The Problem of Slavery in the Bible

[Houseman]

Except the book is ancient, and contains numerous rulings that make little sense in a modern world. If your god isn't so omnipotent and omniscient that he can't update his own instruction manual with, picking a minor example, "hey, you know tattoos? Maybe not so bad" then surely the modern moral code takes precedence

Assuming the aforementioned premises, it shouldn't matter how old the book is. Wouldn't you think that such an omniscient God is capable of creating a book that remains relevant no matter how old it is?

Regarding rulings that make little sense in the modern world, which rulings are those? I'm pretty sure that the bible says nothing about tattoos.

 

[happyninja42]

This eloquently describes why I gave up on anti-theism. If it were simply a matter of truth claims, theism wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But religion is more than just metaphysical contemplations as it also satisfies our own need for social interaction, habit and ritual.

Religion doesn't have the copyright on human socialization, and never has. We evolved as a social species, and have been finding reasons to get together since, well for as long as we've existed really. You can tell by all the myriad ways humans socialize that have nothing to do with religion.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

*blinks* Where in the hell did you get the impression that I refuse to become an atheist? I have declared myself to be an athiest for the last decade. Hell my profile information on Escapist 1.0 was Atheist Godfather. I have stated multiple times in other threads on these very forums that I am an atheist, and have stated my criticisms about how media and entertainment poorly portrays those without faith.

If all that's not enough, let me just state it here. "I am an atheist, and have been for well over a decade."

I'm genuinely confused how you came to that conclusion, seeing as I have never said anything of the sort, on these forums or anywhere else.

But you are not because you do not subscribe to pure rationalism. If you did then you would see all actions as pointless and have no greater purpose in your life. You would not care so much that other people follow a religion because you would believe that ultimately it does not matter what anyone does anyway. Morality would not matter because all shall one day be gone, humanity itself cannot survive the heat death of the universe and so all would ultimately be pointless.

Although I am a Christian, I do not say this to convince you to subscribe to mine or any other's faith, I am just trying to get across to you that true devout atheism is neither something that can be attained nor should it be.

This eloquently describes why I gave up on anti-theism. If it were simply a matter of truth claims, theism wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But religion is more than just metaphysical contemplations as it also satisfies our own need for social interaction, habit and ritual. Even atheists have formed organizations that take on the bare-bones structure of religious ritual to enrich communities. Religion has indeed been the vehicle for a lot of human atrocities, but to blame religion entirely overlooks the fact that this capacity for horror and cruelty exists in the human condition and it doesn't need a church so much as a strong enough motive to bring it out.

Buyetyen, this is a momentous occurrence. I agree with you.

 

[Buyetyen]

No atheist has ever claimed that being an asshole is the sole propriety of religion. That still doesn't validate the supernatural claims of religions in any way, or invalidate the atheist stance on supernatural claims.

Rather beside my point. Movement atheism very quickly stopped being about ideas and more about the various personalities who were its nominal leaders like Dawkins and Harris. Unfortunately making Sam Harris the public face of atheism makes that face very punchable. Because there was no agenda other than to simply dispute the truth claims of religion, movement atheism became less crusading skeptic and more the drunk asshole heckler. They shifted away from refuting the truth claims of religion (there's only so many things you can say about it), and became more about the personal agendas of the various egos attached to it. Yes, they disputed a lot of religious claims, but they also indulged in a lot of the same negativity and destructive behavior they excoriated the faithful for.

I don't think you've quite hit the nail on the head. Motive is part of it, yes, but organization is the other half. For a span of a few centuries, the church had greater power and international organization than any European monarch. Hence, beliefs and ideology found their main outlet through the church.

As social power shifted to the countries, you see more atrocities committed by nations at the behest of governments, with political and economic ideologies as the fuel within the organizational framework of the state.

I'd like to do a nice, long post about my perspective of spirituality and religion, and how I believe that modern mythology has found its outlet through consumerism and harnessed by corporations through intentionally encouraging fandoms as modern day cults, and its effect on the spiritual health of society, but that might be best saved for a new thread. I don't feel like doing a deep dive into it at this moment anyway.

Good point. Any yahoo with a gun can commit a mass shooting. To pull off a genocide requires some infrastructure.

 

[Buyetyen]

Religion doesn't have the copyright on human socialization, and never has. We evolved as a social species, and have been finding reasons to get together since, well for as long as we've existed really. You can tell by all the myriad ways humans socialize that have nothing to do with religion.

Didn't say it did. Relax. This is another reason I left movement atheism: anti-theists need to smoke a bowl and chill.

 

[Buyetyen]

Buyetyen, this is a momentous occurrence. I agree with you.

In the words of John C. Reilly, "I don't believe that anyone is 100% a dick."

