The Problem of Slavery in the Bible

[Specter Von Baren]

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.

If you are to follow atheism to its logical conclusion then yes, there should be only nihilism, that or hedonism

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.

This isn't about my particular religion. You can argue as many inconsistencies or contradictions as you want but as Agema said, it doesn't matter if you were able to remove my or all the other religions of the world. If you believe in science and history then you should see religion as a natural phenomena of the human species, it's part of the same phenomena that leads us to bury our dead and honor them. Instead of being "anti-theist" you would be better served finding ways to utilize the religious towards your own goals because trying to outright remove their religion is ultimately a futile endeavor.

I am not giving you any arguments that are advocating for my particular religious beliefs, I have only argued that religion, or spirituality, has a purpose in the species of humanity.

 

[Buyetyen]

If you are to follow atheism to its logical conclusion then yes, there should be only nihilism, that or hedonism

We've already seen the logical conclusion of atheism in people like Bill Maher: egotism. These days I prefer to describe myself as a humanist. At least that tells you what I do believe in. Atheism is simply the rejection of the supernatural as an explanation for the natural. Does that make atheism empiricist? Not strictly speaking, though people often correlate the two. Atheism without a philosophy backing it is just another way of rejecting authority. Taken to an extreme, one might start to believe the self is the only authority worth answering to. And once someone starts down that road, the only destination is Asshole Town.

Arthur C. Clarke actually was an atheist who studied world religions and brought a lot of really interesting philosophical and metaphysical questions to sci-fi. At various points in his life he described himself as a rational positivist, a humanist and a crypto-Buddhist. Greg Graffin, the front man for Bad Religion and PhD paleontology professor, said in an interview that he is an atheist, but prefers to identify as a naturalist. As he described, atheism as a word only described one thing he didn't believe, but said nothing solid about what he did believe.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

We've already seen the logical conclusion of atheism in people like Bill Maher: egotism. These days I prefer to describe myself as a humanist. At least that tells you what I do believe in. Atheism is simply the rejection of the supernatural as an explanation for the natural. Does that make atheism empiricist? Not strictly speaking, though people often correlate the two. Atheism without a philosophy backing it is just another way of rejecting authority. Taken to an extreme, one might start to believe the self is the only authority worth answering to. And once someone starts down that road, the only destination is Asshole Town.

Arthur C. Clarke actually was an atheist who studied world religions and brought a lot of really interesting philosophical and metaphysical questions to sci-fi. At various points in his life he described himself as a rational positivist, a humanist and a crypto-Buddhist. Greg Graffin, the front man for Bad Religion and PhD paleontology professor, said in an interview that he is an atheist, but prefers to identify as a naturalist. As he described, atheism as a word only described one thing he didn't believe, but said nothing solid about what he did believe.

Hhm.

 

[Kae]

If you are to follow atheism to its logical conclusion then yes, there should be only nihilism, that or hedonism

Short-sighted if you ask me, Atheism isn't any sort of philosophy, it just means a lack of belief in God as such it has no logical conclusion, a logical person could determine anything from hedonism and trying to get as much as you can out of life, to nihilism and apathy determining that nothing is of importance, or even humanism deciding that since there's nothing more to existence other than what you get in one life-time it we should strive to make that lifetime worthwhile for everyone.

All of these options and more are equally logical conclusions to atheism as it has no philosophy attached to it and as such, each individual needs to determine what it means for them and under which philosophy they wish to live by, so basically it entirely depends on each individual, same as religion really, tons of awful people are religious despite what they have been taught or sometimes because of the negative aspects of their beliefs that get largely amplified, really belief or lack of belief in a God has very little to do with any individual's moral character.

 

[SupahEwok]

If you are to follow atheism to its logical conclusion then yes, there should be only nihilism, that or hedonism

Not necessarily. And I'm not sure that you're using nihilism to say what you mean to say; most people don't. What most people mean when they bring up nihilism is "existential despair": the fear and loathing brought about by not finding any pattern or purpose to existence. Nihilism, as Nietzche formulated it, was more about individualism and finding purpose through the self.

As @Buyetyen stated, you don't need to believe in a higher power to formulate an alternate belief system based on values and rationalistic thought. Nor do you need a God to tell you what meaning there is to life if you are able to articulate and believe in one yourself. In my own experience, the latter route is a lot harder, and to do it "right", at least right according to what I need, will be a lifelong journey of education, reflection, and debate. And I'll probably die without finding a definite answer. But I for sure won't find out if I don't try to make the journey. In the end, maybe I'll wind up full circle going back to Christianity. But I'll have to see. I definitely believe that if God exists, and he at some point passed on wisdom and knowledge to humanity, it isn't solely contained in the Bible.

 

[happyninja42]

"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.

