Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[Mr.wizard]

I'm not sure he even knows what he is arguing anymore.

We have seen:

1. Cherry picking scripture to say the bible was against slavery.
2. Trying argue that god was only regulating slavery because he couldn't stop it.
3. God commanded slavery so we could come to the conclusion that slavery is wrong, on our own.
4. Morality is subjective so slavery was moral .

You managed to mis-characterize every single point. I will have to try to be clearer next time.

No, I nailed it.

[vorlon13]

Well, when you get 'em straightened out on slavery, we still have bitter herb abortions, dashing childrens against stones, menstruating women expelled from church, encouraging the devout (and gullible) to swill poison and aggravate cobras, rescinding Jesus ban on remarriage following divorce, and probably quite a bit more . . . .

[Minimalist]

No, no, no.  You're reading it wrong.  It doesn't say what it says.

[vorlon13]

[Redbeard The Pink]

Thank you for being polite. I appreciate it.

I understand your point. I think the difference in our interpretations is that I do not think mentioning slavery (a universally present system) is the same as condoning it. Jesus commanded very little in the way of dos and don'ts. Paul was all about the Christian life. We do get from Philemon the message that to do the right thing was to free the slave. But I understand your point that Jesus and Paul did not take the opportunity to condemn it.

My answer to that would be what if they had specifically said "Christians are not to own slaves because slavery is wrong". There would have been consequences (at the least political/law/possibly illegal repercussions, at the most resulting in loss of life) to such statements.

Anyway, I would characterize "reading between the lines" more like changing from the inside and seeing things through Jesus' eyes. It seems like we will have to agree to disagree.

Sooo...magic Bible vision? That's how you're doing this to yourself?


If you're the all-powerful moral compass of the Universe, and you're delivering your big message to humanity, and you pepper that book with passages that add up to say, "You may own, buy, beat, fuck, etc. your slaves as long as you're fair to them and don't kill them or knock out their eyes and teeth," and you at no point amend any of that during the rest of the message, then yes, that blunders right through "mentioning" slavery and smack into condoning it. I fail to see how you can call that anything else.

[robvalue]

It does seem very irresponsible to leave all those things in.

Someone might read it and not have someone around to tell them to ignore it. They might actually do what it says, if they'd heard this was the "word of God".

Giving such status to any text is a dangerous idea in itself.

[GrandizerII]

No, no, no.  You're reading it wrong.  It doesn't say what it says.

It doesn't mean what it literally means. You need my special brain to do the right interpretation for you.

[vorlon13]