 

[happyninja42]

But you are not because you do not subscribe to pure rationalism. If you did then you would see all actions as pointless and have no greater purpose in your life.

LOL, are you fucking kidding me? Do you honestly think that athiests are nihilists? Are you serious? This is one of the most absurd statements that religious people ascribe to athiests, and it's frankly, utter bullshit that you have concocted on your own, to make yourselves feel superior and justified in having your beliefs. It's utter bullshit, sorry, try something else.

You would not care so much that other people follow a religion because you would believe that ultimately it does not matter what anyone does anyway. Morality would not matter because all shall one day be gone, humanity itself cannot survive the heat death of the universe and so all would ultimately be pointless.

Again, utter fucking bullshit. You clearly don't understand atheism at all. Here, I'll break it down really simply for you. You and your ilk, say that there is some invisible person in the sky that dictates how we should live our lives. I say "I don't believe your claim, until you prove it." THAT'S IT. And here's a news flash for you, you do the EXACT same thing, for every other god that humans have concocted, except the one that you think is real.

And the notion that atheists don't give a shit about anything, because you seem to think that morality, and basic fucking human EMPATHY are reliant on a god, is frankly insulting. I mean seriously think about that. If you TRULY believe that people who don't believe in a god, have no morals, then do you believe, that if we proved tomorrow, without a doubt, that gods were not real, that YOU would suddenly run around raping and killing and robbing, because none of it matters? If you truly believe that, then PLEASE keep believing in your sky daddy, because you are obviously a psychopath, who is only being held in check by your fear of eternal punishment by your sky daddy. But if you don't think that would be how you would react, then your morality isn't based on a god or their teachings then is it? It's likely based on the fact that you are (I assume) a reasonably well adjusted human

And why should christians give a shit about anything huh? I mean you all can just ask for forgiveness and be absolved of all your wrong doings, and get into heaven anyway. If there's anyone that should actually be nihilists, it's your lot. Because this entire existence is just a blip to you. It's a trial run for your eternal life, and hey, as long as your kissing the right ass, saying the right things, praying the right number of times, saying your hail marys and all that shit, and then ask for forgiveness, it's all good! Ticket into heaven! Hell even depending on the denomination, if you've been baptized, they don't think you even need to ask for forgiveness later. Once Saved, Always Saved!

Your reasoning is idiotic, and if it sounds like I'm angry, it's because I am. Because of shit like this, where religious people declare themselves to be on some higher platform of morality, and then declare that those not like them behave in way THEY think we do (shit they make up without actually understanding), and then use their false declaration of how we should be, and are, to validate their bullshit stance.

I don't need the promise of reward, or the threat of eternal punishment to be a good person, or to have a goal for my life. My life itself is reason enough. I like being alive. I like being around people, I like helping people, because it makes me feel good to help them, and because we live in a society where we all thrive when we look out for each other. That's how social animals operate.

 

[happyninja42]

Didn't say it did. Relax. This is another reason I left movement atheism: anti-theists need to smoke a bowl and chill.

You certainly implied it did, that's the entire message you typed. And until I replied to the above post, I was chill. Commenting to your comment directly doesn't implly frustration. Me using profanity, and saying your points are idiotic, are a good indication of frustration.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

Assuming the aforementioned premises, it shouldn't matter how old the book is. Wouldn't you think that such an omniscient God is capable of creating a book that remains relevant no matter how old it is?

You would indeed think that based on your previous premises. And yet that is clearly not the case. So either the book is wrong or one of the premises is wrong. Either demonstrates why you shouldn’t be basing your morality upon it

Regarding rulings that make little sense in the modern world, which rulings are those? I'm pretty sure that the bible says nothing about tattoos.

To which I quote Leviticus 19:28: “And a cutting for the dead you will not make in your flesh; not will you tattoo marks upon you”
Then again it could be argued another translation is: ”And a cutting for the dead you will not make in your flesh; and writing marks you will not make on you”
And the fact that even such a mild ruling like that can be misread, misinterpreted or misconstrued is another reason why you really need something more up to date to get your moral code

 

[Houseman]

And yet that is clearly not the case

You've yet to demonstrate that.

To which I quote Leviticus

The bible itself says that the Mosaic Law is no longer binding. The Mosaic Law was only given to Israelites, and stopped being active with the Messiah, so pretty much anything you quote from Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy won't help you prove your argument.

So, do you have any other examples of rulings that "make little sense in the modern world"?

 

[Buyetyen]

You certainly implied it did, that's the entire message you typed. And until I replied to the above post, I was chill. Commenting to your comment directly doesn't implly frustration. Me using profanity, and saying your points are idiotic, are a good indication of frustration.

No, you decided for me that's what I said. My point was that religion is more than just metaphysical truth claims and that's why rebutting their truth claims has not magically turned the whole planet secular.

 

[happyninja42]

You've yet to demonstrate that.