If you are to follow atheism to its logical conclusion then yes, there should be only nihilism, that or hedonism



This isn't about my particular religion. You can argue as many inconsistencies or contradictions as you want but as Agema said, it doesn't matter if you were able to remove my or all the other religions of the world. If you believe in science and history then you should see religion as a natural phenomena of the human species, it's part of the same phenomena that leads us to bury our dead and honor them. Instead of being "anti-theist" you would be better served finding ways to utilize the religious towards your own goals because trying to outright remove their religion is ultimately a futile endeavor.

I am not giving you any arguments that are advocating for my particular religious beliefs, I have only argued that religion, or spirituality, has a purpose in the species of humanity.

I really wish i had one of those apologist bingo cards, or was taking part in an apologist drinking game. Because this post alone would probably let me win, or make me black out drunk so I wouldn't have to see what you are saying anymore.

I'm done with this thread and your absurdly flawed comprehension of atheism.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

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.

Then I ask again, if some of it can be written off as "for the past, shouldn't count", why not all of it? If you need to keep making up new rules to explain away parts of this ancient book then in what way is it the flawless text of an omniscient deity? You're breaking your own premises doing that, and we're introducing that kind of hypocrisy can we really be using this text as a basis for morality?

 

[Houseman]

Then I ask again, if some of it can be written off as "for the past, shouldn't count", why not all of it?

Because only one part of the bible, 3 books out of 66, make up the law covenant, which was only given to the Israelites. There are explicit reasons as to why the Law is no longer in force. These reasons are not transferable to any other part of the bible.

• The Law Covenant was a contract.
• The Israelites did the "work" they were contracted to do.
• Then they were "paid".
• There's no need for the contract anymore.

Not all of the bible is a contract.

If you need to keep making up new rules to explain away parts of this ancient book

This isn't a "new rule". This is not something that modern Christians have made up. This is explained in the bible itself. The bible itself clearly states that the Mosaic Law was only given to the Israelites, and was not binding on all of humanity. Read Deuteronomy 5:1-3 and Psalm 147:19-20 if you want proof. The bible also states, very clearly, and in multiple places, that the Messiah is the end of the contract. (Romans 10:4, Matthew 5:17, Romans 7:4, Hebrews 8:13)


I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to say "Hey, you Christians eat shellfish, but the bible says not to! Hypocrites! Why don't you follow all of the bible, huh? Why do you pick and choose what to do? GOTCHA!"

But that is a very, very bad argument which is easily refuted by anyone with an elementary knowledge of Christianity. Please give up. I've heard and done this all before dozens of times. You won't succeed.

 

[Satinavian]

Then I ask again, if some of it can be written off as "for the past, shouldn't count", why not all of it? If you need to keep making up new rules to explain away parts of this ancient book then in what way is it the flawless text of an omniscient deity? You're breaking your own premises doing that, and we're introducing that kind of hypocrisy can we really be using this text as a basis for morality?

It can easily be both the flawless text of an omniscient deity and not actually the truth.

It is adressed at humans. It must be smplified that it can be followed by a lot of them. It also does not have to explain things, it only has to affect humans the right way.


An omniscient diety can never change their mind because they always knows all their past and future thoughts and reasons and any results of any possible action. But the god in the bible does a lot. If you believe in an omniscient god, you should never take the bible as a set of literal truths. You would always get more out of the question "Why might god have included that story in the bible? What can we learn about it ? Does it have answers about our questions and problems or might it be meant for other people at another time ?"

Even today there are childrens editions of the bible ommitting stuff that is too complex or not child friendly and highlighting stuff that is thought relevant for children. Why not treating the actual bible and adult christians the same way ?

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

Because only one part of the bible, 3 books out of 66, make up the law covenant, which was only given to the Israelites. There are explicit reasons as to why the Law is no longer in force. These reasons are not transferable to any other part of the bible.

• The Law Covenant was a contract.
• The Israelites did the "work" they were contracted to do.
• Then they were "paid".
• There's no need for the contract anymore.

Not all of the bible is a contract.



This isn't a "new rule". This is not something that modern Christians have made up. This is explained in the bible itself. The bible itself clearly states that the Mosaic Law was only given to the Israelites, and was not binding on all of humanity. Read Deuteronomy 5:1-3 and Psalm 147:19-20 if you want proof. The bible also states, very clearly, and in multiple places, that the Messiah is the end of the contract. (Romans 10:4, Matthew 5:17, Romans 7:4, Hebrews 8:13)


I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to say "Hey, you Christians eat shellfish, but the bible says not to! Hypocrites! Why don't you follow all of the bible, huh? Why do you pick and choose what to do? GOTCHA!"

But that is a very, very bad argument which is easily refuted by anyone with an elementary knowledge of Christianity. Please give up. I've heard and done this all before dozens of times. You won't succeed.

