redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
For the same reason, perhaps, that you did not make it clear earlier that you were operating from a narrow, religious, evidence-light, agenda-rich opinion suite. i.e. it should have been self evident.
If my position was not evident, it included the full picture of understanding the naturalistic in light of the supernatural.

I mean if one wants to put God on trial they should at least have their own supernatural abilities. Or even have an Avenger on their debate team.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
If my position was not evident, it included the full picture of understanding the naturalistic in light of the supernatural.
My explicit point was that your position was evident, just as Dogma Hunter's position was evident, yet you chose to criticise him for allegedly not making his position clear. I thought your remark skirted the edges of being an ad hominem. My implicit point was to draw this to your attention by mimicing your comments.

I mean if one wants to put God on trial they should at least have their own supernatural abilities. Or even have an Avenger on their debate team.
As an atheist, Dogma Hunter is not placing your God on trial. He is "putting on trial" the stance that appears to be taken by your God, based upon scripture, which is said to be His Word. (For a conventional theist putting any god on trial would be a questionable act.)
 
  • Winner
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I thought your remark skirted the edges of being an ad hominem. My implicit point was to draw this to your attention by mimicing your comments
I was being logically inquisitive.

I’d like to know the god atheists could live with.

As an atheist, Dogma Hunter is not placing your God on trial. He is "putting on trial" the stance that appears to be taken by your God, based upon scripture, which is said to be His Word. (For a conventional theist putting any god on trial would be a questionable act.)

Then why bother even debating the topic.

I also pointed out a few pages ago, the actual stance taken by unbelievers is quite pedestrian as regarding any theological freight.

At least the 19th century skeptics employed a bit of rationalism when addressing the Scriptures. A materialistic approach but a much better version than we see today.
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Take your threats elsewhere.

You remind me of a little kid playing in traffic, who replies to the adults telling him to get off the street with 'don't tell me what to do, you're not the boss of me!'
 
  • Haha
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Par5

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,013
653
78
LONDONDERRY
✟69,175.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for the reply. I think we all share in the common grace of God which gives us the love for family and life as a gift.

I would gather then your hope ends when you take your last breath?
nOT
Thank you for the reply. I think we all share in the common grace of God which gives us the love for family and life as a gift.

I would gather then your hope ends when you take your last breath?
It wouldn't be hope that ended with my last breath, it would be my life. I believe that you hope for things that are outside of your control. If you really want something to happen then it is up to you to make it happen rather than sit around and hope it happens. Even at that, doing your best to make something happen is not always going to guarantee success, but that's all part of life's lottery.
 
Upvote 0

Par5

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,013
653
78
LONDONDERRY
✟69,175.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's okay to question. Frankly, there is NO answer that we know. All we have is speculation why God allowed slavery in the OT. We do have some understanding why God commanded genocide. It was because of the corruption of those not Israelites because they worshipped other God's and we're exceedingly wicked. That wickedness is no big deal to you because you don't believe in wickedness as God sees it. But that doesn't change the fact that's how God sees it. Again that is irrelevant because it's what you do with Jesus that matters. You will be without excuse.
I don't know why you say I don't understand wickedness as your god sees it. I don't believe in your god so I have no reason to try and understand what it considers to be wicked. I look at slavery and genocide and know that it is totally wrong and without justification. These injustices are the works of man, nothing to do with any god. Sure the bible says that these people sacrificed their children and indulged in inappropriate behavior with animals, things that any sane right-minded person would say was barbaric and totally beyond the pale. But don't you think that acts of genocide and the slaughter of mothers, children and infants are wrong and beyond the pale? Don't you think that claiming another person is your property, someone you have the right to beat, take away his wife and children or tag him like a farm animal are wrong?
So many Christians are reluctant to say these things are wrong, using the excuse that they don't understand their god's reason for allowing or ordering such things but they accept it's reasons whatever they may be simply because it is their god.
I find the reluctance to condemn such barbarity and the reasons for not doing so to be extremely sad. Now that is something I really don't understand.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Brother Billy

Active Member
Sep 30, 2018
174
33
Sydney
✟4,448.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
the slavery that was experienced from the 1400s to the 1800s was in violation of biblical slave law. it was actually a form of man-stealing which is condemned in scripture.

You are referring to Exodus 21:16: "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession.

The man-stealing law was a prohibition against kidnapping. It didn't prohibit:
Being mostly devout Christians, the Americans who put in place the system of slavery in the US, went to great pains to ensure that their slavery laws were consistent with the Bible's laws on slavery. Remember that Christian churches supported slavery in the US and even owned slaves themselves (Christianity and Slavery: The role of the Church). It was only after the Abolitionism Movement started to gain widespread support that the churches decided that slavery was actually a bad idea.

