• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Slavery in the bible discussion thread

arg-fallbackName="leroy"/>
Bango Skank said:
leroy said:
Bango Skank for example.

As he seems to be pointing out no matter what evidencie or what events take place, there will be always other explanations rather than God

of course Bango Skank can always correct me if he thinks I am misrepresenting his view.

There could be other explanations. That doesn't mean that nothing will convince me. At minimum i have to be in contact with the source personally aka with being that claims to be God, two way communication with words and interaction. That's the starting point where i can even begin to try to determine if that being is indeed a God. But as i said my capability is very limited, so it would be inconclusive. A being that claims to be God would need to persuade and gain my trust, but of course there is a possibility that it lies to me and has some hidden motive. There would always be a some form of doubt.

that is my point, under your view there will never be conclusive evidence for God.

leroy said:
well obviously it depends on the context in which the event takes place,

If I pray and say to God, If you listen please open a draw, and the draw opens, I would certainly attribute that event to God. (wouldn't you?)

Ghosts could be making fun of you. "Oh look, he's asking God to show a miracle, let's have some fun with him."

nobody is denying that possibility, but God would be a better explanation,

leroy said:
If this events takes place at 2:00am, I would atribute the event to my imagination or a dream (it is easy to imagine stuff at 2,00am)

Could still be ghosts, you'd just try to rationalize this with natural explanation.

nobody is denying that possibility, but hallucinations would be a better explanation,

leroy said:
If the draws open and close in some aggressive way and with evil laughs as an echo, I would atribute the event to Ghosts.

Or it could be Satan or some other supernatural being. Or maybe God is bored and is having some fun at yours expense.


nobody is denying that possibility, but Ghosts would be a better explanation,


.................


If you what me to go in to detail on why those are better explanations I suggest you to open a new thread.
 
arg-fallbackName="Bango Skank"/>
leroy said:
that is my point, under your view there will never be conclusive evidence for God.

Your point was that there is nothing that could convince existence of God for some atheists. I'm not one of them. i could be convinced that there is a God, but still be wrong.

leroy said:
If you what me to go in to detail on why those are better explanations I suggest you to open a new thread.

Nah, i don't see the point of discussing this further.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
thenexttodie said:
First, I think your premise here is a bit over-optimistic. The Israelites, throughout the Bible, seemed to be often not that interested in doing anything God told them or wanted them to do. Just like most of us are today.

And I think your argument evades the crucial point.

If you don't tell a child that doing X is bad, then they can't know it's not right to do it.

Given that Christians tend to portray God as being vastly superior to a human than an adult is to a child, then it is very difficult to explain this omission. And it IS an omission, it can't be simply explained away.

Well, it's not for you as you have said you don't hold that YHWH is omniscient/omnipotent, which kind of saves it from the metaphysical hole most Christians have dug for it (although one still wonders why you would call it a god, but that's a by-the-by)



thenexttodie said:
Sparhafoc said:
Given that 4 of the commandments are basically rules of worship (2 just iterating the same notion of not worshiping other gods), it is difficult to understand how these supersede the horror of slavery.

I understand where you are coming from.

But consider this, how many people are alive today who would say it would be a horror to be deprived of their cell phone? How many people would commit suicide if they were no longer allowed access to social media? I was locked in the same place where a juvenile was locked at for killing his parents because they took his PlayStation away from him. I actually spoke to him and asked him "Did you really kill your mom and dad because they took your video games away from you?" and he said Yes!

My answer to the first two would be 'statistically negligible'.

My response to the second part is that it is hard to understand why you would accept the rationale of a kid who'd killed his parents, when the very act of killing his parents would indicate severe mental health issues. I would say that this suggests a far from normal disposition, and therefore cannot be used to exemplify a rule.

Either which way, I am not sure how this works with respect to commandments by God.

thenexttodie said:
Now go back 3000 years to a time where even mere day to day survival was not ensured. Every aspect of your life would be a horror to you. There was not even universal heath care back then. Or homeless shelters. Or free money.