I mean thats not what I'm trying to do because the point of this debate isn't "Is the Bible the genuine word of god?" (which is why I was happy to go along with that section of your prerequisites) it's "Should we use the Bible for morality?" Thats why f0x started the topic, to discuss the implications and dissonance of the world saying slavery is good and the Bible saying slavery is totally doable. To which I'm saying that if the Bible gives you the option to pick and choose like that, to say that this bit doesn't count because its in a certain chapter, how can it function as a moral code? I can't pick and choose which bits of the legal system adhere to me, why should I be less stringent with my moral code?

It can easily be both the flawless text of an omniscient deity and not actually the truth.

It is adressed at humans. It must be smplified that it can be followed by a lot of them. It also does not have to explain things, it only has to affect humans the right way.


An omniscient diety can never change their mind because they always knows all their past and future thoughts and reasons and any results of any possible action. But the god in the bible does a lot. If you believe in an omniscient god, you should never take the bible as a set of literal truths. You would always get more out of the question "Why might god have included that story in the bible? What can we learn about it ? Does it have answers about our questions and problems or might it be meant for other people at another time ?"

Even today there are childrens editions of the bible ommitting stuff that is too complex or not child friendly and highlighting stuff that is thought relevant for children. Why not treating the actual bible and adult christians the same way ?

See, this kind of links to what I was saying above. You can say the Bible is the word of god but it's also the work of man, which automatically introduces flaws and failings. You can use it as a guideline, maybe, but not the defining truth

 

[Houseman]

To which I'm saying that if the Bible gives you the option to pick and choose like that

I've refuted this statement multiple times and multiple different ways now. There is no "option to pick and choose". The Mosaic Law Covenant was fulfilled with the Messiah. The contract is over and done with.

I don't understand why you still continue to repeat the same false statement. Are you not convinced that the Messiah was the end of the Law or something? Do you think "the end of the Law" means "the law is now optional" or something? Please, help me help you.

 

[MrCalavera]

That's one of its big advantages for Christianity. It's a holy book that effectively has a justification somewhere for a person (particularly the ruling classes) to do virtually anything, which greatly minimises the chance someone will reject Christianity because it stops them doing what they want to.

I'd say that could be said about more than just holy christian texts.
But yes, you can easily bent what's in the Bible, as long as you pick the denomination that suits your outlook. It's pretty great.

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.

I stopped describing myself as an atheist a while ago. Nowadays i'd probably be closer to an "agnostic" a.k.a. coward's atheism.
This might be partially due to growing up in a religious(sorta) household, igraining the concept of God deep enough, i can't find myself giving up on it entirely.
I think i gave up on atheism becoming a dominant outlook among the people of the world, though. I simply think, since our brains evolved to support abstract thinking, belief in some sort of supernatural is engrained in better part of our populace. I consider religion more of a psychological phenomenon.

If you are to follow atheism to its logical conclusion then yes, there should be only nihilism, that or hedonism

Short-sighted if you ask me, Atheism isn't any sort of philosophy, it just means a lack of belief in God as such it has no logical conclusion, a logical person could determine anything from hedonism and trying to get as much as you can out of life, to nihilism and apathy determining that nothing is of importance, or even humanism deciding that since there's nothing more to existence other than what you get in one life-time it we should strive to make that lifetime worthwhile for everyone.



All of these options and more are equally logical conclusions to atheism as it has no philosophy attached to it and as such, each individual needs to determine what it means for them and under which philosophy they wish to live by, so basically it entirely depends on each individual, same as religion really, tons of awful people are religious despite what they have been taught or sometimes because of the negative aspects of their beliefs that get largely amplified, really belief or lack of belief in a God has very little to do with any individual's moral character.

You could also try and set the argument on its head.

Belief in a deity, creator of the universe, doesn't have to entail much beyond that.
The deity in question, being unknowable, doesn't have to have greater plan for the intelligent life. It doesn't need to follow the creation of life, with an afterlife, or share any of its knowledge to the mortals.

Side note: I guess most people, raised in a monoteistic enviroment, choose to either believe in a benevolent God(s), or no God at all. The prospect of malevolent, or simply not caring one being more terryfying than nothing?

 

[SupahEwok]

I'd say that could be said about more than just holy christian texts.
But yes, you can easily bent what's in the Bible, as long as you pick the denomination that suits your outlook. It's pretty great.

I think lawyers and internet debaters have shown us that humans can bend any declarative statement to their desires with enough obfuscation and bad arguments.

 

[MrCalavera]

I think lawyers and internet debaters have shown us that humans can bend any declarative statement to their desires with enough obfuscation and bad arguments.

Ah, but not all of those statements are backed by the authority of an all-powerful, omniscient being.

