Why do Christians defend the immorality of the Christian god as depicted in the Bible ?

TKDB

@mickyg

"if a criminal is caught do you execute or rehabilitate?"

That's not my place to say.

But I see how you're using the internet to teach people how you view Jesus?

MayCaesar

@TKDB

I do not judge anyone. People do what they do because of their nature, and I cannot change that nature no matter how I try.

I am talking about the practical effects of religious dictate versus individual random actions.

Have you heard of the Siege of Jerusalem? A clash of two major religions put two large armies against each other, and people started killing. They had little individual stake in the war: few of them lived in Jerusalem or had anything to gain from its capture, and even those who did obviously would do much better to simply leave the city and move somewhere else, than die to someone's sword in its defence.
So why did that happen then? Why did people start killing each other, knowing that, even if they win, they personally will not gain anything from this victory?
Because they believed that they served the will of God, different God on each side. Because the churches convinced them that this was the reward, and that it was much more important than any material rewards they could gain in real life.

However many violent criminals there are on the streets of New York City, I have never heard of them sieging another city. Whether what they do is immoral is a rhetorical and irrelevant question, but the fact is that their actions do not have the same level of impact on the world as religious wars did.

You always try to object to my arguments by stating that what these people do is immoral. Do understand that morality of actions is not at all what my argument is about. I will leave the moral judgment to those who are interested in doing that; I am talking about raw practical consequences instead.

TKDB

@MayCaesar

You're wasting your time,  via the internet, of trying to to get whomever you can convince, with your individual anti religious mindset, to mindfully see things, via your anti religious way of thinking.

I view the murderers, the rapists, the mass shooters, and the rest of criminals, and the offenders, based on how they've victimized their victims, and how they victimized the victims families, and the publics safety at the same time.

And no anti religious minded individual is going to convince me that those modern day crimes, or the actions of those individual humans during the times of their Crusades, committed their actions, on their own behalf's, and nothing more.

As I said before, man has been killing man, before God, Jesus, or religion in general, ever showed up, and became a scapegoat for the anti religious to mindfully engineer their anti religious rhetoric off of today.

This is, but the internet, and I'm being educated on how you like to wield your verbal sword on the internet as well.

MayCaesar

@TKDB

What I am trying to say is that religion is a great instrument to funnel people's inherent savage characteristics and get them to do nasty things in an organised matter. That religion is not required for it is a given, but it can serve as an instrument. And, given that it is an ideology, it can (and does) become more than a wielded instrument; it becomes an instrument that wields its followers, getting them to do things they otherwise would be unlikely to do.

You can put responsibility on whoever you want, but the fact is that without Christianity and Islam there would be no Crusades. There could be something different, and I do not think the ideological vacuum would persist. Humanity is always a master at finding cruel ideologies to follow.

But have you ever heard the line of defence, "If I had not done it, someone else would have", succeed in the court? Just because Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. are not the necessary conditions for atrocities to happen, does not mean they cannot contribute to those atrocities. And they do.

I am not anti-religious, I am anti-irrational. I dislike all views that are based on fantasies rather than logic. Religion might be an especially important topic to you as a religious person, but to me it is simply one of the multitude of ideological categories all of which harm the world as a whole. And all of which, sadly, are a product of our nature and, hence, one or the other way, are inevitable.

TKDB

@MayCaesar

"What I am trying to say is that religion is a great instrument to funnel people's inherent savage characteristics and get them to do nasty things in an organised matter."

Do you blame, rape or abortion, on humanity, or on Religion?

What Religion teaches rape or abortion? 

When an illegal alien, or immigrant, kills, or sexually assaults an innocent victim, do you blame their actions on them, or on Religion?

What Religion, teaches sexual assault, or murder? 

When a parent teaches, their kid how to use illegal drugs, do you blame their actions on them, or on Religion? 

What Religion, instructs a parent, in,how to teach their kid, or kids in how to use illegal drugs? 

Im pro religious, pro athiest, pro theist, pro family, and pro public, but when people want to victimize innocent people, and then others want to blame their actions on Religion, that's an outright mentality scam.

