Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[AdamJa]

[robvalue]

I doubt it's possible to hold a sensible conversation with someone so entrenched as that. We have some theists here who are at a similar level, who I have given up talking to. I don't know why they're even here.

[AdamJa]

I doubt it's possible to hold a sensible conversation with someone so entrenched as that. We have some theists here who are at a similar level, who I have given up talking to. I don't know why they're even here.

Well, yes. It`s a thing that you can not win really. Well, you can in truth, but in their eyes, whatever you say will be wrong, because of that old fairy tale book written 2k years ago. And it`s a bit sad, that there are people like this out there, living their lives in total ignorance.

[robvalue]

It is very sad indeed.

The advantage of arguing with someone like that here is that we have a large number of observers. Not just the membership of the forum, but a great many more lurkers. They will hopefully see who has the more reasonable arguments.

[AdamJa]

It is very sad indeed.

The advantage of arguing with someone like that here is that we have a large number of observers. Not just the membership of the forum, but a great many more lurkers. They will hopefully see who has the more reasonable arguments.

Oh yes that`s a very good thing. I was waiting for someone on Twitter to help me burn that guy/girl haha. After some time it was just to tiring to do it alone

[robvalue]

Yeah, you'll have plenty of people waiting to tag in here!

We get theists show up, thinking they have some new amazing argument, and it's always bound to be one of about 12 standard ones that we see over and over again. It becomes really predictable, to the point where I could write their responses for them.

Sometimes I do. I tell them what they're going to say next and what's wrong with it, and they say it anyway.

[SteveII]

What "teachings in the Bible that are decidedly evil, immoral, barbaric and utterly worthless."? Let's limit it to the moral discussion earlier and only have examples of what we "ought" personally to do. 

Of course civil penalties for law violations in a theocracy are decidedly not teachings.

Wow, that's a bullshit answer! Anything that is attributed to God is a teaching. If it says "And God said..." That isn't just a matter of civil law, it still counts I'm afraid. You aren't getting your Bible off the hook that easily.

Keeping slaves, owning people as property and being able to beat them, on any level, at any time, is immoral. And no, God wasn't just regulating it, he was condoning and instructing it, so don't waste your time with that answer. It isn't good enough and I'm sick of hearing it.

Administering the death penalty for adultery is immoral. It's too harsh of a sentence by far.

Administering the death penalty for two men having sex is immoral. It does no harm to anyone and is often an expression of love.

The idea that the creator of the universe has rights over our lives is immoral. We have the power to squish bugs but that doesn't morally justify our doing so. I didn't ask to be created and I do not recognise anyone's right to own me or rule my life - so the ball is back in God's court. If your imaginary God punishes me, maybe he can, but that doesn't make it right.

The idea that you can sacrifice your child is evil. It isn't sacrifice, it's murder, infanticide. The fact that a God at any time under any circumstances would do this is immoral. And the fact that Abraham would have gone through with it is morally despicable.

So, there are not any teachings that would pertain to us that are immoral.

If there is a God, the only rights you have are the ones he would give you. Any restrictions on God could only be imposed by one of God's attributes. Justice, moral perfection, etc. so in that way you have some rights. But with rights comes responsibility. Choose God or suffer the consequences.

[Veritas_Vincit]

No, I disagree. What gives him these rights? Why should he have rights over me? He may have power over me in the same way as a nutter with a gun has power. But rights? No, I don't recognise his rights over me. This means that the ball is back in his court. If he wants to impose rights that he claims, he is doing this against my will, and is therefore an oppressor, a tyrant, an enslaver, a menace. Might does not equal right.

---

And by the way you can put your ostrich head in the sand about the semantics of teaching all you like but I don't accept your definition on it and I doubt anyone else reading this thread would either.

[Excited Penguin]

The bible is a great book, a holy book, but that doesn't mean that everything in it is true in a scientific sense. Of course not. We, Christians, like to cherry pick it because some parts are more appropriate than others most of the time in this day and age.

Hmm, how else can I explain it?... Think of it like of a quasi-philosophical book. It's not all philosophy, but the parts of it that are are truly filled with wisdom and a delight to read and think about. There are also more violent, ugly parts, things that shouldn't be taken very seriously, let alone dwell on. I'm not a theologian, but I think the bible is both a book of its time and timeless, as contradictory as that may seem.

[Redbeard The Pink]

You do this a lot. You mix Old and New Testament together.

Um...yeah. So? According to Jesus and the NT, not one word of the law is changed or invalidated by Christ's coming, and all scripture is useful for preaching and teaching. In this case, the Old and New Testament both agree that slaves can be kept and that they should be obedient. There is no version of "but that's the OLD Testament!" that allows you to weasel out of this.

One was written for Jews under a theocracy, the other written to us. There was 1300 years between Moses and Jesus.

Dude...that old mind trick just isn't gonna work here. There may be all that time between the Testaments, but on this issue they agree: slavery is overtly allowed, and slaves should be obedient. The reason I included passages from both was specifically to preempt you doing the kind of squirming you're trying at now. You're caught, bro. Both Testaments agree on slavery. It's allowed and expected. Nothing discourages it.

The question was related to what morality can we glean from the NT. I think we have sufficient reasons to believe slavery is immoral.

You're welcome to think that; it just isn't correct. It is literally impossible to glean "slavery is wrong" from a book that contains the above passages, plus all the other pro-slavery shit I didn't bother quoting. Like I said, your ad hoc doctrine might work in the absence of passages which allow and regulate slavery in both Testaments, but with the way the book reads now, it clearly and specifically contradicts the idea that slavery is immoral.

A verse about christian slaves obeying their masters does not get you to Paul condoning slavery--

Um, yeah...yeah it does, Steve. Paul talks about slavery as if it were accepted and expected, and as if slaves have a morally binding responsibility to obey. That is absolutely condoning slavery. If you can look at this passage and sincerely believe it doesn't condone slavery, you're either a stone-brained idiot or you're not being honest with yourself.

especially when you read Philemon. Here is your verse in context:

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear and sincerity of heart, just as you would show to Christ. 6And do this not only to please them while they are watching, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve with good will, as to the Lord and not to men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

9And masters, do the same for your slaves. Give up your use of threats, because you know that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him.

So in context, Paul is not only telling the slaves to obey their masters' orders, but also to treat those orders as if they came from God himself, and to obey those orders even when nobody is looking. Sounds like Paul had some slaves he wanted to keep in line. What point are you making, exactly?


OK, so there's that cute little thing on the end about masters not threatening slaves. The Old Testament has some stuff about not killing them or knocking their eyes out. You know what neither one says, though?


"Don't treat humans like property. I am the Lord."


Commanding people to treat their slaves at least as well as plow animals is not a moral admonition against slavery, and nothing in the Bible can be bent far enough to condemn it, especially not in the face of passages like the ones we're discussing. If you think the Bible is anti-slavery, you're simply misinterpreting and/or ignoring what it very plainly says.