Saying goodbye

[Paulomycin]

Again: how much Paul loved Onesimus is quite beside the point.

1. You have no reason to blithely dismiss it.

2. The love relates directly to the narrative in that (a.) God is not a respecter of persons, and (b.) all converts are equal family members subordinate only to God; the earthly class conflict no longer matters.

The point is, he sent the runaway slave back to his master.

No, he sent a brother in Christ back to a brother, "no longer a slave." - Philemon 1:16

If Paul had actually been opposed to slavery, he wouldn't have done that. He would have recognised that Philemon had no claim over Onesimus; that by holding him as a slave, he had done him wrong, and Onesimus was under no obligation to him. But no: Paul loved Onesimus, but recognised that a slave must be returned to his master. Because of his love, he wanted Onesimus to be freed - not because he was opposed to slavery, but out of affection for this particular slave - but he recognised that it was Philemon's place, as the master, to make that decision.

You're redundantly repeating yourself ad nauseum while literally cherry-picking key verses relevant to the debate.

You're right. Paul didn't violate any law. He sent a runaway slave back to his master. That was the wrong thing to do; Paul should have simply helped to free the runaway slave. But Paul was pro-slavery, so instead he entreated the slave's master to free him, out of the love he bore them both.

Now you're contorting yourself to satisfy your own confirmation bias. If he sent a runaway slave back to his master, then he would be violating Deuteronomy 23:15-16. But he reminded them both of their actual class status as equals. Again, it clearly says, "no longer a slave." - Philemon 1:16 On his apostolic authority granted to him by the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul abolished the slave relationship between these two individuals. "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."- John 8:36

But the HCSB translation's heading is a later inerpolation.

Where are shrine prostitutes in the army camp (verse 17)? All chapter and verse divisions are later interpolations. You're inferring that "enemy" POWs are automatically processed as "slaves" in your head. Moreover, you've teleported from a camp on the battlefield to "whatever town they choose" among you. Verses 15 and 16 do not apply exclusively to the battlefield. "Towns" were not established until after the occupation of Israel, and refer to local towns among the 12 tribes. It's simply what the Bible says. All you have to do is read it, in the context, something you really should try to familiarise yourself with.

Because if you're attacking a people it benefits you if their slaves run away from them. Why would you aid the enemy by returning their resources to them?

Pagan slave laws don't apply to Hebrews. And pagan slaves are not enemy soldiers. The class distinctions are obvious here. Again, I clearly stated, "Why would enemy slaves get an exemption exclusive only to foreigners, but not a native-born Hebrew?" Referring to the enemy slaves over native-born Hebrew slaves. Answer: They don't, because there's one law.

Again, those verses don't mean what you think they mean. Read them in context.

Eisegetical interpretation and cherry-picking is outright violation of the context. Your "context" is imaginary and depends on deliberate omission of keywords in-order to sustain your bias.

I have the greatest respect for Martin Luther King. If he was able to make people behave better by making them think that the Bible was against slavery, then good for him. But whether he actually believed it or not, he was wrong.

We've already established you threw MLK under the bus. No need to repeat yourself.

Where does he preach that?

If he's pro-slavery, then it's certain he's also pro-3/5ths rule.

Nonsense. Jesus and the aspostles were clear and direct on what was sinful. There are many examples of them being outspoken against sin, regardless of the consequences. If they had thought that slavery was sinful, you can be sure they would have said so. But they didn't. Instead, they praised it, and exhorted slaves to be obedient.

- You have zero citations of anyone "praising" human-on-human slavery in the Biblical text. It's nothing more than your eisegetical bias.

- Jesus subverts slavery in Matthew 20:25-27.

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—

Again, mutual voluntary submission among each other equally.

The part where you think it is a commandment to end slavery, rather than a commandment to be just and kindly masters to slaves.

Believers are commanded to give up that dynamic among themselves; not overthrow Roman slavery. Believers are commanded to give up concubines and temple prostitutes; not overthrow Roman temples. Believers are commanded to adhere to just weights and measures in the marketplace; not impose a new standard for Rome. Believers are commanded to love one another, and not force Rome to love one another.

Read it again, and think about it a little more.

I don't have to "think about it" according to your eisegetical confirmation bias.

You think Paul is saying that masters should be obedient to their slaves? What nonsense. He's saying that they should treat them justly and fairly, as slaves.