Again, you're wasting your time, by using Religion, to give your individual mindset a platform, especially by using the internet as well.

mickyg

and you are using internet to run........when are you going to show proof of authourship of any gospel?@TKDB

mickyg

CHRISTIANITY has a long history of doing evil things.....starting in 310ad until 1945ad christians have been murdering ..robbing..persecuting jews...to appease world history the christian dominated UN voted to give arab land to the jews...The Jews are quiet about this but the arabs are not happy... @TKDB

TKDB

@mickyg

Run from who, you?

You're about as scary as a roll of toilet paper.

TKDB

@mickyg

What are an you, an Arab? 

MayCaesar

@TKDB

I do not "blame" anything or anyone. When someone commits an atrocity, they assume full responsibility for their actions, whatever ideology guided them. The crimes of KGB in Soviet Union were the fault of the KGB agents, irregardless of them being justified by the needs of building communism, or of them being conditioned by their KGB instructors to commit them.

You are too focused on the question of blaming people. I am not talking about that at all, and I am surprised that you do not realise it even after me explicitly pointing it out many times.

When Saladin conquers cities, taking away the property of everyone inside, he is solely responsible for everything he does. He, however, probably would not do it (or would do it differently) if he was not under influence of a totalitarian ideology.

I am not saying that religion is "to blame", or that people cannot commit atrocities without being religious. I am saying that religion is one of the main incubators of such atrocities, however - in a very organised and efficient way, for that matter. Christianity or Islam are just as fertile the grounds for mass atrocities, as, say, fascism or communism. Each of these ideologies led to crimes against humanity that nothing among what you have mentioned can come close to.

You keep complaining about illegal aliens coming from the southern border? Well, imagine them forming a large army, taking up swords and shields and marching over your territory, razing everything and killing and forcing themselves on everything on sight that even remotely looks like a living being - and you will get the product of religion.

TKDB

@MayCaesar

No, maybe the below might be viewed as a preemptive act of war?

"You keep complaining about illegal aliens coming from the southern border?
Well, imagine them forming a large army, taking up swords and shields and marching over your territory, razing everything and killing and forcing themselves on everything on sight that even remotely looks like a living being - and you will get the product of religion."

And you're giving Religion way to much lip service, when it comes to how you individually visualize your acts of destructive fantasies? 

And I'm sticking to my previous talking points, in regards to your previous statements:

"What I am trying to say is that religion is a great instrument to funnel people's inherent savage characteristics and get them to do nasty things in an organised matter."

Do you blame, rape or abortion, on humanity, or on Religion?

What Religion teaches rape or abortion? 

When an illegal alien, or immigrant, kills, or sexually assaults an innocent victim, do you blame their actions on them, or on Religion?

What Religion, teaches sexual assault, or murder? 

When a parent teaches, their kid how to use illegal drugs, do you blame their actions on them, or on Religion? 

What Religion, instructs a parent, in,how to teach their kid, or kids in how to use illegal drugs? 

Im pro religious, pro athiest, pro theist, pro family, and pro public, but when people want to victimize innocent people, and then others want to blame their actions on Religion, that's an outright mentality scam.

Again, you're wasting your time, by using Religion, to give your individual mindset a platform, especially by using the internet as well. 

mickyg

no..its worse ...i am self aware something a christian can't grasp.

what if i was arab.....what would that have to do with anything?
racist twat
@TKDB

BrandyKnight

 The amount of hate from people who don't believe in God for the people who do still surprises me no matter how often everyday I see it. 
  The answer here is actually simple. People don't like simple, though, they like complicated arguments that ultimately lead nowhere. The bottom line is that if you believe in God, then you know that he cannot be immoral, nor can his actions be because he created everything and that includes his own moral code. What God says is always moral. He can kill who he wants, and has. He can protect who He wants, and has.  It does not matter what humans think and He certainly does not care about any human opinion either way. Faith cannot be taught nor can it be understood by those who don't have it. There is no sense in attempting to argue it. 
  On the flip side, even though scientists and non believers still try to sell, creation any other way has not been proven either. There are ideas and hypotheses. There are some supporting elements, but just like Creationists can't firmly prove there is a God, scientists can prove there isn't. With that being said, neither side has enough support to judge the other side or determine them to be ignorant in any way. Only 16% of the world does not believe in some type of higher power. By no means is that a majority that has bought into scientific creation. 
 I personally can listen to both sides and understand the thought process from each. The arguments are very good, but the personal attacks from both sides  are ignorant. Hate is definitely not necessary. 
  

ethang5

@BrandyKnight

Very good post.

