The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[Esquilax]

the smugness comes from years of being called all sorts of stuff and you guys just now starting to get it.

You get called a bunch of stuff because you're a moral monster.

"I do it too" is the other 1/2 of the argument you guys still don't get. I do it because without it 1/3 of the world starves and dies. THEY NEED These Slave wage jobs. Is it the best thing for the planet? who knows, however it is the only societal model we have that has ever worked. That being the case until we can develop slave/cylon robots, we have to have a slave class, as the world societies all operate on a big pyramid scheme.

Ah, so you were equivocating between low paying jobs and slavery again; you were being dishonest, not an idiot. It's so hard to tell with you.

Actually it is complicity and hypocrisy... the web site i linked to earlier is just one of dozens that put responsibility of modern slaves onto western society. There's even a test one can take that estimates how many slaves were used in providing your current lifestyle. I somehow use 53 i personally think that number is high, but on the other hand I see it as my money is being used to keep 53 people from starving to death..

So your position is: some websites say so, so I'm automatically bound to agree? Specifically, with your position, which I doubt is one that those self same websites would have?

Seriously?

Which is the other side of the coin. If ALL slavery ended where then would this revenue/housing come from? Even if burney was elected i don't think raising taxes on the rich nor educating everyone will make a dent in this problem, because if all the slaves are gone and everyone is getting paid a fair wage then so go the rich.

If the rich cannot afford to pay what you acknowledge to be a fair wage for work received, then they got to be rich by stealing labor and their businesses are untenable. Part of resolving this complex political and economic situation such that low paid worker production is no longer required is to recognize this fact, stop subsidizing businesses that are so unable to make a profit that the only way they can do so is by robbing their workers of fair compensation, and to force businesses to quit relying on models of operation that maximize profits for the owners by relying on that labor theft.

Which I guess is the difference between you and I, Drich: you're happy to feed off of a system you acknowledge needs work because then you can pretend that everyone else is just as bad as you are, and so you defend the status quo. I'm at least willing to thoughtfully engage with the problems and propose solutions for them, which I'm sure horrifies you because with your false equivalence stripped away, you're still left with your horrifying beliefs, at the bottom of the moral totem pole.

If we ever manage to build a utopia, my moral principles will still hold up, and yours will still be disgusting. That's the difference.

[robvalue]

Also:

We're not worshipping the one being which could supposedly end slavery in the blink of an eye, but chooses not to.

[Gemini]

Also:

We're not worshipping the one being which could supposedly end slavery in the blink of an eye, but chooses not to.

The incoherence of the theist worldview constantly amazes me. We enjoy watching movies about super heroes enforcing justice on the world, but if you're a theist, you believe that the ultimate super hero actually exists. And does nothing to stop the exploitation and victimization of innocent people, not to mention people who suffer from disease and natural catastrophes. 

So yeah. Slavery exists. It's a problem today, as it was four thousand years ago. And God ain't gonna do a goddamn thing to solve it.

[KevinM1]

Also:

We're not worshipping the one being which could supposedly end slavery in the blink of an eye, but chooses not to.

That a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent being apparently must rely on the suffering of lesser creatures for its plan to work properly is pretty amazing when you think about it.  It really calls into question the claims of its magnificence.

[Huggy Bear]

What is the issue? The stoning of children?

[Nihilist Virus]

What is the issue? The stoning of children?

I know right, who cares about children being executed? I think we should go back to the rape culture they had and re-institute the system of violent, involuntary slavery and of course the execution of homosexuals.

[Athene]

Yeah we know Drich, you're a slavery apologist. And weirdly proud of it. We're not, now matter how much you tell us we are. This has been explained to you endlessly. Just because something is happening, it doesn't mean everyone who is alive condones it.

You have to be a slavery apologist to justify your beliefs to yourself. We have no such requirements.

Yeah, that called being a hypocrite.

Like "protesting" how veal is raised and eating it twice a week.

Or saying you do not believe is spanking,  but you beat the crap out of your own kids.

You can't say you are against slavery if, EVERY Aspect of your life depends on it.

If you like and will not willingly give up the life you live that is provided by modern slavery, that is the same as you endorsing it despite how you might protest.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslav...dual-consu

The above website agrees in that being complacent about your current goods and life style.

But the real question you should be asking is what would the current slaves do if they did not have their slave jobs? how would they support themselves and live?

Very compelling questions, but pretty misleading...and you know why. Slavery in the American South and modern-day human trafficking would be a more accurate and honest comparison to the enslavement of non-Israelite slaves i.e., chattel slavery.

I assume muddling indentured servitude or being paid slave wages with stealing people, and forcing them to engage in manual labor or literally fuck until their bodies give out, is probably done as much for the apologist's personal benefit, as it is with a mind to confuse/mislead others. I get it: defending your god's affirmation and/or approval of the practice is probably a bit difficult to stomach.

