Slavery in the Bible: more than meets the eye?

[BilliardsBall]

The Bible says nothing about avoid subjugation either and instead, gives explicit instructions on just how to subjugate people.
So there's at least one good reason to reject what the Bible says about morality and to rely on reason, empathy and rational consideration of the consequences of our actions instead.

Again, as a materialist, the burden of proof is yours: How does evolved flesh "know" slavery, or abortion, or anything, is "wrong"?

Is slavery objectively wrong? I would say slavery is wrong based on “Love your neighbor as yourself”. Why would you say it is wrong? Note that I’m not shifting the goalposts. Rather, I’m pointing out the illogic of condemning the Bible for condoning slavery if all you have against slavery are emotion-filled arguments.

Is human slavery sometimes evil or always evil? If always, do you accept absolute morals and their creator? How could absolute morals exist, that haven’t evolved over time, without a moral creator rather than moral evolution?

If we’re evolved animals without souls, why do you eat eggs from chickens treated “inhumanely”? Why do you eat beef or pork from animals that are treated worse than human slaves?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Evolution does not ask us to enslave people, nor to slash kids against walls. Nor to rip pregnant women apart. Like your morality giver does, apparently.

Out of curiosity: don’t you feel a bit embarrassed to get your morality from such a divinity?

Ciao

- viole

How do you know "what evolution asks people to do"? If I'm without food, how do you "know" evolution says, "cannibalism is wrong"? There are animals and insects that eat their own...

I see two issues here:

Is slavery condoned in the Bible?

Is slavery objectively wrong? I would say slavery is wrong based on “Love your neighbor as yourself”. Why would you say it is wrong? Note that I’m not shifting the goalposts. Rather, I’m pointing out the illogic of condemning the Bible for condoning slavery if all you have against slavery are emotion-filled arguments, which is certainly all you have above and in prior posts.

I love debating atheists--they are rather easy to debate as they consistently make the same errors of logic and morality--but please provide facts and not emotional appeals, if you would.

Really, really try!

 

[tas8831]

I never said "evolution teaches morals".

I know - you indicated the opposite. Yet you implied that it should? I guess - hard to tell what you mean sometimes, you trip over yourself trying so hard to both prop up your position and attack mine with nothing of merit:

"and the fact that evolution does not command that we love our neighbor/avoid their subjugation."

You attack evolution for not doing so as, I guess, a way of defending your Law Giver for His double standards.

I said you have the burden of proof, for example, that slavery is wrong, or rape is wrong, or abortion is wrong, or "wrong" exists at all, since you are a materialist.

I provided my example re: slavery. It is empathy based.

Pretty simple - no Law Giver that employs double standards is needed, one just has to not be a selfish jerk.

Is slavery objectively wrong? I would say slavery is wrong based on “Love your neighbor as yourself”.

Yes, you said that before. Which is weird since not only does your Holy Book indicate that slavery is fine, especially when the slaves are foreigners, but there are at least a couple bible experts on this thread justifying Jehovah's lackadaisical attitude toward slavery - because slavery was already a thing, so what can a Deity do?

Why would you say it is wrong?

Wow, I already wrote what I think in a post you already replied to - did you actually read it?

I wrote:

"Here is the simple basis for my morality re: slavery - I would not want to be a slave, therefore, I assume that other people would also not want people to be slaves. Thus, I am against slavery.

See? Simple - all it takes is a little empathy. If a person needs to be 'commanded' to be 'moral' (do as I say, not as I do), then that person, IMO, has no morals."​

I guess you cannot be a moral person unless a tribal deity commands you to be?
Sad.

Note that I’m not shifting the goalposts. Rather, I’m pointing out the illlogic of condemning the Bible for condoning slavery if all you have against slavery are emotion-filled arguments.

Non sequitur.

Empathy is not emotion.