You're reading into it. "Do the same to them also," does not mean "Do the same to them, but by that I mean treat them like slaves and not literal brothers." This isn't "code" for oppression.

That they should take care of them, and reward them if they do well, and only punish them if they fail in their duties. Not threatening and punishing them capriciously or unfairly or vindictively, but only if they do not perform their duties.

There is no threat of punishment. Thus, "slavery in name only."

And now, think about one more thing: how could Paul be saying that he wants to end slavery if he tells slaves to be obedient to their masters? If slavery is ended, how are they going to do that?

You're equivocating institutional "slavery" with individual slavery. Paul's telling everyone to be obedient to one another as to Christ. Thus, it's equal. Hey, actually read the book, and see what it says. Take it on its own terms. Don't cherry-pick the words you want to ignore. And when it says, "no longer as a slave," why not just accept that this is exactly what it meant.

 

[Moral Orel]

Per wiki: In propositional logic, disjunction elimination[1][2] (sometimes named proof by cases, case analysis, or elimination)

Same thing.

Just because both disjunction elimination and deductive elimination share the word "elimination" doesn't mean that they are the same thing. Here is disjunction elimination again:

p1 If X then A
p2 If Y then A
p3 X or Y
c A

And here is deductive elimination.

p1 A or B or C
p2 not A
p3 not B
c C

These arguments are not the same thing. You can see that disjunction elimination takes the form I described here in the link that you provided. You can see that deductive elimination takes the form I described here in the other link you provided.

 

[Moral Orel]

Is that the atheist agenda here, move the goalposts to the point of demanding that all theistic arguments can only be submitted in a formal logic format?

Seriously?

Not at all. No one takes an issue with your formatting, we all understood you just fine. I'm simply pointing out that if you refuse to prove your premises, then you're refusing to prove that your argument is sound. If you don't prove your argument is sound, then we can dismiss it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'm sorry it's taken me a while to answer. Work has been busy lately. But now I have a little more leisure time.

Let's see. Where were we?

On death - I had said: "I believe in death, because I believe that when you die, that's the complete and total end of you."
And you answered:

First death; then heaven, then 2nd death of the eternal soul.

That sounds unlike anything I’ve ever heard a Christian say. You seem to believe that you will go to heaven and then die again, this time forever?
Regardless, what you say seems to work for me more than for you. You die, then you go to heaven. You live on. And if you’re living on, you’re alive, and if you’re alive, why are you worried about dying.
And, come to think of it, how can you call it dying if you’re still alive afterwards? The word kind of loses its meaning.
Which is the point I’m making.

Because you're deliberately equivocating "living." That's all. You're flip-flopping from what you define as "life," on purely materialistic terms, to what we define as "life," which includes the physical matter and of course, God. Then flip-flopping back again.

No flip-flopping at all. All I’m saying is that a “death” where you are alive when it’s ended does not sound like any form of death at all. This ties back to the original point of this thread: if you “die” but then come back to life and go on to live in an infinitely wonderful world, why should Christians feel bad about death at all?

Purely materialistic death is still real, but all your data is still saved, so-to-speak.

So you believe that you die, and then God creates a copy of you and sends it to heaven? That would make it a whole new being, that has never actually lived on Earth, even if it has been created with memories of having done so.
Your attempts to get yourself out of the problems you’ve created seem to be making your ideas even more complicated and inconsistent.

And don't compartmentalize God from His own Heaven narrative here. If God is truly omnipotent, then He has a backup for everything that exists. Meaning that the you (the real "you") will never be forgotten. . .no matter how completely and thoroughly you died in the material world. That's how omniscience works. And that's the best explanation for a soul that I've seen. Because whatever exists in God's mind is more real than in the material world. Just as the math governing your chair is more real than the actual physical chair you're sitting on.

This is how ad hoc rationalisations work. You’re trying to defend an absurd premise, so you have to make up things that will explain the absurdities. The problem is, this then creates more things that you have to explain, and before you know where you are, you’re talking about saving copies of souls like mp3s, and people dying but being remembered so they still exist in some real and non-metaphorical sense.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Next subject: on your arguments attempting to prove that the universe could only have come into existence if it was created by God:

Oh, but it was entirely your burden of proof to begin with. See, Dawkins' pop-atheist bus banner read, "You can be good without God." Great. <-- Then a purely secularized moral "good" is being claimed by the atheist. . .without evidence. Not cool. They're just expecting no one to question it further; all while they leech-off of a Westernized Judeo-Christian ethic (Oh, the irony!)! But ethics are societal; not "moral." Morality is either a universal claim, or it doesn't exist at all.