Not really fair or accurate to accuse folks of hypocrisy, when you've made such an effort to conflate two vastly different issues, though...Unless you've got a link to a website demonstrating how the average individual is unavoidably complicit in the practice of chattel slavery, of course; such as benefiting from the trafficking of captive sex-slaves. 

Have you got something like that?

[Lek]

I think you're all missing the point that God has the right to do what he wants to do.  He can establish laws for us to follow and he doesn't have to follow those same laws. Also, if you're judging God's love based on his actions and not looking at it through the perspective of eternity, you can't judge whether or not those actions are loving.  If God is punishing me now for my disobedience and giving me eternal life with him based on his own son's sacrifice, then he is showing great love for me.  Another thing to consider is that the bible states over and over that he is a wrathful God.  He was demonstrating his wrath toward all people in the old testament, which was shown in the way he treated them.  Jesus took his full wrath on the cross and now we're no longer under it.

In establishing the law for the Israelites, he wasn't trying to make it nice and easy for them.  He wanted them to be under the weight of a demanding set of laws.  Evidently obedience of parents was extremely detrimental to how he expected that society to function.  If a sentry deserts his posts during wartime he may be executed.  His function is that important to the good of the the whole team.  God also knew from the start that the Israelites would not be able to follow the laws, which they never did fully do.  He was demonstrating to them that because they were under sin they were unable to live up to what they were originally created for.  

Anyway, the reason a person doesn't believe in God is not because they think he's a meanie or that the bible doesn't support his actions; because it does.  It simply because you don't believe he exists.

[Esquilax]

I think you're all missing the point that God has the right to do what he wants to do.  He can establish laws for us to follow and he doesn't have to follow those same laws.

First of all, that's not much of an argument. It's certainly not a defense: "I can do what I want!" might be true in a very petulant, childish way, but it doesn't make the actions that result from it morally right, or effective at accomplishing stated goals, or even consistent with other rhetoric the party uses. It's just a thought stopper. It's "who are you to tell me what to do?"

Moreover, how are you determining that he has that right? Is it just because he says so, making your position circular? Or because none of us are empowered to stop him, making it a standover tactic? There are actual real world ways that rights are determined, you know, they aren't just asserted out of thin air for convenience.

Also, if you're judging God's love based on his actions and not looking at it through the perspective of eternity, you can't judge whether or not those actions are loving.

Yeah you can: eternity just changes the upper and lower bound of the math you get to do. If god is adding suffering without needing to, then it doesn't matter what happens next. The metric hasn't changed, only its limitations.

 If God is punishing me now for my disobedience and giving me eternal life with him based on his own son's sacrifice, then he is showing great love for me.

Only were one to presuppose that disobeying god actually requires punishment, instead of simply being the garish, self-aggrandizing display of narcissism that is being inflicted upon is. I put it to you that not a word of theology or apologetics actually makes that case.

 Another thing to consider is that the bible states over and over that he is a wrathful God.  He was demonstrating his wrath toward all people in the old testament, which was shown in the way he treated them.  Jesus took his full wrath on the cross and now we're no longer under it.

And now you're contradicting yourself.

In establishing the law for the Israelites, he wasn't trying to make it nice and easy for them.  He wanted them to be under the weight of a demanding set of laws.  Evidently obedience of parents was extremely detrimental to how he expected that society to function.  If a sentry deserts his posts during wartime he may be executed.  His function is that important to the good of the the whole team.  God also knew from the start that the Israelites would not be able to follow the laws, which they never did fully do.  He was demonstrating to them that because they were under sin they were unable to live up to what they were originally created for.  

So he caused incalculable suffering, within the context of the narrative, in order to prove a point that they weren't good enough for him... which is apparently something super big and pressing for humans.

I literally have no idea what your concept of loving even is, anymore.

Anyway, the reason a person doesn't believe in God is not because they think he's a meanie or that the bible doesn't support his actions; because it does.  It simply because you don't believe he exists.

... Do you honestly find the narrative and conversation surrounding your own religion so uninteresting that the idea that we might hypothetically engage with it is this strange to you?

[Lek]

... Do you honestly find the narrative and conversation surrounding your own religion so uninteresting that the idea that we might hypothetically engage with it is this strange to you?

No. I think it's very interesting. Are we debating whether or not God is mean or are whether or not he has the right to be mean or to make laws for us to follow and give out punishment for disobeying? Can he make laws and punish us and also be loving? We make rules for our children and punish them and love them and give them good things. Do you think that God, being omniscient, has a good reason for putting us through our trials? You can't know this unless you take into consideration the whole of our existence.