The following article shows that slavery in the US was almost exactly the same as that in the Bible:

Yes, Biblical Slavery Was the Same as American Slavery

Turning to the question of how most African slaves became slaves: According to John K. Thornton, Europeans usually bought enslaved people who were captured in endemic warfare between African states. Some Africans had made a business out of capturing Africans from neighboring ethnic groups or war captives and selling them. I would imagine that non-Hebrews obtained their slaves in a similar way in ancient times.

The American laws that regulated slavery was based on the Bible:

Extract from Wikipedia: (History of slavery in Massachusetts - Wikipedia)

In 1641, Massachusetts passed its Body of Liberties which gave legal sanction to certain kinds of slavery:

There shall never be any bond slaverie, villinage or captivitie amongst us unless it be lawfull captives taken in just warres, and such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are sold to us. And these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God established in Israell concerning such persons doeth morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by Authoritie

Wiecek notes that the reference to "strangers" is derived from Leviticus 25: 39–55 and explains that they could be ruled and sold as slaves.[12][14] For the Puritans and citizens of the colony, "strangers" would eventually mean Native Americans and Africans.[12] Even though the Body of Liberties excluded many forms of slavery, it did recognize four legitimate bases of slavery.[12] Slaves could legally be obtained if they were captives resulting from war, sold themselves into slavery, were purchased as slaves from elsewhere, or were sentenced to slavery through the governing authority.[15] This made Massachusetts the first colony to authorize slavery through legislation.[15] In 1670, Massachusetts made it legal for the children of slaves to be sold into bondage.[16] By 1680, the colony had laws restricting the movements of blacks.[16] A 1703 law required owners to post a bond for all slaves to protect towns in the case that a slave became indigent should the master refuse to continue caring for him or her.[2]


In Biblical times, slaves were supposed to be treated humanely and their treatment was regulated by Biblical law.” The same was applicable in America:
  • the 1739 South Carolina code limited the number of hours that slaves could be made to work and fined anyone who killed a slave £700.
  • The 1833 Alabama law code dictated, “Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person.”
  • Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave.... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was "convicted of cruel treatment," the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master
  • In 1791, the North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder unless it was done who was resisting or under moderate correction
  • The South Carolina slave code was revised in 1739, with the following amendments:[46]
    No slave could be taught to write, work on Sunday, or work more than 15 hours per day in summer and 14 hours in winter.
    The willful killing of a slave was fined £700, and "passion" killing £350.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

Madsaac

Newbie
Aug 4, 2010
34
10
✟16,973.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Of course he wouldn't but he didn't write the bible did he, well I hope didn't when you read that sort of stuff. Someone a very, very long time ago who was trying to make sense of the world did.

There's all sorts of all sorts of irrelevant, relevant, nasty, good and strange stuff written in the Bible, including the slavery stuff.

So it depends on which parts you like or believe, I suppose.....for the record I don't think many would like or beleive that part
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
No I'm taking the conversation to its logical conclusion

No, you aren't.
The logical conclusion here is "you are right, slavery is an evil barbaric practice - no matter what the bible says".


Slavery is an injustice,

Not according to the bible.
The point.

but so are most wars, poverty, people starving to death when others have plenty, sickness and even death

All of which is irrelevant to the fact that the bible condones the evil practice of slavery.


All things which plague mankind and "if" a benevolent God existed why would this God allow these things to continue? That's what is being plied here.

Well, he sure felt it necessary to instruct people on trivial things like not eating shrimp and what fabrics they couldn't use for their clothing and stuff. Apparantly that was more important then stating "ow and hey, don't treat humans as personal property..."

Actually it's even worse... It's not that the bible remains silent on the matter. No, it condones it. Worse still, it actually gives instructions on how to do it. On how you can beat salves. On how you can blackmail them into becoming slaves for life. How your kids can inherit them. It even regulates the slave trade.

Entire passages are DEDICATED to this.

So the question really should be why would a benevolent God even allow His creation to sin and offend Him? Why just ask about slavery something God did not create, why not all injustices?

No... the actual question is why a benevolent god would REGULATE and CONDONE the practice EXPLICITLY.

You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that entire passages in the bible are dedicated to the regulation of slavery.

I could get on board with your argument if the bible remained completely silent on the matter. Then you'ld maybe be able to make the case of how it is implicitly forbidden through more generic rules that don't explicitly mention slavery, but which can be said to apply to it.