But you’re the one who said you could prove Euthyphro’s Dilemma to be false. Well, in order to do that, you’re going to have to justify your moral system, or admit that you can’t. And saying “it just is” is just an empty claim.

They're not separate claims, for one thing. One can either prove God from morality (the moral argument), or one can prove morality from God. The latter takes a bit more time, but it's essentially derived from, "If omnipotent, then the source of all absolute truth. Absolute truth is moral, then God is the source of all morality." Because pure logic isn't just logic, but absolute truth, which is also a moral claim.

Please explain to me why:
(a) omnipotence = absolute truth
(b) absolute truth = absolute morality.
Neither of those things seem to be obviously true.

I pointed out that "
"You don't seem to be able to account for goodness yourself."
And you said:

That's because I'm totally not claiming a separate abstract claim, "force," or metaphysical entity called "good." That's the dualism of silver-age comic books. That's the metaphysical light/dark dualism of Star Wars. "Good" is not a separate "thing" that God is subordinate to. If He were, then He wouldn't be omnipotent.

"Good" and "God" were never separate claims to begin with. They're the same thing. There's just God and God alone. Period. God is omnipotent and perfect. Everything "anti-God" that comes after is merely a privation of God. <-- That's how Thomas Aquinas describes evil, as a "privation" of the good.

So when I say that "good" is God's nature. I'm just saying that there is no separate thing called "good," just God alone, and that's it. Everything that fails to meet God's standard falls short. <-- That's sin (evil). End of story. Euthyphro's Dilemma solved.

In fact, you are claiming that “good” is a separate thing – not separate from God, but separate from the universe. This is because you’re saying that goodness itself is God’s character. You’re not just saying that God is good, but that God’s character is goodness itself.
I’m just waiting to see if you can justify this interesting claim with anything better than “yes it is.”
If you actually had an argument, you wouldn't have to say "end of story" because the story would have ended itself. But it hasn't, no matter how much you claim it has, until you have provided a justification for your claim.

If they're not prescriptive, then they're not laws.

When we speak of descriptive laws, we are talking about the way in which things happen. When we speak of prescriptive laws, we are talking about the way things are supposed to happen, because a law has been made about them.
For example: there is a prescriptive law that you cannot drive over a certain speed on the highway. You can of course break that law, and are likely to suffer legal consequences if you do.
Descriptive laws in science, on the other hand, are simply describing what we have learned about the way things work. If they can be “broken” then they were incorrectly stated in the first place.
Back to your argument: you say that the existence of laws of logic implies that a Logician must have invented them. But the laws of logic simply describe how we think about the world. Nobody had to make a rule saying that 2+2 must equal 4. It just does; that’s the nature of two things when they are put next to two more things together.
Therefore, your argument for God’s existence fails. The existence of logic does not imply the existence of a deity to have created it.

You have nothing to back your faux-certainty here.

It’s not faux-certainty, it’s simple logic. We know that computer programs need a programmer because we know about computer programs; one of the things we know about them is that they are built by programmers. Not every complex thing needs to have been built.

I said:
"Why does "everything exists" lead to the supposition that "there must be a Person who controls everything that exists?"

PSR.

The “Principle of Sufficient Reason” means nothing more than “there must be a cause, else how could the universe be here?” And the answer is, we don’t know how the universe was here. This does not give us the right to say that it must have been God just because we can’t prove that it wasn’t.

Indeed, it’s not certain that there must be a cause, because none of us know how things operate “outside” the universe, if such a concept is even possible. But let’s, for the moment, grant that there was a cause for the universe. Why should I believe you when you say the cause was God? You have to give a convincing reason for this, and you haven’t.

There's no objective refutation from your side, you simply assert "Of course it doesn't," and "nonsense," with nothing more than redundant (forced) questions.

When your arguments don’t make sense, the only refutation I need is to point this out.

I'm a Calvinist. "I" don't convert anyone. Only God can change a person's incredulous will. Debate is more for the audience than it is convincing your opponent, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Not going to fly, I’m afraid. You came on this forum knowing it was for debating. You said that Euthyphro’s Dilemma and proof of God’s existence were easy to resolve. So, do it, if you can.