And even if all I had WAS an emotional argument, how is that not a counter to the biblical double standards? Wherein we see NO condemnation of slavery AT ALL. In fact, the bible has RULES for slavery - and I know the "apologists" of the internet are busily lying to the sheeple out there about how the bible does not condone slavery, no, not at all - see the bible, they say, just has temporary indentured servitude! yeah, thats all, because thats the way it was back then. They cite Exodus - even though to get to the indentured servitude part, you have to ignore several passages about keeping foreign slaves and the like. So precious.

Repeating:

If we’re evolved animals without souls, why do you eat eggs from chickens treated “inhumanely”?

Cool how in your desperation to avoid admitting that your Law Giver is totally cool with life-long slavery - complete with nifty 'laws' that forgive masters whose slaves died 3 days after being beaten by them, you want to shift the burden to me to justify MY "double standards" for eating eggs???

My gosh - is that the best you can come up with in your defense of Jehovah's love of slavery? Me eating eggs?

Why do you eat beef or pork from animals that are treated worse than human slaves? DOUBLE STANDARD, isn't it?

You are funny in your sad desperation - see what your "faith" makes you do and write and act?

Great ok - I am a hypocrite for eating pork harvested from abused pigs.


Thus, who am I to point out that your Favorite Deity was totally cool with slavery..... Unimpeachable logic you have there...


Concession accepted again.

 

[tas8831]

Again, as a materialist, the burden of proof is yours: How does evolved flesh "know" slavery, or abortion, or anything, is "wrong"?

Really? This is what you are reduced to?

So desperate to defend Jehovah's double standards that you try to turn it onto us?

Who said we "know" it? What is there to "know" when I say that I would not want to be a slave, therefore, I assume other people would not want to be slaves?

Are you really this desperate to defend Jehovah's double standards and lack of a consistent morality?

As for abortion, I do not "know" that it is wrong - and I should think that using the new 'argument' being put forth in defense of slavery by evangelical bible experts ('meh - slavery was the way it was back in bible times, so that is why Jehovah was cool with it'), Christianists should also be OK with abortion, since that happened back then, too (came across a paper in which abortion is mentioned from 1550 BC).
Humans have been controlling birth for a very long time.

So now that this whole slavery thing is wrapped up, how about we discuss the foreskin obsession in the bible?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Again, as a materialist, the burden of proof is yours: How does evolved flesh "know" slavery, or abortion, or anything, is "wrong"?

Is slavery objectively wrong? I would say slavery is wrong based on “Love your neighbor as yourself”. Why would you say it is wrong? Note that I’m not shifting the goalposts. Rather, I’m pointing out the illogic of condemning the Bible for condoning slavery if all you have against slavery are emotion-filled arguments.

Is human slavery sometimes evil or always evil? If always, do you accept absolute morals and their creator? How could absolute morals exist, that haven’t evolved over time, without a moral creator rather than moral evolution?

If we’re evolved animals without souls, why do you eat eggs from chickens treated “inhumanely”? Why do you eat beef or pork from animals that are treated worse than human slaves?

I've explained to you several times how I come about my morals, as a humanist. And that is through a rational consideration of the consequences of our actions with respect to the well being of sentient creatures. "Evolved flesh" is capable of doing this. I've pointed this out several times now, but you keep repeating the above.

Slavery is morally wrong, because it infringes upon the well-being of human beings. I would not want to be owned as property, therefore I realize other human beings also do not want to be owned as property. I want to be free. I suspect other people want to be free as well. Slavery is great for the slave owner, but not so much for the slave.

Morals have changed over time, because human beings have progressed as a species over time. We learn new things and adapt. But if you think about it, slavery is just as immoral thousands of years ago as it is now. So is murder, and rape, and robbery, because they all have negative consequences to the people involved.

If there is a creator, why on earth would morals change over time? Furthermore, as I've pointed out to you many, many times before, I'll need you to explain to me how following orders from ancient books is moral in any way, shape or form. In my mind, you are not exercising morality at all, rather, you're just following orders. I.e. You are acting amorally. In this view, something is only wrong because the Big Guy says so, or, might makes right. It's not wrong because it harms people, it's just wrong because some invisible deity supposedly said so.