 

[Buyetyen]

Ah, but not all of those statements aren't backed by the authority of an all-powerful, omniscient being.

That's one of the cringiest parts of evangelical apologetics. Their preachers tell them that they are carrying out the divine mandate of a living god, so by default they have the moral high ground and cannot lose it. Still not THE cringiest of apologetics. "God has a plan," as a response to hardships and tragedy, that one is the king of cringe.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Yeah, the Bible makes a whole lot more sense if you drop the idea that god's all-powerful and omniscient. Shift that idea to "our God is the baddest-ass god with the biggest dick" and a lot of stuff clicks into place.
If I'd've come across that idea back when I was religious, I might still be.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

I've refuted this statement multiple times and multiple different ways now. There is no "option to pick and choose". The Mosaic Law Covenant was fulfilled with the Messiah. The contract is over and done with.

I don't understand why you still continue to repeat the same false statement. Are you not convinced that the Messiah was the end of the Law or something? Do you think "the end of the Law" means "the law is now optional" or something? Please, help me help you.

See you've made the mistake of assuming I've gone back to talking about the differences between old and new testaments when we've already moved past that. I'm actually thinking more along the lines of the Nicene Creed or Council of Rome deciding things like which gospels count as 'canon'. The picking and choosing in this case would be, for example, deciding that the Gospel of John is 'official' but the Gospel of Judas is not. Humans decided that, not god. So automatically the Bible becomes a work of human intervention, subject to the same flaws and failings that any human code of law is. Difference is with other human laws we update and adapt them to the times

 

[Houseman]

See you've made the mistake of assuming I've gone back to talking about the differences between old and new testaments when we've already moved past that.

When did we do that?

I'm actually thinking more along the lines of the Nicene Creed or Council of Rome deciding things like which gospels count as 'canon'.

This is the first time you've mentioned either. Don't try and play it off like it's my mistake for not noticing that you moved the goalposts.

The picking and choosing in this case would be, for example, deciding that the Gospel of John is 'official' but the Gospel of Judas is not. Humans decided that, not god

These councils were only authoritative to their own sects of Christianity. There was no rule that said that all Christians must adhere to the decisions and conclusions they made.

But let's expand the scope away from these councils. Let's say that any modern church has to make a decision on whether or not they should include the Gospel of Judas. Are they cherry-picking? Are they making a human decision to ignore the book?

Let's remember the premises from earlier. Assuming that an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God exists, why didn't He see fit to manipulate matters so that the Gospel of Judas ended up in the normal bible canon? Surely it wouldn't have been beyond his powers to do so. Why was it only discovered in the 1970s? Surely God could have led someone to discover it earlier. Therefore, God must not have seen the book as important as the other 66, if it all.

Given the premises, you can't discount human actions as human actions. God is more than capable of manipulating the actions of humans so that things end up working out in God's favor. Even if the bible canon was decided by coin toss or drawing lots, you can't say that God wasn't involved.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

While on the subject, it's immensely fucked up that the reason evangelicals are pro-zionist is because they believe getting every Jewish person there will kickstart the apocalypse while either converting them before god or sending all of them to hell. Its weird nobody hardly ever mentions that twisted shit, considering the consistent modern day support and handwaving of Israeli government crimes appears to stem solely from that.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

When did we do that?



This is the first time you've mentioned either. Don't try and play it off like it's my mistake for not noticing that you moved the goalposts.

You literally asked to talk about something more complicated than just new vs old testaments right here. So I did. Or hey maybe you shouldn't have assumed that old vs new was the only thing I was ever referring to when making the point that the Bible has a lot of picking and choosing involved.

These councils were only authoritative to their own sects of Christianity. There was no rule that said that all Christians must adhere to the decisions and conclusions they made.

And you don't think that people being able to interpret things their own way like that suggests how poorly the Bible is suited to being a code of morality?

But let's expand the scope away from these councils. Let's say that any modern church has to make a decision on whether or not they should include the Gospel of Judas. Are they cherry-picking? Are they making a human decision to ignore the book?

Let's remember the premises from earlier. Assuming that an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God exists, why didn't He see fit to manipulate matters so that the Gospel of Judas ended up in the normal bible canon? Surely it wouldn't have been beyond his powers to do so. Why was it only discovered in the 1970s? Surely God could have led someone to discover it earlier. Therefore, God must not have seen the book as important as the other 66, if it all.

Given the premises, you can't discount human actions as human actions. God is more than capable of manipulating the actions of humans so that things end up working out in God's favor. Even if the bible canon was decided by coin toss or drawing lots, you can't say that God wasn't involved.

I mean by that logic dude its gods will that all modern laws and new beliefs get put into place, meaning the Bible is outdated and shouldn't be listened to. God had us create the modern systems so its those he wants us to listen to, not the old versions[/quote][/QUOTE]