And if you can’t do it, then all you have to say is, “You raise some interesting points. I think I will have to think this over.”

I don't have to prove a negative claim (I'm abiding by atheist rules here). Saying, "you do have to prove that there cannot. . ." makes it a negative claim.

That’s not how it works. I don’t have to prove that God does not exist, so I don’t bother to try. You, on the other hand, are trying to prove that there is no other explanation for the existence of the Universe than the existence of your God.

You don’t have to prove a negative claim, but if you don’t, then your argument falls apart, because proving the negative claim is what your argument is based on. You’re the one who said that there was no other possible cause for the universe than God. Well, then, prove it, or else admit that there are other possibilities, and that the universe was not necessarily made by God.

If you have no explanation, then you cannot claim it's "not open to question." You're simply demanding that I accept the existence of the universe itself is a question-begging fallacy.

Sure I can. Reread what I said again.
“The universe is here. That is not open to question.”
If you disagree with me, you are claiming that it is not certain that the universe exists.
I trust we agree that the universe does exist?
Right. Moving on from there: the universe exists, yes. But why? I don’t know. You seem to find this perfectly commonplace thing curious, wrong, and even enraging. I don’t know why. What is so strange about saying that? I don’t know why the universe exists. Should I pretend I do? Should I accept an answer that has no reason to be believed? Should I make up an answer?
Or should I, like a mature and sensible person, just admit that I don’t know everything?

"Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan

You’ve misunderstood what Sagan said. Read what you quoted again, and you’ll see that he was saying that it is foolish to believe something simply because it has not been proved untrue.

A simple admission of ignorance cannot be forced on anyone else. It's just an admission of ignorance. An admission of ignorance is never a substitute for THE actual answer.

You’re the one who said you should never say “I don’t know”. I trust you see the mistake now and that there are times a person should say “I don’t know” because, well, they don’t know.

I admit to not knowing, but that doesn't mean that the statement, "I don't know" means that is THE final answer to your questions. It doesn't change your actual hair color to an indeterminate. It doesn't mean there is no determinate translation (or equivalent) in Ancient Egyptian. It doesn't mean an actual dice result will never been seen again. It doesn't mean no one will ever find out if it will rain tomorrow! <-- And one's incredulous will to the contrary sure as hell has nothing to do with it!

Please don’t swear.
And no, “I don’t know” doesn’t means it is the final answer. Why would it? Maybe we will one day learn the cause of the universe. But until we do, why shouldn’t I admit that I don’t know? You really seem to have something of a fixation about this. I’ll add this to the list of things I don’t kniw the reason for.

It's rather intellectually lazy to not be intellectually curious. It's one of the most child-like things there is. So you're demanding that intellectual inquiry stop at, "I don't know." That's intellectual suicide. Why be a quitter? Why give up? Oh riiiight, because forced ignorance protects your precious atheism.

But you’re wrong. I’m very intellectually curious. I’d love to know where the universe came from. I think that cosmologists have some fascinating theories on the topic. I’d be delighted if we one day found out. But I don’t know yet, so why should I say that I do?

That reason begins at law of causality (a fundamental law of reason). The reason begins at the axioms of reason itself. If you reject that, then you reject reason.

That’s not how it works.
First, we’re not certain if the law of causality operates outside the universe. All our knowledge of how it works is from inside the universe.
Second, granting that there was a cause to the universe, I’m just saying we don’t yet know what it was.

It's actually very significant if an argument stands objectively unrefuted. That's how debate works. "Teapot" is an empirical claim, while "God" is not an empirical claim. <-- The distinction is real.

Sure it is. It’s a real distinction, but not an important one.
Tell me: do you think I should believe that God exists just because He has never been proved not to exist?
No?
Then the teapot analogy works perfectly.

The definition of terms is always necessary before proof can even be demonstrated. I agree with igtheists and ignostics. They are correct on one highly relevant detail you are missing here--the definition of "God." I only define "God" as an omnipotent being. Not, "The God of the Bible," because I'm not a presuppositionalist. The Bible is Special Revelation; not General Revelation in nature. Your definition of "god" or "god(s)" doesn't count here, because I'm accepting the burden of proof. So in the end, it's first definition of terms in the claim; then prove the claim.
Therefore, I've not only accepted that I have to define "God," but have already done so.