I don't eat chickens that have been treated inhumanely, or beef or pork, as I have a major problem with that.

 

[tas8831]

Is slavery condoned in the Bible?

Clearly.

Is slavery objectively wrong? I would say slavery is wrong based on “Love your neighbor as yourself”.

So you just ignore the fact that Jehovah was OK with slavery.

I love debating atheists--they are rather easy to debate as they consistently make the same errors of logic and morality--but please provide facts and not emotional appeals, if you would.

Really, really try!

Such projection and pseudocertainty is a rare sight - but not on religious forums. Then it is the norm.

I love debating Christianists - it is so easy to point out their logical errors and fallacies and unwarranted confidence.

 

[viole]

How do you know "what evolution asks people to do"? If I'm without food, how do you "know" evolution says, "cannibalism is wrong"? There are animals and insects that eat their own...

I see two issues here:

Is slavery condoned in the Bible?

Is slavery objectively wrong? I would say slavery is wrong based on “Love your neighbor as yourself”. Why would you say it is wrong? Note that I’m not shifting the goalposts. Rather, I’m pointing out the illogic of condemning the Bible for condoning slavery if all you have against slavery are emotion-filled arguments, which is certainly all you have above and in prior posts.

I love debating atheists--they are rather easy to debate as they consistently make the same errors of logic and morality--but please provide facts and not emotional appeals, if you would.

Really, really try!

Evolution is amoral. That is the whole point.
Do you think your God is amoral, too? Looks like.

And what facts do you need? It is only in your Holy Book. You know, the ones with prophets living days inside tunas and God commanding the ripping apart of pregnant women. Do you read it sometimes? Or do you read only the parts where Jesus takes the weekend off for our sins?

So you seem to indicate that you want me to provide facts that contradict what your God said. Are you sure?

And, you seem to justify the slashing of kids against walls. And the exterminations of women and children. If they are issued by your God.

Is that so?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Hi
My problem with the discussion is that every time i think that something has been established it gets ....backtracked....here is an earlier comment of yours........I already know that morality is relative. And that things valid today, might not have been valid back then, and the other way round.So?
Yet in your comment to Billiard ball you say..... ask us to enslave people, nor to slash kids against walls. Nor to rip pregnant women apart. Like your morality giver does, apparently.
It seems that the concession that the "morals of the time" allowed for slavery and slaughter is just not put into consideration consistently. All of a sudden Bronze age warfare is intrinsically immoral again and the peoples understanding at the time is disreguarded.
.........................................................................
Do you really believe that God as described in the Bible WANTS this stuff to happen?
Not allows it to happen but actually wants things to be like they are.
Please answer that question as it goes to the HEART of the morality issue.
.................................................
You seem to indicate that the “love thy enemy” commandment, if it is really prescriptive, is relative. Or depending on context. That means, it depends on times and situations.
Jesus gave the command to LOVE your enemies in the 30's ce. Moses gave the laws that you are critising in the 1500's bce. Do you not see the obvious problem with wanting a law applied 1400 years before it was given?

Matthew 5:43-48 ......"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.
You see don't you that it USED to be "hate your enemy" , that's the period in which we are playing, the hate your enemy time. While the Jews were organised as a nation things were handled as a nation. The christian message is different. There is NO nation or lands to protect and the warfare stuff is disguarded. New standards are given.
Do you understand this?
Do you accept this?
Do you see why the "Love thy Enemy" stuff can't be retroactively applied?
........................................................
I have explained how the God of the Bible has restrictions in how he can deal with mankind because of his decision in Eden to let Two Sides develop in opposition to each other. He CAN NOT make Universal decrees on the nations.
Do you understand this?
Do you accept this?
If you will not view Gods actions within the context of the narrative that outlines them then it is an untenable discussion.
..............................................

