to non-Israelites. Many Americans in the days prior to, and during the Civil War, certainly did not interpret that command to mean stop owning slaves. So if subjective interpretations (of the scriptures, mind you) is what you have to go by, you're not in any better position than us.

In the OT is was literally your neighbor. Jesus expanded "your neighbor" to mean everyone in the parable of the Good Samaritan. I can't see how that parable leaves the concept of everyone being your neighbor as subjective. The Jews hated the Samaritans. If Americans did not interpret that concept correctly it certainly was not because it was unclear. Jesus expanded several things in the same way. Do not murder was expanded to do not hate. Do not commit adultery was expanded to do not lust, etc. He explained it was a heart thing, not a "do not" thing.

[RoadRunner79]

https://youtu.be/44ilZq3R900

I think that video demonstrates pretty well, the problem that we had before, of equivocating two different meanings of the word objective.

[robvalue]

Would God know of a better solution: yes, certainly.

Could a nation of loosely grouped tribes create a centralized government that was capable of providing a safety net for the poor and refugee camps (with a long-term resettlement plan) for the displaced after a military campaign? Highly unlikely. 

To make your point, you can't simply say "God could have...". It is not that easy--you would have to give a plausible scenario.

Hmm, how about 'and if you kill another in battle you shall treat those dependant on them as your own family, treat their children as your own children' or 'if a man comes to you to offer himself as a slave, you shall not take him as a slave, but treat him as your brother' etc etc. No need for refugee camps, or formation of a centralised government. No need for slavery. Much more in keeping with what xtians prefer to believe the bible says.

Your god *could* have said that. Well, if he existed.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

Welcome to the forums! Perhaps you'd like to make a thread in the introductions section, to tell us a little about yourself?

[SteveII]