The Moral Argument

[Bango Skank]

Slavery was man made industry. We have a record of God doing several miracles just to set slaves free in a single nation and the result was that the freed slaves rejected God.

...and shortly after they were released the same God endorsed slavery in form of laws. Those slaves were also God's "chosen" aka special snowflakes, so of course God wanted *them* to be free.

 

[thenexttodie]

Nothing beyond the question itself.
I have previously had a conversation about the subject, and the person I talked to dishonestly keep switching between the two.
When questioned he wouldn't even acknowledge that they were two different things.

Well everywhere in the Middle East during the time of Moses you would find slaves. We even have outside sources apart from the Bible which give us an idea about what slavery was like back then. We know many of the slave laws from surrounding nations were similar or the same as many of the slave laws given in the Bible. It could be said that he only real distinguishing factor between 1 type of slavery and another would have been the circumstances leading to their enslavement and length of servitude. Some slaves were people who willingly sold themselves into slavery, others were condemned to slavery as punishment for debt, others were enemy captives.

 

[Deleted member 619]

And that makes slavery fine, of course.

Do you even read this shit before you post it?

 

[thenexttodie]

And that makes slavery fine, of course.

Well it existed. I guess what you are mad about is that God let it exist. God could have set all of the slaves free but he didn't so that makes you mad. And so now you want us all to say God is a bad person. I get it.

 

[leroy]

And that makes slavery fine, of course.

Do you even read this shit before you post it?

well it is fallacious to assume that God doesn't exists just because he did something that you personally don't like.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

And that makes slavery fine, of course.

Well it existed. I guess what you are mad about is that God let it exist. God could have set all of the slaves free but he didn't so that makes you mad. And so now you want us all to say God is a bad person. I get it.

I just find it odd that this god had the same morality of the local culture at the time instead of the local cultures winding up with a shared morality with this god.

Or... maybe I don't find it odd.

 

[Deleted member 619]

And that makes slavery fine, of course.

Well it existed. I guess what you are mad about is that God let it exist. God could have set all of the slaves free but he didn't so that makes you mad. And so now you want us all to say God is a bad person. I get it.

Not remotely, because that would require that I didn't consider god to be a pueril masturbation fantasy. What grinds my gears is idiots trying to find ways to justify the shitty behaviour of other idiots, and then calling it good. Don't fucking piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining.

 

[Deleted member 619]

well it is fallacious to assume that God doesn't exists just because he did something that you personally don't like.

Once again, you can't even form a coherent objection. This isn't fallacious, it's absurd, and doesn't reflect my position at all, not least because I don't hold absurd positions.

How could I simultaneously think that god did something I didn't like and assume that he doesn't exist?

I make no such assumption, I simply don't make the assumption that he does exist, because your burden of proof has not been met. The apologetic you erect, condoning the keeping of other humans as property, is what I don't like, along with the practice itself.

The real fallacy here is your fallacious appeal to motivation, a subset of the genetic fallacy, coincidentally the topic of my latest blog post. I'd say you should read it and that you might learn something from it, but experience tells me you can't read very well and that most of it would sail over your head, although you'd probably be convinced that one of your misunderstandings represented some sort of fatal gotcha for me.

Seriously, why do you bother? I've experienced the whole gamut of competence in apologists, and you really are the most incompetent apologist I've ever encountered, and that's in a field that includes Joe Cienkowski, Robert Byers and VenomFangX.

 

[thenexttodie]

I just find it odd that this god had the same morality of the local culture at the time instead of the local cultures winding up with a shared morality with this god.

Or... maybe I don't find it odd.

Opps! Remember, you believe this was all just a make-believe story written in Judea 400bc when Egypt would have been under Persian rule. How then would the Jew who wrote this know what the price of a male slave in Egypt was, 1000 years earlier?

Anyway, God didn't invent slavery. Man did. So many of the laws about slavery resemble common slave laws of the time.

 

[Steelmage99]

Opps! Remember, you believe this was all just a make-believe story written in Judea 400bc when Egypt would have been under Persian rule. How then would the Jew who wrote this know what the price of a male slave in Egypt was, 1000 years earlier?

Really? That is your "gotcha!" moment?

You can't think of a single reason how a person that doesn't see the Bible as being anything sacred can explain this supposed mystery?

 

[thenexttodie]

What grinds my gears is idiots trying to find ways to justify the shitty behaviour of other idiots, and then calling it good. Don't fucking piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining.

I see what you mean. But God often had to take into account the stupidity of the people he was dealing with at the time. So I wouldn't say everything God allowed the Hebrews to do was a "good thing". I wouldn't say slavery was a good thing, I wouldn't say having a king was always a good thing, I wouldn't say divorce was a good thing. When they asked Jesus about divorce he said God allowed it because they were to stupid and evil for anything else.

So if other Christians try to tell you something like; slavery in the bible wasn't real slavery or that it was a nicer form of slavery or that it was good for the Hebrews to take slaves because it gave foreigners an opportunity to live under Jewish laws or some dumb shit like that, then yes I would agree that these people are being idiots.

 

[thenexttodie]

Opps! Remember, you believe this was all just a make-believe story written in Judea 400bc when Egypt would have been under Persian rule. How then would the Jew who wrote this know what the price of a male slave in Egypt was, 1000 years earlier?

Really? That is your "gotcha!" moment?