Peace

Well, the problem here is that you Christians do not agree. So, my replies to Billiard might not be relevant to you.

You say morality is relative, other Christians say it is absolute and unchanging.

And it is not only morality. You basically disagree on a whole set of basic stuff. For instance:

1) young earth/old earth
2) evolution/no evolution
3) death penalty/no death penalty
4) gays ok/gays not ok
5) Infinite torment in Hell/no infinite torment in Hell/no hell
6] fire weapons/no fire weapons
7) all the different variants of raptures, or whatever
Etc.

I have to say: I really wonder what you guys discuss during your alleged personal relationships with the Almighty? The weather?

Ciao

- viole

 

[tas8831]

I never said "evolution teaches morals". I said you have the burden of proof, for example, that slavery is wrong, or rape is wrong, or abortion is wrong, or "wrong" exists at all, since you are a materialist.

Is slavery objectively wrong? I would say slavery is wrong based on “Love your neighbor as yourself”. Why would you say it is wrong? Note that I’m not shifting the goalposts. Rather, I’m pointing out the illlogic of condemning the Bible for condoning slavery if all you have against slavery are emotion-filled arguments.

Repeating:

If we’re evolved animals without souls, why do you eat eggs from chickens treated “inhumanely”? Why do you eat beef or pork from animals that are treated worse than human slaves? DOUBLE STANDARD, isn't it?

If your deity provides you - COMMANDS you - with absolute morals, then why does your deity not only condone, but provide you with sickening rules FOR the practice?

You can copy-paste your desperation all you feel you need to - the fact remains that your own Holy Book cuts your legs out from under when pretending that Jehovah provides you with 'absolute morals.'

 

[Moz]

Well, the problem here is that you Christians do not agree. So, my replies to Billiard might not be relevant to you.

You say morality is relative, other Christians say it is absolute and unchanging.

And it is not only morality. You basically disagree on a whole set of basic stuff. For instance:

1) young earth/old earth
2) evolution/no evolution
3) death penalty/no death penalty
4) gays ok/gays not ok
5) Infinite torment in Hell/no infinite torment in Hell/no hell
6] fire weapons/no fire weapons
7) all the different variants of raptures, or whatever
Etc.

I have to say: I really wonder what you guys discuss during your alleged personal relationships with the Almighty? The weather?

Ciao

- viole

Hi
Well, the problem here is that you Christians do not agree. So, my replies to Billiard might not be relevant to you.
No. The problem is that you ALREADY now that morality can be relative.
So why pose the questions the exact way that you did when we first started.
..........................................................
You say morality is relative, other Christians say it is absolute and unchanging.
Wow that is such a twist of what i said. Gods absolute morality was excercised in a way that accommodates his dealing with imperfect creatures. It is relative to the situation, as true morality should be.
........................................................
I am not referring to any of the internal differences in christendom... a pox on all their houses. You can bang on about them all you want. It is your dishonesty in including stuff you already know is hyperbolic declaration, cultural influence and tribal normative behaviour in your accusations that i find telling on the true motivation of your "slash the babies" rhetoric.

If you disagreed with any of the previous explanations of cultural and societal makeup of the protagonists you failed to mention it.

If you disagreed with the explanation of the intricacies of patriarchal tribal confederations you failed to mention it.

If you disagreed that because of the way the drama unfolded in Eden the Biblical God is not able to make universal proclamations binding on all mankind you failed to mention it.

If you disagreed that the "love thy Neighbour" principle was over a 1000 years after the events that we are discussing you failed to mention it.

If you disagree that slavery or slaughter was the mutually agreed upon cultural zeitgeist you failed to mention it.
.............................................
So you seem to indicate that you want me to provide facts that contradict what your God said. Are you sure?