The emotion behind their hate is fear.

For a militant atheist to come to religion board and rant and insult strangers is weird.

When you ask them, "Why are you here?"

They say illogically, "I have a right to be here. Are only theists supposed to be here?"

But the question did not say or imply that the atheist should not be here, the question is WHY are you here?

If you hate religion, do not believe God exists, think Christians are and deluded, WHY ARE YOU HERE?

Who seeks out people they claim they don't like and spends hours everyday with them?

The hate is not necessary, but it is all they have. Fear powered hate.

IdolRocks

@Joeseph

Numbers 31

https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=763

http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html

https://carm.org/why-were-only-virgins-left-alive-among-midianites

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/why-would-god-order-destruction-women-and-children

IdolRocks

@keithprosser ;https://www.gotquestions.org/God-different.html@Joeseph

My reply ......I’ve never ordered the slaughter of women and children so I’m vastly morally superior to the Christian god 

According to what standard is that even wrong to begin with? God created them, so He can get rid of them if He chooses to.

IdolRocks

@ethang5

https://carm.org/why-were-only-virgins-left-alive-among-midianites

https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/why-would-god-order-destruction-women-and-children

IdolRocks

@Joeseph ; My reply ..... Hiltler was a Catholic Yeah, he may have considered himself to be one and never renounced his Catholicism, but nothing that he did shows that he was a Catholic. His actions are not consistent with Christianity in the slightest bit.  @Joeseph

IdolRocks

@Joeseph ;My reply .....Atheism is not a “ religion “ and Stalinist or Mao never aske€ people to kill I;the name of Atheism 

They didn't have to. 

https://creation.com/violence-and-bloodshed-religion-of-atheism

IdolRocks

@Joeseph My reply ..... I didn’t , but hey you’re a Christian so lying comes easy to you 

That is a really interesting comment. 

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-lying-sin.html

https://answersingenesis.org/morality/a-righteous-lie/

https://www.openbible.info/topics/lying

IdolRocks

@Joeseph ;My Reply ..... They hold fine , really ? So you’re justifying the slaughter of women and children 

Yes they do, considering the fact that you have no basis or authority other than your opinion to even say that anything God does is wrong. All you can do is give your opinion. You have no Objective, Unchanging, Absolute Standard to say that He is wrong. 

https://answersingenesis.org/morality/the-source-of-moral-absolutes/

IdolRocks

@Joeseph

And according to what standard are any of those things wrong, other than it simply being your opinion?? 

Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?

IdolRocks

@Joeseph ;

I am not going to give responses to every single o
ne. I will respond to certain ones and then respond to the others at a different time. 

God intentionally killed every man, woman, and child on the planet except for eight people in the great flood.  (Genesis 7:23)

Which He is allowed to do and is completely justified in doing so. 

https://www.gotquestions.org/flood-just.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-violence.html

God punishes children for the sins of their fathers, unto the third and fourth generations.  Punishing a child for the sins of their ancestors is not very just. (Exodus 20:5 & 34:7)

Aside from the fact, that you have no authority or basis to declare that anything is Just or not Just, as an Atheist, you are still simply only giving your opinion. 

This is one of those so-called contradictions that has already been answered, (over and over again).

https://www.rationalchristianity.net/punish_sons.html

https://www.rationalchristianity.net/punish_sons.html

https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1378



Genesis

You can search on this website for each of the verses that you mention and you can see the response. 

http://www.biblequery.org/gen.html

Exodus 12:29

http://www.biblequery.org/ex.html

Following this, I will continue to respond to each of these .