But no, that's not the case.
Instead, entire passages are explicitly dedicated to allowing, regulating and condoning the practice of slaver.

So based on this "create" for me, Dogmahunter, your ideal god which would be sensitive to fixing all the evils created by mankind.

I'm not talking about "all the evils".
I am talking about this one evil, which is explicitly allowed.

What does your ideal god look like and why should he or she submit to your will and purpose?

I don't have such ideals. For all I know, a God doesn't have to be anything in particular in that respect. I see no reason why a God, for example, couldn't be an evil psychopath who just created everything out of boredom.

So I'm just judging it as presented.
And what is being presented in this case, is a God that on the one hand is claimed to be benevolent, all-just, all-powerfull and all-knowing, but who at the same time condones, allows and regulates the evil practice of slavery.


From where I stand, that is a blatant contradiction in terms.
So, for this reason alone, one of the following has to be true:
1- God is NOT benevolent or just
2- God IS benevolent / just and the bible is a corruption and NOT the message of this God.
3- The biblical God doesn't exist and this book just reflects the beliefs, practices and knowledge of that specific time in that specific culture, which is why the authors had no problem at all with slavery, since it was a common fact of society at that time.


From where I stand, all the evidence is pointing to option 3.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
It might be because he/she thinks God has to be like whatever he/she wants he to be.

Nope. I have no preference to Gods being one way or the other.
I just call it like I see it.

A god cannot be benevolent or just while at the same time allowing and regulating slavery.
That's just a contradiction in terms.

Unless you believe that slavery is actually a moral practice off course.... The authors of the bible clearly believed that, after all.

I don't. And I don't think very highly of people who think it is.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
It's okay to question. Frankly, there is NO answer that we know. All we have is speculation why God allowed slavery in the OT. We do have some understanding why God commanded genocide. It was because of the corruption of those not Israelites because they worshipped other God's and we're exceedingly wicked. That wickedness is no big deal to you because you don't believe in wickedness as God sees it. But that doesn't change the fact that's how God sees it. Again that is irrelevant because it's what you do with Jesus that matters. You will be without excuse.

It seems as if you find all things in the bible that are clearly evil, to be "irrelevant".
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
You remind me of a little kid playing in traffic, who replies to the adults telling him to get off the street with 'don't tell me what to do, you're not the boss of me!'

Except the adults wouldn't be throwing up empty threats.
Traffic is demonstrably real, after all.
 
Upvote 0

S.O.J.I.A.

Dynamic UNO
Nov 6, 2016
4,280
2,641
Michigan
✟98,714.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
You are referring to Exodus 21:16: "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession.

The man-stealing law was a prohibition against kidnapping. It didn't prohibit:

point being that the African was obtained through these condemned means. Africa never went to war with Europe outside of defending themselves from being invaded.

what needs to be understood about the wars that Israel had with other nations was that is was an extension of God's judgement on those nations(Deuteronomy 9:1-6). the LORD would either order Israel to attack these nations in judgement on them or have those nations attack Israel to give them into their hand. slave laws from the LORD to treat them roughly goes along with His judgement on them.

this can't be said for Europe against Africa.

The following article shows that slavery in the US was almost exactly the same as that in the Bible:

Yes, Biblical Slavery Was the Same as American Slavery

Turning to the question of how most African slaves became slaves: According to John K. Thornton, Europeans usually bought enslaved people who were captured in endemic warfare between African states. Some Africans had made a business out of capturing Africans from neighboring ethnic groups or war captives and selling them. I would imagine that non-Hebrews obtained their slaves in a similar way in ancient times.

The American laws that regulated slavery was based on the Bible:

Extract from Wikipedia: (History of slavery in Massachusetts - Wikipedia)

In 1641, Massachusetts passed its Body of Liberties which gave legal sanction to certain kinds of slavery:

There shall never be any bond slaverie, villinage or captivitie amongst us unless it be lawfull captives taken in just warres, and such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are sold to us. And these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God established in Israell concerning such persons doeth morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by Authoritie

Wiecek notes that the reference to "strangers" is derived from Leviticus 25: 39–55 and explains that they could be ruled and sold as slaves.[12][14] For the Puritans and citizens of the colony, "strangers" would eventually mean Native Americans and Africans.[12] Even though the Body of Liberties excluded many forms of slavery, it did recognize four legitimate bases of slavery.[12] Slaves could legally be obtained if they were captives resulting from war, sold themselves into slavery, were purchased as slaves from elsewhere, or were sentenced to slavery through the governing authority.[15] This made Massachusetts the first colony to authorize slavery through legislation.[15] In 1670, Massachusetts made it legal for the children of slaves to be sold into bondage.[16] By 1680, the colony had laws restricting the movements of blacks.[16] A 1703 law required owners to post a bond for all slaves to protect towns in the case that a slave became indigent should the master refuse to continue caring for him or her.[2]