I would be interested in some facts or some reasoning or something. I laid out copious facts about the times and the peoples and the lead up to the events and you commented on NOTHING.
I suspect that the facts that you are threatening Billards ball with are your devastating "What would Jesus do?" and "Love thy Neighbour" gems. You should not even bother with such tripe but i'm sure you will, we'll see.
..................................................
What you should answer is why the accepted common practice of ALL the peoples of those times is somehow NOW immoral. Killing babies in 1300 bce is not the same as killing them in 2019 and your shrill emotive outbursts only cause you to judge the situation from an unapplicable perspective. It may feel good but it is in no way an attempt to understand anything.
.....................................
I thank you for the conversation, i'll let you regurgitate your one trick pony of an argument onto the next hapless victim. I wish you the best and hope your atheism delivers everything that it promises.
Peace

 

[night912]

Since god changed his absolute moral standards in order to be relevant to lessor beings, it is a change in his morality. And there's your contradiction. You can only have either absolute morality or no absolute morality, one the other. They are opposites that contradicts one another. A paradox is different from that.

God restrained his absolute moral standards to accomodate the imperfections of lessor beings, it is a moderation of his morality. Not a change,

See i can make statements just as easily as you. Mine fits within the context of the story, yours is an imposition from without.
I have tried to explain why the BIBLICAL God had to mitigate his morals.You wish to apply standards that are outside the biblical explanation. With the Bible God CAN have absolute morality and exercise relative morality. The story is actually written so as to accomodate it.
It seems that you think the authors did not see the problem, they did and gave the explanation in genesis with the knowledge of good and evil bit and the casting out and the two seeds.
)
Killing non military personnel is immoral. God commanded the Israelites to killed all, so they committed immoral acts during their campaign. And you said Jesus AKA god, would have done the same

The ancients did not see it that way and that is the standard that i apply. Anything else is just your uniformed opinion.

Of course you can make statements as well. The difference is that your statements refuted your own argument. So you state that god has moderate his morality towards humans. That's another evidence for god not having absolute morality.

So thanks for showing that I'm right about god not having absolute morality and your lack of understanding.

 

[Moz]

Of course you can make statements as well. The difference is that your statements refuted your own argument. So you state that god has moderate his morality towards humans. That's another evidence for god not having absolute morality.

So thanks for showing that I'm right about god not having absolute morality and your lack of understanding.

Hi
Do you really think that works.
This is a subject that has been written about from Socrates to our present day and you think your snide remarks at the surface of the issue have any weight with me. If we are going to get technical then if God exists anything he does is moral by definition, that's the greeks btw not christian apologists.

I tried to explain, within the biblical narrative, why it is consistent that God moderates his actions to fit within the limitations of fallen creatures. To win the argument you would need to address the issues that are brought up in Eden and explain why you believe that God had the Biblical authority to impose his absolute morality on fallen creatures.
It is no skin off my nose whether you think that the collective reasoning on this by humanity over the millennia is somehow too stupid to see the brilliant points you laid out in your series of erudite claims but i do not do this for you it is for me and all you are doing by not wanting to treat the discussion seriously is reaffirming what i already know about the shallowness of the atheist position.

Peace.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I know - you indicated the opposite. Yet you implied that it should? I guess - hard to tell what you mean sometimes, you trip over yourself trying so hard to both prop up your position and attack mine with nothing of merit:

"and the fact that evolution does not command that we love our neighbor/avoid their subjugation."

You attack evolution for not doing so as, I guess, a way of defending your Law Giver for His double standards.

I provided my example re: slavery. It is empathy based.

Pretty simple - no Law Giver that employs double standards is needed, one just has to not be a selfish jerk.

Yes, you said that before. Which is weird since not only does your Holy Book indicate that slavery is fine, especially when the slaves are foreigners, but there are at least a couple bible experts on this thread justifying Jehovah's lackadaisical attitude toward slavery - because slavery was already a thing, so what can a Deity do?


Wow, I already wrote what I think in a post you already replied to - did you actually read it?

I wrote:

"Here is the simple basis for my morality re: slavery - I would not want to be a slave, therefore, I assume that other people would also not want people to be slaves. Thus, I am against slavery.