You can't think of a single reason how a person that doesn't see the Bible as being anything sacred can explain this supposed mystery?

Well you just sorta just gave us 1 reason..anyway it's not important. Just forget I said anything.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Slavery was an acceptable method of man sustaining his life in a time where day to day where mere day to day survival was not guaranteed.

if Hebrew slaves where volunteers (like many ancient slaves from other cultures) then I would call it morally ok

I wouldn't say slavery was a good thing ... So if other Christians try to tell you something like; slavery in the bible wasn't real slavery or that it was a nicer form of slavery or that it was good for the Hebrews to take slaves because it gave foreigners an opportunity to live under Jewish laws or some dumb shit like that, then yes I would agree that these people are being idiots.

It isn't just that "god allowed" the hebrews to practice slavery:
The bible, the supposed word of god, condones slavery. It is treating it as entirely acceptable.

Well, "the people of the time were stupid" is a stupid excuse. The people of the times were apparently "stupid enough" to wear clothes of mixed fabric or eat shellfish yet the "word of god" takes the time to condemn these things while pointing out to the hebrews that could leave people as inheritance to their children since they're property.

We deal with two idiots all the time here, do you see us indulge their stupidity?
Is god powerless in front of certain kinds of stupidity?

 

[MarsCydonia]

well it is fallacious to assume that God doesn't exists just because he did something that you personally don't like.

Well it is fallacious to assume that the bible isn't the word of god just because it condones something that you personally don't like.

Yet you made several comments attempting to justify such an argument...

So I'm sure it has yet to dawn on you to that your ability to make any form of argument is piss-poor.

 

[thenexttodie]

It isn't just that "god allowed" the hebrews to practice slavery:
The bible, the supposed word of god, condones slavery. It is treating it as entirely acceptable.

I don't think the word condone means what you think it means. Condone and allow are synonymous.

Condone- 1. accept (behaviour that is considered morally wrong or offensive).

2. approve or sanction (something), especially with reluctance.

Well, "the people of the time were stupid" is a stupid excuse. The people of the times were apparently "stupid enough" to wear clothes of mixed fabric or eat shellfish yet the "word of god" takes the time to condemn these things while pointing out to the hebrews that could leave people as inheritance to their children since they're property.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean its stupid.

Is god powerless in front of certain kinds of stupidity? [/qu

ote]

:lol: That's a good question! I would say that God does not force stupid, evil people to love and obey Him. He can not. You can't force someone to Love you, right? Does that make sense?

 

[MarsCydonia]

I don't think the word condone means what you think it means. Condone and allow are synonymous.

Condone- 1. accept (behaviour that is considered morally wrong or offensive).

2. approve or sanction (something), especially with reluctance.

You didn't appear to use them as synonymous but fine, if you want to treat them as synonymous:
God approve of something evil.

That makes it all better, doesn't it.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean its stupid.

Just because I call something stupid, doesn't mean I do not understand it, it might simply be stupid.

Take your excuse as an exemple.

:lol: That's a good question! I would say that God does not force stupid, evil people to love and obey Him. He can not. You can't force someone to Love you, right? Does that make sense?

No it doesn't. No in this topic that we are discussing. Try again (but I doubt you'll do better).

 

[leroy]

well it is fallacious to assume that God doesn't exists just because he did something that you personally don't like.

Once again, you can't even form a coherent objection. This isn't fallacious, it's absurd, and doesn't reflect my position at all, not least because I don't hold absurd positions.

How could I simultaneously think that god did something I didn't like and assume that he doesn't exist?

I make no such assumption, I simply don't make the assumption that he does exist, because your burden of proof has not been met. The apologetic you erect, condoning the keeping of other humans as property, is what I don't like, along with the practice itself.

The real fallacy here is your fallacious appeal to motivation, a subset of the genetic fallacy, coincidentally the topic of my latest blog post. I'd say you should read it and that you might learn something from it, but experience tells me you can't read very well and that most of it would sail over your head, although you'd probably be convinced that one of your misunderstandings represented some sort of fatal gotcha for me.

Seriously, why do you bother? I've experienced the whole gamut of competence in apologists, and you really are the most incompetent apologist I've ever encountered, and that's in a field that includes Joe Cienkowski, Robert Byers and VenomFangX.

All I am saying is that you can not conclude that the bible is wrong (or not divine, not written by God etc.) just because you personally don't like something in it


why didn't you wrote a small comment saying that you agree, instead of writing that ling and irrelevant paragraph?

 

[leroy]

So if other Christians try to tell you something like; slavery in the bible wasn't real slavery or that it was a nicer form of slavery or that it was good for the Hebrews to take slaves because it gave foreigners an opportunity to live under Jewish laws or some dumb shit like that, then yes I would agree that these people are being idiots.

well ether idiots, or they are just beginning to do their research and looking for an explanation.


thanks for your comment until know, I would have been the type of person that would defend the nicer slavery theory

 

[leroy]

[Is god powerless in front of certain kinds of stupidity?

yes, if someone is willingly stupid, God is powerless he can not do anything against it.

 

[Grumpy Santa]

[Is god powerless in front of certain kinds of stupidity?

yes, if someone is willingly stupid, God is powerless he can not do anything against it.

Not a very impressive god. You'd think that it would be powerful enough to provide evidence so incontrovertible that someone would have no choice but to accept it. It should be smart enough to know what that would be for any individual, shouldn't it?