Really? I hadn’t noticed you defining God.
And honestly, you don’t really have to. “Omnipotent superbeing” would do nicely just for a start. Once you have shown that such an entity exists and can be identified as the God of the Bible, we can discuss the fine points of His character.

Self-evident truth is never meant to impress. It's often very mundane. It's one of those, "hiding in plain sight" situations.

Hiding so well it can’t be seen, I’m afraid. In which case, we’re justified in asking if it was ever there in the first place.
Since you can’t look outside the universe, you can’t examine the universe from the outside.

It would take a literal eternity to exhaustively know an omnipresent being that exists from eternity past. The point is that one can know there's a tree growing in the front yard without having to exhaustively know and personally experience every-single plant cell and atom. Therefore, one can know that God exists without an exhaustive and eternal personal experience.

You know there’s a tree growing in the yard. If I doubt you, you can offer evidence. Photos. Videos. Take me and show me. Can you do that with God? No.

^ Quotemining. At the same time he said it wasn't entirely un-serious either. Full sentence reads as: "Of course, this is not an entirely serious conjecture, but it is not entirely unserious either. It isn’t obvious to me that there is something wrong with Bostrom’s simulation argument."

Except that when he said "it's not an entirely serious conjecture" it lost all authority. Why would we want to listen to a conjecture, especially one that was not entirely serious? If half serious worth paying attention to?
Please don't bother me with anything except actually serious arguments. If, I feel constrained to add, you have any, as opposed to arguments made with great seriousness.
And of course there's something's wrong with Bostrom's argument. It’s not the maths that lets you down, it’s the pure speculation that follows on from it. Who knows what will happen in the future? Maybe an asteroid will hit the Earth tomorrow, and there’ll be no more human species. Saying that it is certain that we are characters in a computer simulation is an interesting thought experiment, but it’s not a serious argument.
Also, it’s worth pointing out: this is not an argument for God’s existence, it’s an argument for us being computer-generated characters who think we’re real. So why bring it up? I honestly can’t see how you take this argument seriously, or why you’d expect me to.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

And now, back to the subject of slavery, and whether or not the Bible is in favour of it:

1. You have no reason to blithely dismiss it. [the love that Paul held for Onesimus]
2. The love relates directly to the narrative in that (a.) God is not a respecter of persons, and (b.) all converts are equal family members subordinate only to God; the earthly class conflict no longer matters.

If you think that it makes a significant difference whether Paul loved Onesimus like a brother or just as a friend, you will have to explain why. The salient point is this: he sent a slave back to his master.
Despite the quote from Galatians, Paul was not abolishing slavery; he was (and I really have to stress, this was a very different thing) talking about whether a Christian should or should be not be circumcised.

No, he sent a brother in Christ back to a brother, "no longer a slave." - Philemon 1:16

Read some context around that little phrase, and see what Paul is actually saying:
11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.
12 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you.
13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel.
14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary.
15 Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever—
16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.
17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.
Paul is not freeing Onesimus. How could he? Onesimus does not belong to Paul. By the laws, Paul has no power to emancipate him. He could, of course, declare that a law that enslaves another human being is an immoral law and not binding, but he does no such thing – a fatal blow to anyone who thinks that Paul is anti-slavery, as that is exactly what anyone who was truly anti-slavery would have done.
No, look at what he is actually saying: he entreats Onesimus’ master to forgive him and welcome him back, and to set him free. That is why he is asking Philemon a favour, out of the love that is between them.
If Paul does want Onesimus to be freed, it is not because Onesimus is a slave and Paul hates slavery; it is because Onesimus is a friend, and Paul wants to help him. But he knows that the right thing to do is to send him back to his master, and appeal to his master to free him.

You're redundantly repeating yourself ad nauseum while literally cherry-picking key verses relevant to the debate.

You quoted a fragment of a sentence. I put it in context to show that it meant the opposite of what you thought. Paul did not free Onesimus. He asked Onesiumus’ master to free him.

If he sent a runaway slave back to his master, then he would be violating Deuteronomy 23:15-16. But he reminded them both of their actual class status as equals. Again, it clearly says, "no longer a slave." - Philemon 1:16 On his apostolic authority granted to him by the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul abolished the slave relationship between these two individuals. "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."- John 8:36

Since I’ve already explained to you that Deuteronomy 23: 15-16 does not apply, your argument fails. And Paul isn’t the Son, so it doesn't apply.