See? Simple - all it takes is a little empathy. If a person needs to be 'commanded' to be 'moral' (do as I say, not as I do), then that person, IMO, has no morals."​

I guess you cannot be a moral person unless a tribal deity commands you to be?
Sad.

Non sequitur.

Empathy is not emotion.

And even if all I had WAS an emotional argument, how is that not a counter to the biblical double standards? Wherein we see NO condemnation of slavery AT ALL. In fact, the bible has RULES for slavery - and I know the "apologists" of the internet are busily lying to the sheeple out there about how the bible does not condone slavery, no, not at all - see the bible, they say, just has temporary indentured servitude! yeah, thats all, because thats the way it was back then. They cite Exodus - even though to get to the indentured servitude part, you have to ignore several passages about keeping foreign slaves and the like. So precious.


Cool how in your desperation to avoid admitting that your Law Giver is totally cool with life-long slavery - complete with nifty 'laws' that forgive masters whose slaves died 3 days after being beaten by them, you want to shift the burden to me to justify MY "double standards" for eating eggs???

My gosh - is that the best you can come up with in your defense of Jehovah's love of slavery? Me eating eggs?

You are funny in your sad desperation - see what your "faith" makes you do and write and act?

Great ok - I am a hypocrite for eating pork harvested from abused pigs.


Thus, who am I to point out that your Favorite Deity was totally cool with slavery..... Unimpeachable logic you have there...


Concession accepted again.

Bible slavery isn’t American slavery with beatings and rapes. It is an economic exchange for food and shelter.

But if you’re against all kinds of slavery, do you only buy fair trade goods? Do you watch pornography, in which countless participants were trafficked sex slaves or teen runaways who came from lives of prostitution and drug addiction?

Put differently, can you spend less time complaining about an ancient book—much of which you say is myth and never happened in real life—and more time putting your money where your mouth is? My wife and I have given generously and sacrificially to rescue people from slavery, because we love Jesus Christ.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Really? This is what you are reduced to?

So desperate to defend Jehovah's double standards that you try to turn it onto us?

Who said we "know" it? What is there to "know" when I say that I would not want to be a slave, therefore, I assume other people would not want to be slaves?

Are you really this desperate to defend Jehovah's double standards and lack of a consistent morality?

As for abortion, I do not "know" that it is wrong - and I should think that using the new 'argument' being put forth in defense of slavery by evangelical bible experts ('meh - slavery was the way it was back in bible times, so that is why Jehovah was cool with it'), Christianists should also be OK with abortion, since that happened back then, too (came across a paper in which abortion is mentioned from 1550 BC).
Humans have been controlling birth for a very long time.

So now that this whole slavery thing is wrapped up, how about we discuss the foreskin obsession in the bible?

We are at a "reductio" with you because you still won't say how you know right from wrong as a materialist, how it is that some animals show some empathy while some eat their own species. You have subjective morals and mostly emotional arguments.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If your deity provides you - COMMANDS you - with absolute morals, then why does your deity not only condone, but provide you with sickening rules FOR the practice?

You can copy-paste tour desperation all you feel you need to - the fact remains that your own Holy Book cuts your legs out from under when pretending that Jehovah provides you with 'absolute morals.'

Your post is self-defeating, note your tautological (false) argument:

If a God provides absolute morals, how can His morals be so profane? Translation: I believe in absolute morals, slavery, for example, is always objectively, not subjectively wrong, therefore absolute morals exist, therefore no God exists who provided absolute morals.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've explained to you several times how I come about my morals, as a humanist. And that is through a rational consideration of the consequences of our actions with respect to the well being of sentient creatures. "Evolved flesh" is capable of doing this. I've pointed this out several times now, but you keep repeating the above.