In Biblical times, slaves were supposed to be treated humanely and their treatment was regulated by Biblical law.” The same was applicable in America:
  • the 1739 South Carolina code limited the number of hours that slaves could be made to work and fined anyone who killed a slave £700.
  • The 1833 Alabama law code dictated, “Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person.”
  • Ten Southern codes made it a crime to mistreat a slave.... Under the Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (art. 192), if a master was "convicted of cruel treatment," the judge could order the sale of the mistreated slave, presumably to a better master
  • In 1791, the North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder unless it was done who was resisting or under moderate correction
  • The South Carolina slave code was revised in 1739, with the following amendments:[46]
    No slave could be taught to write, work on Sunday, or work more than 15 hours per day in summer and 14 hours in winter.
    The willful killing of a slave was fined £700, and "passion" killing £350.

these points all become immaterial due to the fact that, again, Africa was never at war with Europe. furthermore, most of this only applies to European slaves, who were, more or less, indentured servants, serving for a period of time.

excerpt from the cornerstone speech for the confederacy:
“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

"Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."

to think this way of people whom you kidnapped and made slaves is in every way a violation of slave law and an utter betrayal of these "devout Christians" professions of faith.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Brother Billy

Active Member
Sep 30, 2018
174
33
Sydney
✟4,448.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
point being that the African was obtained through these condemned means. Africa never went to war with Europe outside of defending themselves from being invaded.

what needs to be understand about the wars that Israel had with other nations was that is was an extension of God's judgement on those nations(Deuteronomy 9:1-6). the LORD would either order Israel to attack these nations in judgement on them or have those nations attack Israel to give them into their hand. slaves laws from the LORD to treat them roughly goes along with His judgement on them.

this can't be said for Europe against Africa.

these points all become immaterial due to the fact that, again, Africa was never at war with Europe. furthermore, most of this only applies to European slaves, who were, more or less, indentured servants, serving for a period of time.

I don't think you actually read my last post! The majority of African slaves who were taken to the Americas weren't kidnapped by Europeans. They were bought from Africans who in turn captured other Africans during inter-tribal conflicts just like the Hebrews purchased foreigner slaves as mentioned in Leviticus 25:44-46. The Africans had a thriving slave trade long before the Europeans arrived. See: Slavery in Africa - Wikipedia

excerpt from the cornerstone speech for the confederacy:
“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

"Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."

to think this way of people whom you kidnapped and made slaves is in every way a violation of slave law and an utter betrayal of these "devout Christians" professions of faith.

The above paragraphs show how the Confederacy used the Bible to justify slavery:
  • The Canaanites, descended from Ham via his son Canaan, were historically regarded as the ethnic ancestors of the black peoples of Africa. Many Europeans used the Curse of Ham to justify the Transatlantic Slave Trade
  • Europeans viewed themselves as the God's chosen people (just like the Hebrews viewed themselves) and the Africans as pagans that had to serve them. To be chosen by God means that you are superior to other pagan nations
  • Europeans were prohibited from enslaving fellow Europeans just like Hebrews were prohibited from enslaving fellow Hebrews. Europeans were only allowed to make fellow Europeans serve them as indentured servants in the same was as Hebrews were only allowed to make fellow Hebrews serve them as indentured servants
Many southern Christians felt that slavery, in one Baptist minister’s words, “stands as an institution of God.” Here are some common arguments made by Christians at the time:
  • Abraham, the “father of faith,” and all the patriarchs held slaves without God’s disapproval (Gen. 21:9–10).
  • Canaan, Ham’s son, was made a slave to his brothers (Gen. 9:24–27).
  • The Ten Commandments mention slavery twice, showing God’s implicit acceptance of it (Ex. 20:10, 17).
  • Slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, and yet Jesus never spoke against it.
  • The apostle Paul specifically commanded slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5–8).
  • Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master (Philem. 12).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Europeans viewed themselves as the God's chosen people (just like the Hebrews viewed themselves) and the Africans as pagans that had to serve them. To be chosen by God means that you are superior to other pagan nations
Ah yes - yet another bad thing from Replacement Theology.
 
Upvote 0