Where are shrine prostitutes in the army camp (verse 17)? All chapter and verse divisions are later interpolations. You're inferring that "enemy" POWs are automatically processed as "slaves" in your head. Moreover, you've teleported from a camp on the battlefield to "whatever town they choose" among you. Verses 15 and 16 do not apply exclusively to the battlefield. "Towns" were not established until after the occupation of Israel, and refer to local towns among the 12 tribes.

I’m not saying that all verses in this section are directly connected to the practice of waging war. But since the verse about escaped slaves is directly attached to the verse about how to manage a camp while waging war, it makes sense that it should be referring to escaped or fugitive slaves from the enemy. I’m not sure what POWs you’re talking about. It’s simply referring to slaves who are in the enemy camp, and who take the opportunity to desert.
The Israelites were a slaveholding culture. It simply wouldn’t make sense for them to keep slaves but also have a rule saying that slaves could not be recaptured. But slaves escaping from the enemy would be an entirely different matter; of course they would be happy to see their enemies weakened and see no reason to assist them in recovering their human property.

Pagan slave laws don't apply to Hebrews. And pagan slaves are not enemy soldiers. The class distinctions are obvious here. Again, I clearly stated, "Why would enemy slaves get an exemption exclusive only to foreigners, but not a native-born Hebrew?" Referring to the enemy slaves over native-born Hebrew slaves. Answer: They don't, because there's one law.

I’ve already explained your “one law” mistake. It’s only talking about when a stranger is visiting you. And why there would be one law for slaves escaping from the enemies you’re waging war against, and another for the slaves belonging to you is perfectly obvious.

Eisegetical interpretation and cherry-picking is outright violation of the context. Your "context" is imaginary and depends on deliberate omission of keywords in-order to sustain your bias.

Strange that the Biblical commentaries agree with me, then. In point of fact, it’s you who’s cherry-picking, to support your worldview that the Bible is anti-slavery, whereas in fact it’s entirely pro-slavery.

We've already established you threw MLK under the bus. No need to repeat yourself.

Who’s throwing MLK under the bus? I have the greatest respect for him. If he could fool people into thinking that a pro-slavery source like the Bible argues for civil rights, good for him. If he actually believed what he said then he was in error about the Bible – but again, why should I care about that? If he thought the Bible was anti-slavery, then he was a more moral person than whoever wrote the Bible.

If he's pro-slavery, then it's certain he's also pro-3/5ths rule.

The 3/5 rule was a political convenience. I’m sure that Pastor Warren, if you had asked him, would have said that he valued the souls of slaves just as much as white men and women, as children of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

- You have zero citations of anyone "praising" human-on-human slavery in the Biblical text.

Sure I do. Here you are:

Colossians 4:1

Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

Leviticus 25:44-46

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Exodus 21:20-21

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

1 Peter 2:18

Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.

Titus 2:9-10

Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

Exodus 21:1-36

“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ ...

1 Timothy 6:1-2

Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these things.

Colossians 3:22

Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

Ephesians 6:5-8

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.

Leviticus 25:44

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

Genesis 9:25

He said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”

Exodus 21:18-21

“When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed. “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Exodus 21:4

If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone.

Deuteronomy 15:16-17

But if he says to you, ‘I will not go out from you,’ because he loves you and your household, since he is well-off with you, then you shall take an awl, and put it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your slave forever. And to your female slave you shall do the same.

Deuteronomy 20:14

But the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.

Exodus 21:6

Then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

- Jesus subverts slavery in Matthew 20:25-27.
But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—
Again, mutual voluntary submission among each other equally.

“Among you.” Jesus was talking to his disciples. He wasn’t saying that all class systems should be abolished, and nobody took him to mean that.

Believers are commanded to give up that dynamic among themselves; not overthrow Roman slavery. Believers are commanded to give up concubines and temple prostitutes; not overthrow Roman temples. Believers are commanded to adhere to just weights and measures in the marketplace; not impose a new standard for Rome. Believers are commanded to love one another, and not force Rome to love one another.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong. Jesus and Paul were quite clear on this, and quite clear about which they thought were which. If they had thought slavery was wrong, we can be sure that they would have said so, just as they did about every other thing they considered to be immoral. But they didn’t, when they easily could have; they spoke of slavery either in neutral terms or favourably.

This really isn’t difficult. It just seems difficult because you don’t want to admit that the Bible is pro-slavery.

I don't have to "think about it" according to your eisegetical confirmation bias.