You've yet to demonstrate your god even exists, so why should we care about anything else until that fundamental point is made?

 

[Houseman]

You've yet to demonstrate your god even exists, so why should we care about anything else until that fundamental point is made?

Have you heard the phrase: "Assuming, for the sake of argument..." before? Maybe this will answer your question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguendo

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

You've yet to demonstrate that.

I mean I just gave you a quote where the Bible says tattoos are bad. Are tattoos bad?

The bible itself says that the Mosaic Law is no longer binding. The Mosaic Law was only given to Israelites, and stopped being active with the Messiah, so pretty much anything you quote from Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy won't help you prove your argument.

So, do you have any other examples of rulings that "make little sense in the modern world"?

This argument undermines your last one. You asked to assume the Bible was written by something omnipotent and omniscient...so how can bits of it not count? If we can say "Oh actually no that bit isn't really the rules", then why should any of it be the rules? If some of it can be outdated then all of it can be outdated, yes?

 

[Avnger]

Have you heard the phrase: "Assuming, for the sake of argument..." before? Maybe this will answer your question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguendo

Assuming, for the sake of argument, you're wrong. Therefore, you're wrong.

Any attempt to disagree can be immediately dismissed as further wrong because I clearly said "Assuming, for the sake of argument" meaning you must engage with my premise that you're wrong.

 

[Houseman]

This argument undermines your last one. You asked to assume the Bible was written by something omnipotent and omniscient...so how can bits of it not count?

Like I said, the omnipotent, omniscient deity gave the nation of Israel a set of laws. It was actually a "law covenant". It was a contract between Israel and God. Israel's part of the contract was to obey the laws. God's part of the contract was to keep them safe and bring about the Messiah. Both parties upheld their ends of the bargain, and therefore, the contract was fulfilled.

It's not that "it doesn't count". It's that you're referencing a contract that has already been fulfilled and was only ever meant to apply to a specific group of people for a specific time period.

meaning you must engage with my premise

Nobody has to agree to accept the premises. Palindrome, however, has chosen to do so, and that enables us to have a discussion.
What, are you and happy upset that we're having a discussion?

 

[SupahEwok]

You've yet to demonstrate your god even exists, so why should we care about anything else until that fundamental point is made?

I mean, you've yet to demonstrate that God doesn't exist. Don't "burden of evidence" me. I can make a claim, you can say it needs proof, you can say a claim, I can say it needs proof. Ultimately, with the claim "God does exist" and the claim "God doesn't exist", there is no proof for either claim, so insisting on it is just trying to bully a conversation out with the nuance of an American military intervention.

Disclaimer: I am not a theist. I am also not anti-theist. I am actively exploring the varied major spiritualities, moral systems, and mythologies of the world (I am currently watching a lecture series on the Analects of Confucius). I will probably never finish. But a common thread to all of them is they seek to answer the question, "How do we live through life best?" That is a question still relevant today, and Western philosophy largely lost interest in developing an answer a long time ago. If you've found an answer without religion, great. But you aren't everybody, and the answer isn't universal to all.

 

[happyninja42]

I mean, you've yet to demonstrate that God doesn't exist.

Correct! Because you can't prove a negative, and I'm not the one making the claim that the god exists. It's the responsibility of the religious people who declare their god is real, and that I should give a shit what he/she/it has to say, that has the burden of proof. So until they prove that anything even remotely supernatural is possible at all, and then prove that whatever variation of their invisible sky daddy is real, I'm withholding belief.

I'll give you an example. If I tell you that I have an invisible, intangible car in my garage, and I ask you if you believe me, and you say no. Is it reasonable for me to say "Yeah well, YOU haven't proven my invisible, intangible car DOESN'T exist, so you have to believe it's real, and you are being unreasonable to suggest that it's not real." ? Does that sound like a rationale outcome to someone coming up to you and making that claim? And then when you try and actually test it, I say "oh well it exists OUTSIDE reality, so you can't really measure it. You have to just, accept the invisible/intangible car into your heart, and BELIEVE it's real. It's not simply not real, by fact of you walking around and not detecting it in any way, it's there, in your HEART, and in the spiritual way. And by the way, because I say it's real, give me 10% of all your income for life, you know, because the car wants the money. Needs it for some reason."

 

[SupahEwok]

"Yeah well, YOU haven't proven my invisible, intangible car DOESN'T exist, so you have to believe it's real, and you are being unreasonable to suggest that it's not real." ? Does that sound like a rationale outcome to someone coming up to you and making that claim?

I dunno, can you demonstrate where I said you had to believe in God because you can't prove he doesn't exist? You're being as annoying as any evangelical I've had the misfortune of having to hear proselytize.

 

[Houseman]

and I'm not the one making the claim that the god exists.

Nobody in this topic is.