Thread 17924522

According to the Bible, God allowed and tolerated slavery, something inexcusable today, which means religion is not objectively moral
>but it was normal for the time
God violated other societal norms before, there was nothing stopping him from violating the norm of slavery. He destroyed entire civilizations (flooding the world, Sodom and Gomorrah) for following norms he did not like. He violated the Egyptian norms of slavery to save the Hebrews, but only the Hebrews, the non-Hebrew slaves were basically sacrificed during his plagues (hail and lightning kill other slaves who were forced to work, even though God specifically said he can control his plagues to not target specific people). If God "bends the knee" to societal norms he is not objectively moral, he is a cultural relativist.

>>17924522 (OP)
This is why Plato warns to not believe in the capricious, volatile and anthropomorphic deities of myth.

Enjoy.

>>17924522 (OP)
>God violated other societal norms before, there was nothing stopping him from violating the norm of slavery.
Yeah it's weird how people claim the point of the Law of Moses was meant to create a moral society by abolishing idolatry, having the ten commandments etc., even if the people would inevitably fail to keep the law, yet abolishing slavery would just be too far somehow.

>>17924522 (OP)
Christians are massive moral relativists when it comes to the things most people today find inexcusable, like slavery, pedophilia, etc.

>>17924522 (OP)
Its funny how reading the Bible shows you all kinds of wild stories and tales that the preacher man will never talk about on Sunday

>>17925043
i look like that

>>17924522 (OP)
>God allowed and tolerated slavery, something inexcusable today, which means religion is not objectively moral
>objective morality cannot exist if it contradicts our cultural moral standards

>>17925249
So then you're admitting slavery, objectively speaking, is not bad

Modern Christianity folks

>>17925249
Morality is subjective with the concept of a creator, because his subjective opinion is what decides what is and what isn't moral.

>>17924522 (OP)
God changes His relationship with man over time, but does not change what He desires from man
There were times when warfare and slavery as a lifestyle were necessary to the sinful life that man found himself bound to. Over time, through reflection and revelation, man was able to overcome those conditions.
I believe the moral and scientific revelations from God are what made all this possible, as realizations do not appear out of thin air, but are a process of communing with the divine.
The atheist would have you believe this all came from randomness and unseen processes, but that view in itself goes against the foundation of science in that you need a testable theory in order to make a claim; therefor if you don't have a detailed theory you are not making a scientific claim.
So while atheists claim that science is on their side in matters of divine revelation, they are in fact not, because they believe in unexplained brain magic as the cause of how we come up with revelations about the natural world.

>>17925463
>God changes
>There were times when warfare and slavery was necessary
God could have either destroyed societies that saw those as necessary or created a world where they aren't necessary

This is the "God is a cultural relativist" argument again. By your logic God is subject to the whims of human society, he bends the knee to us and changes his rules and morality based on our norms, we don't bend the knee to him. That also heavily suggests God, as a concept, is entirely socially constructed

>>17925249
I say this and wear this shirt.

>>17925467
it is not you who decides how God acts
He can do any number of things but does not, because He is the one in charge, not you
And He has destroyed societies that were wicked, ever hear of Rome? They were in direct conflict and oppressing both Christians and Israelites, and were destroyed.
>"God is a cultural relativist" argument again
nope, it is a God is a being that makes covenants with people. He has made new covenants over time according to scripture.
>God is subject to the whims of human society
Not whims, but massive spiritual movements and developments over time. He chooses to wait for the participation of people through their own free will rather than giving them no choice.
Justice comes when a people have become wicked with no chance at redemption.

But all of this responding to you is completely useless as you took my paragraph and twisted it into the most bad faith version of the argument that you could come up with.
Good luck have fun with hating God

>>17925498
>He has destroyed societies that were wicked, ever hear of Rome? They were in direct conflict and oppressing both Christians and Israelites, and were destroyed.
Strange how he specifically waited until they converted to Christianity to then punish them specifically by bringing in non-Christian barbarians, ain't it?

>>17925463
>There were times when warfare and slavery as a lifestyle were necessary to the sinful life that man found himself bound to.
In the Torah God demands that at the end of every 50 year period, the Israelites go two consecutive years without farming. Normally this would result in a lot of starvation, but God promises that before each of these breaks he'll give them enough crops for three years.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025&version=NRSVUE

So God would routinely intervene to overcome practical considerations that might get in the way of the Israelites carrying out his will. That wasn't a one-time miracle, but a regular commitment. Given that context, how can you say slavery was necessary? Growing crops every year was supposedly necessary, but according to the Bible, God intervened to make it unnecessary. So why wouldn't he outlaw slavery and, if keeping that law made it impossible for Israelite society to function, intervene so that it didn't?

>>17925498
>He can do any number of things but does not, because He is the one in charge, not you
You're not really making him sound good.

>>17925564
Kek, another hilarious instance of the incongruent lunacy that happens when you take an oogabooga tribal bronze age religion where their god is actively rewarding or punishing his people in this world according to their ritual compliance and tack on some fanfic about universalism and eternal judgement in the afterlife.

>>17925460
>Physical laws are subjective with the concept of a creator, because his subjective opinions is what decides what is and what isn't moral

>>17925597
Obviously yes, because he can arbitrarily decide to make a man walk on water and such.

>>17925601
So nothing is objective with an ultimate arbiter? Interesting view point.

>>17925603
How can anything be objective if there's an entity which can do anything and changes the rules of the game freely at will?

>>17925604
If God is at the ground of all being, then everything is objective when it involves him by default.