IdolRocks

@Joeseph ;

God endorses slavery. He even set up laws as to how slavery was to be carried out, and goes as far as Okaying beating them.  (Exodus 21:2-6)

This is probably the most cited verse that is so often taken out of context. The simple fact of the matter is there have been many responses to this over and over again, and one takes the time to read the verse, and not take it out of context, it does not say what Skeptics try to make it say. It just doesn't.

https://www.revelation.co/2013/06/09/bible-says-its-okay-to-beat-your-slave-as-long-as-they-dont-die-exodus-2120-21/

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/feedback-does-bible-encourage-masters-beat-their-slaves/

God sanctioned the selling of ones daughter.  How can any being tell another to literally sell their child into slavery?  Disgusting!  (Exodus 21:7)

You first have to provide an Objective Basis for why that is even wrong to begin with? It cannot just be your opinion? After all, what makes your opinion right and not someone else's?

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Just search for this verse in this link: Exodus 21:7

God orders the death of witches, sorceresses and anyone who practices magic.  Sadly enough, this verse was justification for the Inquisition.  (Exodus 22:18)

https://carm.org/what-is-the-inquisition

https://carm.org/questions/skeptics-ask/why-believe-religion-had-inquisition-and-witch-trials

God commands death for cursing out ones parents and death for adultery.  Gee, with these types of laws the population should be almost nil by now.  (Leviticus 20:9-10)

Death for adultery

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=652

Continued below

IdolRocks

@Joeseph

https://creation.com/bible-immoral-book

https://creation.com/god-moral-monster

https://creation.com/evil-bible-fallacies

https://creation.com/bad-things-by-church

IdolRocks

@Joeseph

"Once again god is a homophobe, or at the very least, a bigot."
(Leviticus 20:13)

First of all, God is the one who created life so He can get rid of them whenever He chooses. Second of all, Homosexuality is listed as a sin along with a whole bunch of other sins. Third, when humans disobey God and choose to Sin the consequence is death. 

If God made us then that means He has the right to tell us what is right and what is wrong and that we need to listen to Him and if we don't then there will be a consequence. 

https://carm.org/desmond-tutu-homosexuality-hell

https://carm.org/sin-homophobia

IdolRocks

@Joeseph

https://carm.org/hate-speech

https://carm.org/bible-homosexuality

"I want to know what right do the politically correct, pro-homosexual minority have to redefine marriage and impose their values on the majority? What right do they have to condemn Christians, call us names (homophobes, bigots, etc.), and be so very intolerant, when we disagree with their behavior and say it is a sinful?"

https://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/what-does-bible-say-about-homosexuality

https://carm.org/discrimation-homosexual-wrong

https://carm.org/should-homosexuals-be-put-to-death

https://carm.org/homosexuality-hate






"Ah killing so killing women and kids serves a useful purpose ......Even ISIS have their limits."

It doesn't necessary serve a useful purpose. It's more like God has the right to get rid of life, since He created them. 

IdolRocks

@Judaism regarding your "go back in time and kill Hitler as a child" comment, here is an interesting and relevant article:

https://crossexamined.org/skeptics-cant-ways/

TKDB

@mickyg

Is this a proper argument?

"no..its worse ...i am self aware something a christian can't grasp.

what if i was arab.....what would that have to do with anything?
racist twat"

Dee

@IdolRocks

My question is based on what you’re saying .....Is owning another human ever moral, or not? 

You also ask me why selling one’s daughter is wrong I guess your confusion is because the Bible thinks it just fine and you agree, why is my opinion better than yours? Well because I don’t believe I have the right to sell my own child as a sex slave my morality is based on the golden rule not on the words of a contradictory book of nonsense written by a group of flea ridden Bronze Age goat herds based on the alleged words of an unproven supernatural “deity” 

ethang5

Well because I don’t believe anyone has the right to restrict my own child from being a sex slave. My morality is based on the bronze rule not on the words of a contradictory kook of nonsense driven by a group of PC ridden  nerds based on the alleged words of an irrational supernatural humanism.
- Bronze Age goat herds 

Dee

@ethang5

You say ...Well because I don’t believe anyone has the right to restrict my own child from being a sex slave

My reply ....