I would say that 'free money' is a misnomer! ;)

But to follow your argument here, you seem to be saying that ancient people needed their slaves for emotional reasons. We still come back to the question of why their emotional reasons take precedence over the rights and freedoms of other people.

There's an implication that God wouldn't ban slaves because people would have a meltdown. But then if that's the logic, then all the other commandments were redundant because people were already cool with that. For example with that logic, the commandment not to kill must have been redundant because if people were emotionally attached to murdering other people, then God wouldn't have banned it. So either the commandments are redundant, or your argument does not really explain the omission of 'thou shalt not own another human being'.

My answer is really simple: there's no requirement as a Christian to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. One can comfortably believe it's allegorical, and that it's meaning has changed via retelling and translation, through selection and amendment over the centuries.

In such a case, the commandments simply become what the ancient Jews thought their god would want of them, and so they codified it. They thought murdering people was wrong, so they made it a divine dictate. However, they thought owning other human beings was just fine and dandy (they weren't adherents to the true god after all) and consequently no moral direction was given here.

It's when you take God out of the Bible that it starts to make the most sense.
 
arg-fallbackName="leroy"/>
Sparhafoc said:
And I think your argument evades the crucial point.

If you don't tell a child that doing X is bad, then they can't know it's not right to do it.

.

if you tell a child that he cant eat cookies, he will hide and eat cookies like crazy, sometimes its better to regulate something rather than forbidding eat, ........just tell the child that he can eat just 1 cookie.



I. But then if that's the logic, then all the other commandments were redundant because people were already cool with that. For example with that logic, the commandment not to kill must have been redundant because if people were emotionally attached to murdering other people, then God wouldn't have banned it.

The claim would be that sometimes it is better to regulate something rather than forbidding it, (the key word is sometimes)






BTW, what is your point with all this slavery stuff? are you saying that slavery disproves God, the bible and/or some other doctrine?


apart from the fact that you personally disagree with those verses in the bible, do you have any meaningful point?
 
arg-fallbackName="leroy"/>
Sparhafoc said:
Bango Skank said:
Nah, i don't see the point of discussing this further.

It's funny when LEROY thinks you want to engage his red herrings and strawmen.

it is funny, because when I don't engage with red herrings I am accused for ignoring comments. ............what should I do?


FYI, I was not the one who changed the subject from slavery to atheism
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
leroy said:
he_who_is_nobody said:
How would a deity be a better explanation for a magical event than any other supernatural thing? If one is appealing to magic, how can one tell which magical explanation is better than the last?


again it depends on the context.


the third video that you quoted and that you claim to agree with provided an example of a context in which the magic would be attributed to God (remember the guy claiming to be God, the talking flower, or water converted in to wine, etc.)


If you agree with the video (you claim you did) you have to agree with me, on that depending on the context God may or may not be a better explanation than any other supernatural entity.

Thus, you admit that a deity is as good of an explanation as any other supernatural one. Thank you for that. Now all we need is examples of magic and you might have an argument.
 
arg-fallbackName="leroy"/>
he_who_is_nobody said:
Thus, you admit that a deity is as good of an explanation as any other supernatural one. Thank you for that. Now all we need is examples of magic and you might have an argument.


my reply in this thread.
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15480&p=182420#p182420
 
arg-fallbackName="MarsCydonia"/>
I'll try to bring this conversation back on topic, first by dealing with Bernhard-the-slavery-apologist
Bernhard.visscher said:
It's like taboo in this forum.... slavery.
Oh look, Bernhard-the-slavery-apologist doesn't know what "taboo" means.

Theists using words they do not know the meaning of is a recurring theme.
Bernhard.visscher said:
The atheist mind has been corrupted. Offended by slave? Because deep down the atheist knows they are slaves.