Quite simply, the only bias is yours. You’re the one who’s taking isolated verses out of context and twisting them to fit the view that the Bible is anti-slavery, contradicting the plain fact that the Israelites were a slaveholding people, and the bible both told them to be so and how to be so.
Take a moment to think about the topic of slavery and my point of view. You seem to imagine that I want the Bible to be a pro-slavery book. Why would I? If Christianity were the most wonderful, kind, beneficial system of thought imaginable, it wouldn’t make a scrap of difference to the fact that I don’t believe it’s true. Whether or not the bible os pro-slavery, neutral on the subject or anti-slavery does not concern me at all. All I’m interested in is the truth. And the truth is, when the Bible says anything about slavery, it is endorsing it, and when the Bible has the opportunity to denounce slavery, it is silent on the subject.

You're reading into it. "Do the same to them also," does not mean "Do the same to them, but by that I mean treat them like slaves and not literal brothers." This isn't "code" for oppression.

No; it’s not code for oppression; it’s an entreaty to treat others well. Paul believed that slaves had a duty to serve their masters well, and that masters had a duty to rule over their slaves justly. Part of that would, of course, be to punish rebellious or unruly or disobedient slaves, but Paul is asking them to be fair in doing so; to be good masters.
If he were saying that slavery should be abolished then, quite simply, he would not have told slaves to serve their masters faithfully.

There is no threat of punishment. Thus, "slavery in name only."

Don’t threaten them and don’t punish them unfairly and capriciously; but of course, Paul is saying that it is a master’s right and duty to punish a slave justly.
Think about what Paul said. He said “slaves, obey your masters and serve them wholeheartedly, because God rewards anyone who does good.” Then he tells masters to do the same. When he says the same, he is referring to the latter part of what he just said – “be good people.”
If he had actually wished to abolish slavery, he would have told slaves to be good to your masters, and masters to be good to your slaves. But he didn’t. He specifically told slaves to obey their masters. How can they do that if they’re not slaves?
And while we’re on the subject, what about this?

1 Timothy 6:1-2
Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these things.
Interesting. Here, Paul is saying that slaves should serve their masters faithfully, because that pleases God. Some peope might think that because a master is a Christian the slave should not have to obey him, or the master should not command. But Paul says, no – if you are a Christian slave who has a Christian master, you should serve him all the more faithfully.

And here:

Colossians 3:22-24
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.
In other words, work hard and be good slaves, not rebellious, but devoted servants. By being a good slave, you win favour from Jesus.

You're equivocating institutional "slavery" with individual slavery. Paul's telling everyone to be obedient to one another as to Christ. Thus, it's equal. Hey, actually read the book, and see what it says. Take it on its own terms.

I have read the book, and I have seen what it says. No, Paul is not telling everyone to be obedient to one another as to Christ. If he were, he would have said that. He’s telling a class of people, slaves, to be obedient to another class of people, their masters. Far from abolishing slavery, Paul is propping it up, and trying to make it work justly and fairly. He doesn’t have a problem with “good” slavery, just with capricious slavery. You and I might agree that there is no such thing as slavery, but Paul was living in a different time and thought differently.

And when it says, "no longer as a slave," why not just accept that this is exactly what it meant.

Because that is a fragment of a larger context, which has a different meaning when read in context. Don't cherrypick.

 

[Lion IRC]

...the dying are going to a place of infinite wonders, and if they'e going to go there too, then why mourn for them?

Um...I don't mourn for the person who has died.
I mourn for myself and we who remain.

Whats the argument here?
That Christians don't miss their loved ones? That separation doesn't hurt Christians?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Um...I don't mourn for the person who has died.
I mourn for myself and we who remain.

You don't mourn the person who has died? Well, that's up to you, of course, but I have to tell you, most people do. Most people are sad that a person they love has died because now that person is not alive any more.

This is right and proper, because the fact that a person has ceased to exist is a sad thing. Except that according to Christians, the person has not ceased to exist; they are still alive, in a different and better form, in Heaven, and incredibly happy.

So why are Christians sad at funerals?

 

[Lion IRC]

You don't mourn the person who has died?

I said...I mourn for myself and we who remain.
Why do you doubt me?

So why are Christians sad at funerals?

Separation from a loved one.
Surely, you can see this irrespective of secular or religious existential context.

I would argue that the biblical theist is LESS sad at a funeral than the atheist/nihilist.