Slavery is morally wrong, because it infringes upon the well-being of human beings. I would not want to be owned as property, therefore I realize other human beings also do not want to be owned as property. I want to be free. I suspect other people want to be free as well. Slavery is great for the slave owner, but not so much for the slave.

Morals have changed over time, because human beings have progressed as a species over time. We learn new things and adapt. But if you think about it, slavery is just as immoral thousands of years ago as it is now. So is murder, and rape, and robbery, because they all have negative consequences to the people involved.

If there is a creator, why on earth would morals change over time? Furthermore, as I've pointed out to you many, many times before, I'll need you to explain to me how following orders from ancient books is moral in any way, shape or form. In my mind, you are not exercising morality at all, rather, you're just following orders. I.e. You are acting amorally. In this view, something is only wrong because the Big Guy says so, or, might makes right. It's not wrong because it harms people, it's just wrong because some invisible deity supposedly said so.

I don't eat chickens that have been treated inhumanely, or beef or pork, as I have a major problem with that.

Of course, your basic argument, quote: "Slavery is morally wrong, because it infringes upon the well-being of human beings" is not evidenced universally by your "god", evolution. There are species that show communal will and empathy and species that eat their young. Your argument can be redacted to:

What I want is good, because I live a self-centered life where bodily autonomy and freedom, not morals, God or others, is paramount. It's not possible in my economy that enslavement was ever good for anyone, because I cannot conceive of a wholly sacrificial life for another's benefit, i.e. Paul, Jesus, Moses...

Of course, Bible slavery isn’t American slavery with beatings and rapes. It is an economic exchange for food and shelter.

But if you’re against all kinds of slavery, do you only buy fair trade goods? Do you watch pornography, in which countless participants were trafficked sex slaves or teen runaways who came from lives of prostitution and drug addiction?

Put differently, can you spend less time complaining about an ancient book—much of which you say is myth and never happened in real life—and more time putting your money where your mouth is? My wife and I have given generously and sacrificially to rescue people from slavery, because we love Jesus Christ.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Evolution is amoral. That is the whole point.
Do you think your God is amoral, too? Looks like.

And what facts do you need? It is only in your Holy Book. You know, the ones with prophets living days inside tunas and God commanding the ripping apart of pregnant women. Do you read it sometimes? Or do you read only the parts where Jesus takes the weekend off for our sins?

So you seem to indicate that you want me to provide facts that contradict what your God said. Are you sure?

And, you seem to justify the slashing of kids against walls. And the exterminations of women and children. If they are issued by your God.

Is that so?

Ciao

- viole

If evolution is amoral, and you have no god, but devoutly follow evolution, you cannot say any kind of killing, subjugation, etc. is moral or immoral, logically speaking.

Bible slavery isn’t American slavery with beatings and rapes. It is an economic exchange for food and shelter.

But if you’re against all kinds of slavery, do you only buy fair trade goods? Do you watch pornography, in which countless participants were trafficked sex slaves or teen runaways who came from lives of prostitution and drug addiction?

Put differently, can you spend less time complaining about an ancient book—much of which you say is myth and never happened in real life—and more time putting your money where your mouth is? My wife and I have given generously and sacrificially to rescue people from slavery, because we love Jesus Christ.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hi
Do you really think that works.
This is a subject that has been written about from Socrates to our present day and you think your snide remarks at the surface of the issue have any weight with me. If we are going to get technical then if God exists anything he does is moral by definition, that's the greeks btw not christian apologists.

I tried to explain, within the biblical narrative, why it is consistent that God moderates his actions to fit within the limitations of fallen creatures. To win the argument you would need to address the issues that are brought up in Eden and explain why you believe that God had the Biblical authority to impose his absolute morality on fallen creatures.
It is no skin off my nose whether you think that the collective reasoning on this by humanity over the millennia is somehow too stupid to see the brilliant points you laid out in your series of erudite claims but i do not do this for you it is for me and all you are doing by not wanting to treat the discussion seriously is reaffirming what i already know about the shallowness of the atheist position.

Peace.