The Christian is also slave. Slave to Christ.. . Not our desires. Maximum difference.
Are we to understand that "my desires" own me as a property? That I can be sold on the market by my desires? Could be my desire prevent me from what I wish to do? Beat me to death without fear of legal consequences because I am their property?

Is that what christians are to Christ?

Or is it yet another false equivalence from a slavery-apologist? It is one even less sensical than "slavery = employment".

Bernhard.visscher said:
Tired of individuals having a problem with a bible that's been doctored to appease these intolerant, deaf, and ignorant people.

Give them the undoctured, give them the raw. They can't handle it anyways.
Yet it is mostly the bible-apologists that try "slavery = employment" or "Not all the canaanites were actually killed"... For whose sake do apologists try to change what the bible actually says? It seems more for their own sense of morality that they do.

And thus the moral degeneracy of justifying slavery and genocide.
Bernhard.visscher said:
Bible says slavery ok. This must be interpreted with "love your neighbour as yourself" . In light of the 10 commanents.

Paul.says slaves obey your masters. ... does that sound like slavery is bad?
And the bible says to stone disobedient children, that the blood of homosexual men will be on them if they lay with each other as they should a women (strangely not mentionning women).

Does that sound like executing children is bad?
Bernhard.visscher said:
Atheists compare the slavery to modern slavery...let them... it doesn't matter... their time is coming to an end.
Jesus said within his apostles' lifetime and christian-doomsayers have been saying it for centuries so any day now I'm sure.

Bernhard.visscher said:
Simple biblical facts

Homosexuality = evil
Adultery= evil
Idolatry = evil

Which one of those does the atheist say oh ok.. the bible is right there...

They even fight against not killing a baby.

Bible says babies are fearfully and wonderfully made.

What does atheist do? Well women should be allowed to chose to kill their baby... but they don't have the stomach (surprise, surprise) to say kill... they say abortion.

I say don't kill babies, love your wife, don't put your cock in shit.
Should I note again that the bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality but rather condemn homosexual men who engage in sex? It gives a pass to women and to heterosexuals men and women that engage in anal or oral sex (oral sex also counts as sodomy as you certainly didn't know).

And despite babies being "fearfully and wonderfully made" why god does spend his time killing so many of them? How many genocides does god perform or commands? How many naturally occuring abortion does god do absolutely nothing about? (hint: it's in the billions). And unsurprisingly, in the United States, the more religious the state, the more abortion is has...

So despite all that, why should I consider homosexuality evil? Who actually cares about idolatry?

And more importantly, how does this make slavery good?
Bernhard.visscher said:
I'm vile ? Ha!
I don't expect Berharnd-the-slavery-apologist to answer due to his current suspension but...

I'm glad he finally understands. Moral degenerates like him make my stomach turn.
 
arg-fallbackName="MarsCydonia"/>
And now for another slavery-apologist:
leroy said:
Slavery in the Bible is a hard and deeply emotional topic
What is hard or deeply emotional about it?

The issue is "does the bible condone slavery?", it is a matter of fact rather than emotions and it is not hard at all to figure that the bible does.

The emotions appear to comes next when christians are confronted with this reality and subsequently turn into slavery-apologists because they are emotionally invested in the bible being the word of alledgedly "all-good god".
leroy said:
but when atheist try to formulate a rational argument based on slavery on the bible, against the existence of God or against the divinity of the bible, they always end up proposing a "not so strong argument" and they usually end up admitting something that atheist are not suppose to admit (objective morality, free will, etc.)
Leroy certainly means "against the existence of the christian god" and not all gods claimed to exist. Because it would be similar to the argument from divine-hiddeness that Leroy effed up with his Leroy's Silence of God argument, the argument works only if god is supposed to have certain characteristics, such as "all-good", that christians claims he does possess.

It isn't suprising when slavery-apologists find such arguments "not so strong" because they wouldn't be slavery-apologists otherwise, they wouldn't try to justify slavery as being morally good like Leroy does (though he states "god-works-in-mysterious-ways unknown reasons").