>>17925576
>You're not really making him sound good.
Im not a salesman, and He is not a product.
You either obey the Lord and live under His rule, or obey sin and live under its tyranny.
Try both and see which causes you the most suffering

>>17925607
How can anything that is determined by an entity's subjective viewpoint be objective? He says morality works as X, but then changes his opinion later. He supposedly makes man sink into water, except when he doesn't. There is no consistency possible in the world when it is liable to take whatever form is decided by a will from moment to moment.

>>17925617
>How can anything that is determined by an entity's subjective viewpoint be objective?
Pluralism is a midwit trap. The seed produces a tree every single time.

>>17925620
>The seed produces a tree every single time.
So you don't believe that there's an omnipotent god who can make the seed not produce a tree if he chooses to, and you do not believe that he has in fact done similar actions through miracles that break established patterns?

>>17925624
It is not subjective is my point. Your drivel is just that: Mindless ranting and ravings.

>>17925624
I'm not him but are you actually THAT soulless and dim that you cannot understand that expression.

>>17925631
>>17925634
You can't believe that the see will always produce a tree if you believe in an active, interventionist entity which is able to make the seed not produce a tree. These are mutually exclusive beliefs. You can have determinism, or you can have bendable rules, but not both. Take your pick.

>>17925639
What's the point in even writing to someone like you? You can't even understand a simple analogy.

>>17925651
And you can't hold a logically consistent position free from contradicting parallels, yet I talk to you all the same. We're not so different, you and I.

God exists outside of time and can access any part of creation. If His will was for something to be different, He could change the material world at the outset of the universe and it would become the new state of reality.

>>17925653
Funny for you to talk about logic or knowledge even considering the materialist paradigm cannot account for it.

>>17924522 (OP)
Only a cucked new age “male” has an issue with this. You are definition of being a brainwashed NPC.

>>17925671
Logic is independent of worldview because it pertains to axiomatic systems of relations between abstractions. All you need is to look at the rules within any specific logic system. Also no one but ancient Greeks is a "materialist" gramps it's called physicalism get with the times. Matter is just certain configurations of fermions, which isn't all that exists.

The only excuse I buy is the old testament is a sordid historical account with actual prophecy sprinkled in.

>>17924522 (OP)
Here's the take of a man who schizo flipflops between pretending to be Catholic and actually being Catholic every couple of years. There is a law in Exodus that says anyone who hunts down and captures someone into bondage should be put to death. The following this is a horrible excuse I see some use but it could be valid, slavery in Christ's time was more like indentured servitude, which is still fucked up but some people would figure "well all they have to sell is their labor". Somewhere in Timothy Paul compares slave traders to murderers and pedos. Christian teaching and sensibilities funny enough helped lead to the abolition of slavery in the west. Look up "slave Bibles". Alleged Christians were very aware of the fact that people could draw a logical conclusion from the Bible that "hey, slavery bad". . So maybe the brook still ended up being some sort of moral guide. At the end of the day it's a book with a bunch of desperate teachings written over a thousand years with constant translation. Biblical inerrancy is a little crazy as a concept

>>17925721
wtf you can't just answer as a human being you need to pretend to be a detached ego with perfect consistency binding your every belief thought and action

>>17925721
thanks, I was looking for the word "indenture" in this thread.
"Slavery" is a mediaeval word, when megastates like the 'Abbasid Caliphate were able to capture large populations as chattel (there and then, Slavs). This existed in ancient times also, with Egypt and Assyria - but those slaves tended to be the property of the Pharaoh. There wasn't really a slave *trade* until the Greeks, Romans, and Sasanid Persians get going.
The Bible was written by and for a people who flat couldn't afford to run large plantations. Their Phoenician (pagan) kin maybe could but they weren't contributing much to the Bible, obviously. So what the Bible discusses is the 'obed system ('abd in Arabic) - which is, yes, indenture. Those servants had rights.
Hunting, capturing, and selling freemen to the Greeks was shit Phoenicians did, not Hebrews.

>>17925678
Then where does truth, morality, logic and other things like those come from?

>>17925799
From our minds, they're abstract ideas.

>>17924903
You are freaking out eh?

>>17925820
Those things exist independent of minds.

>>17925721
Then why didn't God rescue the non-Hebrew Egyptian slaves? He literally just lets them all die from hail and lightning, even though they're slaves who were forced to work in the fields against their own will.

If God was "truly good" and Christianity truly opposed slavery, God could have easily just teleported all the non-Hebrew slaves to a place of refuge. But the Bible explicitly mentions the slaves who were forced to work for the Egyptians and weren't Hebrews died from his plagues, even though he literally says "yeah I can control my plagues to target whoever I feel like"

>God
>Has Omnipotence
>He can do in the most literal sense anything

>Some how, he can't prevent a bunch of monkeys of slaving each other

>>17925030
Christianity is not a moral religion. Only midwits think that. It’s about transcending to a form of consciousness where the fruits of morality is already built in and self-evident. You atheists have been fighting your own created Christian strawmen like fools since your derangement began. Thats why people laugh at you, you think you’re smart but you don’t even understand that which you attempt to critique.

>>17924522 (OP)
>According to the Bible,
Stopped reading here. Never trust anything written by jews.

>>17924522 (OP)
>According to the Bible
Liberum examen is an heresy.
You "protestant" pagans will burn in Hell.

>>17926683
Jesus forgives evil. That's the whole point of christianity.

>>17926683
Are you stupid?
Of course there's morality in Christianity, the whole point is be morally good by following the teachings to get into Heaven!

Go read your the scriptures