How so?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course, your basic argument, quote: "Slavery is morally wrong, because it infringes upon the well-being of human beings" is not evidenced universally by your "god", evolution. There are species that show communal will and empathy and species that eat their young.

I'm sorry but I don't know what you're trying to say here. My "god" evolution? I don't know what you're referring to.

Your argument can be redacted to:

What I want is good, because I live a self-centered life where bodily autonomy and freedom, not morals, God or others, is paramount. It's not possible in my economy that enslavement was ever good for anyone, because I cannot conceive of a wholly sacrificial life for another's benefit, i.e. Paul, Jesus, Moses...

My argument can be simplifed in the very way I simplified it. It doesn't need to be re-worded to say/imply things I didn't say/imply.
What I would like is for you to address the argument I actually made, rather than the one you wanted me to make. Just this one time, that would be great.
Let's try an intellectually honest discussion, because anything else isn't going to get us anywhere..

Of course, Bible slavery isn’t American slavery with beatings and rapes. It is an economic exchange for food and shelter.

Yeah, it was probably worse than American slavery, or at least, just as bad.
Just because it's not "American" slavery doesn't make it not slavery - what's described in the Bible is slavery. I.e. The owning of human being as property.
Also, I'm not sure how you can say there were no beatings given that the Bible specifically outlines how a slave can be beaten as long as they recover after a day or two "since the slave is their property." (Exodus 21:20-21) What's the point in God saying that, if there were no beatings?

But if you’re against all kinds of slavery, do you only buy fair trade goods? Do you watch pornography, in which countless participants were trafficked sex slaves or teen runaways who came from lives of prostitution and drug addiction?

I do my best to do what I think is right.

I buy fair trade goods as much as I can and I don't purchase or wear diamonds. I don't eat meat very often and if I do, I make sure it comes from local free range farms.

I have no idea what this has to do with Biblical morality. Does the Bible tell me to purchase fair trade goods and victimless porn?

Put differently, can you spend less time complaining about an ancient book—much of which you say is myth and never happened in real life—and more time putting your money where your mouth is? My wife and I have given generously and sacrificially to rescue people from slavery, because we love Jesus Christ.

No. Not when I have a bunch of people telling me the stuff contained within the Bible represents absolute morality handed down by some deity and that I must follow it, especially when it contains all kinds of horrendous and immoral actions and commands.

What I'd prefer is that people actually think through the consequences of their actions in the real world and their effects on other sentient creatures, rather than taking orders written down in ancient books written by people who knew far less about just about everything than we do today. We've had a few thousand years to work and improve upon the morality first thought up by our ancient ancestors, but you'd rather stick with those first attempts at morality from long ago and that leaves you with the problem of having to defend the slavery described in the Bible. I just wish we could move on, given that there are far better methods of determining morality than just blindly taking orders from invisible deities. That's not an exercise in morality, in my opinion.

 

[viole]

If evolution is amoral, and you have no god, but devoutly follow evolution, you cannot say any kind of killing, subjugation, etc. is moral or immoral, logically speaking.

Bible slavery isn’t American slavery with beatings and rapes. It is an economic exchange for food and shelter.

But if you’re against all kinds of slavery, do you only buy fair trade goods? Do you watch pornography, in which countless participants were trafficked sex slaves or teen runaways who came from lives of prostitution and drug addiction?

Put differently, can you spend less time complaining about an ancient book—much of which you say is myth and never happened in real life—and more time putting your money where your mouth is? My wife and I have given generously and sacrificially to rescue people from slavery, because we love Jesus Christ.

I wonder why you use human examples, like pornography, USA slavery, etc. you guys do that a lot. When we mention genocide perpetrated by your moral giver, it is not uncommon to hear: Look at Stalin, he also killed women and children. Hitler, too. Not to speak of Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, Dracula, or whomever.

Apart from showing that your God is not worse than some pornographers, and Stalin, I really wonder what your point is.

Ciao

- viole