But no, such arguments do not rest on objective morality nor on "Leroy's human choices/options/will/free will/libertarien free will/freedom/etc." either. Leroy ran from his "objective morality" thread and also from his "Leroy's human choices/options/will/free will/libertarien free will/freedom/etc." argument, why would he think any of argument would rest on these?
 
arg-fallbackName="leroy"/>
MarsCydonia said:
And now for another slavery-apologist:
leroy said:
Slavery in the Bible is a hard and deeply emotional topic
What is hard or deeply emotional about it?

The issue is "does the bible condone slavery?", it is a matter of fact rather than emotions and it is not hard at all to figure that the bible does.

The emotions appear to comes next when christians are confronted with this reality and subsequently turn into slavery-apologists because they are emotionally invested in the bible being the word of alledgedly "all-good god".
leroy said:
but when atheist try to formulate a rational argument based on slavery on the bible, against the existence of God or against the divinity of the bible, they always end up proposing a "not so strong argument" and they usually end up admitting something that atheist are not suppose to admit (objective morality, free will, etc.)
Leroy certainly means "against the existence of the christian god" and not all gods claimed to exist. Because it would be similar to the argument from divine-hiddeness that Leroy effed up with his Leroy's Silence of God argument, the argument works only if god is supposed to have certain characteristics, such as "all-good", that christians claims he does possess.

It isn't suprising when slavery-apologists find such arguments "not so strong" because they wouldn't be slavery-apologists otherwise, they wouldn't try to justify slavery as being morally good like Leroy does (though he states "god-works-in-mysterious-ways unknown reasons").

But no, such arguments do not rest on objective morality nor on "Leroy's human choices/options/will/free will/libertarien free will/freedom/etc." either. Leroy ran from his "objective morality" thread and also from his "Leroy's human choices/options/will/free will/libertarien free will/freedom/etc." argument, why would he think any of argument would rest on these?


1 slavery is an emotional topic in the sense that we ve all seen movies where the master was an evil guy, and the slave the poor innocent and good guy. It is hard to reed the bible and read passages where God condones slavery when we have a background idea of slavery being the worst possible thing.

2 you are just confirming my point, you are still unable to provide a good and rational argument against the bible, or God or some doctrine.

MY point is that if you remove all the emotional stuff that surrounds the problem of slavery, you are left with at best a week argument against some doctrines
 
arg-fallbackName="MarsCydonia"/>
leroy said:
1 slavery is an emotional topic in the sense that we ve all seen movies where the master was an evil guy, and the slave the poor innocent and good guy. It is hard to reed the bible and read passages where God condones slavery when we have a background idea of slavery being the worst possible thing.
So I have to repeat myself again:
Evaluating "Does the bible condone slavery" is matter of fact not emotion. If someone feels one way or another about slavery, it will not change what the bible states on the subject.
leroy said:
2 you are just confirming my point, you are still unable to provide a good and rational argument against the bible, or God or some doctrine.
Actually, if Leroy wasn't so emotionally invested, he would realize that this was my point above:
"Does the bible condone slavery" is matter of fact and not an argument for or against the christian god.

"Would a good god slavery" is another question. One that slavery-apologists like Leroy will try to argue that "yes, a good god would allow slavery" and in the case of Leroy, the explaination would be "why he would is MYSTERIOUS!", somehow completely oblivious to the irony that is not a "good and rational argument" in any way.
leroy said:
MY point is that if you remove all the emotional stuff that surrounds the problem of slavery, you are left with at best a week argument against some doctrines
See above :lol:
 
arg-fallbackName="leroy"/>
MarsCydonia said:
[

"Does the bible condone slavery" is matter of fact and not an argument for or against the christian god.


:

granted, that is my point, we both agree


the bible condoning slavery is just an inconfortable fact that I personally don't like, but no evidence against God.
 
arg-fallbackName="Visaki"/>
leroy said:
MarsCydonia said:
[

"Does the bible condone slavery" is matter of fact and not an argument for or against the christian god.


:
granted, that is my point, we both agree

the bible condoning slavery is just an inconfortable fact that I personally don't like, but no evidence against God.
Indeed.

On the other hand it's not only evidence, but proof that if the Biblical God exists and if Bible is an accurate description of his character, he can not be "omnibenevolent" or even "good". And that is the point of Argument from Biblical slavery. What I'm basically saying is that Christians worship Evil in it's most potent (fictional) form.
 
arg-fallbackName="MarsCydonia"/>
leroy said:
the bible condoning slavery is just an inconfortable fact that I personally don't like, but no evidence against God.
:facepalm:

Again, Leroy ignores the parts of the comments that he personally doesn't like.
Another uncomfortable fact for Leroy.
 
arg-fallbackName="leroy"/>
Visaki said:
On the other hand it's not only evidence, but proof that if the Biblical God exists and if Bible is an accurate description of his character, he can not be "omnibenevolent" or even "good". And that is the point of Argument from Biblical slavery. What I'm basically saying is that Christians worship Evil in it's most potent (fictional) form.


yes thing is that by making that claim you are granting objective morality, by calling something evil, you are implying that there is a metric which determines if something is evil or not. There is nothing wrong with granting this, it is just that many atheist don't grant the existence of objective evil.


But granted, it is a valid argument against the existence of God, and there is no good explanation for it.


the problem is that there is no way you can prove that there are no morally good reasons for condoning such evil, this is why the argument is not a strong argument.
 
arg-fallbackName="leroy"/>
MarsCydonia said:
leroy said:
the bible condoning slavery is just an inconfortable fact that I personally don't like, but no evidence against God.
:facepalm:

Again, Leroy ignores the parts of the comments that he personally doesn't like.
Another uncomfortable fact for Leroy.


that is because I don't have anything else to add,
Would a good god slavery" is another question. One that slavery-apologists like Leroy will try to argue that "yes, a good god would allow slavery" and in the case of Leroy, the explaination would be "why he would is MYSTERIOUS!", somehow completely oblivious to the irony that is not a "good and rational argument" in any way.


yes that is what I would ague,

I have no problem in admitting that you provided a valid argument against God,
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Visaki said:
Indeed.

On the other hand it's not only evidence, but proof that if the Biblical God exists and if Bible is an accurate description of his character, he can not be "omnibenevolent" or even "good". And that is the point of Argument from Biblical slavery. What I'm basically saying is that Christians worship Evil in it's most potent (fictional) form.

In summary, it's evidence that - assuming YHWH exists - he's a total fucking asshat.
 
arg-fallbackName="IBSpify"/>
leroy said:
Visaki said:
On the other hand it's not only evidence, but proof that if the Biblical God exists and if Bible is an accurate description of his character, he can not be "omnibenevolent" or even "good". And that is the point of Argument from Biblical slavery. What I'm basically saying is that Christians worship Evil in it's most potent (fictional) form.


yes thing is that by making that claim you are granting objective morality, by calling something evil, you are implying that there is a metric which determines if something is evil or not. There is nothing wrong with granting this, it is just that many atheist don't grant the existence of objective evil.


But granted, it is a valid argument against the existence of God, and there is no good explanation for it.


the problem is that there is no way you can prove that there are no morally good reasons for condoning such evil, this is why the argument is not a strong argument.

Actually slavery in the bible provides the perfect example of subjective morality.

If morality was objective, then the fact that we find slavery abhorrent now, would mean that they found slavery abhorrent back when the bible was being written, and that is clearly not the case.

What your failing to grasp is that our view point is that the Bible was written by men who were products of their time, the reason slavery is contained in the Bible and not condemned is because like most of the world at the time their economy was built on slavery, so to them slavery was normal and wasn't viewed as the barbaric practice that we know it is today.
 
Back
Top