No one has the right to restrict your daughter from being a sex slave? Bet you would whistle a different tune if your child told you she had sex with your middle aged neighbor as no one has the right to restrict her .....or maybe you wouldn’t?

Of course you can call it a “right “ to make your child a sex slave the Bible is on your side , no doubt with your wife’s support .

You’ve got that wonderful “objective morality “ on your side so puff your chest out buddy and proclaim to the world that it’s your “right “ to allow your daughter to be a sex slave ......How much would you and your wife ask for her?

IdolRocks

@Dee

*You also ask me why selling one’s daughter is wrong I guess your confusion is because the Bible thinks it just fine and you agree, why is my opinion better than yours?*

No I am not confused because (you think that) the Bible says its fine, which it actually doesn't, (but I will talk about that more below). I am simply asking you why it is wrong? What are you using to decide what is right and what is wrong and it cannot just be based on your opinion? IOW, it cannot just be Subjective.  And also, your opinion isn't better than my mine, since your opinion is that the Bible supports something, when it actually doesn't. So, your opinion actually cannot possible be better or right since it is wrong. 

So the Bible verse that I think you are referring to is this one: Exodus 21:7-11.

Now I have some stuff talking about this verse. 

https://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-Testament.html

Once one takes the time to understand the context of this verse and not take it out of context (generally speaking), one can understand what this verse is actually saying. 

*A girl sold to a family for the eventual purpose of being married into that family had different rights (Exodus 21:7-11), although, to modern eyes, they look like restrictions. She was not to go free because working to freedom was never the intent. Once she was married to either the master or his son, she was no longer a slave, but a member of the family—a daughter (vs. 9) or a wife (vs. 10). If the master rejected or divorced her (vs. 8, 11), she and her birth-family were forgiven the whole debt.*

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

·*In addition to the regular wife or wives, a man might also have one or more secondary wives or concubines who would bear children for him. The most explicit statement prescribing a husband's behavior toward a wife occurs in Exodus 21:7-11. This text concerns a concubine, to be sure, but according to the rabbinic principle of qal wa-homer (what applies in a minor case will also apply in a major case), one may assume that husbands were to treat their wives with even greater dignity. Because of uncertainties in the meanings of the three critical words in verse 10, there is some question concerning the obligations placed upon the man. However, on the analogy of extrabiblical formulas, seer, kesut and ona are best understood as 'food,' 'clothing' and 'ointment/oil', respectively. These specific expressions capture the man's general responsibility to provide peace, permanence and security for his wives." [HI:MFBW, 48]*

*Exodus 21:7-11 specifically seeks to regulate cases involving Israelite women/girls who were sold by their fathers as female slaves (amot), presumably because of debt. Many commentators assume that this sale envisions marriage to the master or to his son, but the absence of marriage or divorce terminology in the passage suggests the purpose of the sale was concubinage. The regulation safeguards the woman's rights in two respects. First, the purchaser may not treat her as an ordinary slave. If she proves not to please him, and he does not fulfill his contractual obligation to treat her as his own concubine, or assign her to his son, he may not treat her as an ordinary slave woman. Because he has failed to grant her the protection available to concubines through motherhood, she retains the right to redemption by her father. Second, the purchaser may not sell her to a foreigner, that is a non-Israelite, and thereby render her irredeemable because foreigners would not recognize her rights under Israelite law." [HI:MFBW, 60]*

* It's also unclear who gets the punishment money--the owner or the groom-to-be. If it’s the owner (most likely), the reason is for the continued financial support of  the now-no-longer-about-to-leave-in-marriage servant girl: "Some legal background is required by way of explanation. The law of Exodus 21:7-11 allows a father to sell his preadolescence daughter as a slave to another Israelite. This was usually done out of extreme deprivation or indebtedness. When the slave girl reached marriageable age, her master were required to do one of three things: marry her himself, designate her as his son's wife, or allow her to be redeemed. This last option was interpreted to mean that the master could pledge the girl to another Israelite. Although Exodus 21:8 prohibits the master from selling the girl to a non-Israelite, it does no prohibit such arrangements as would involve another Israelite man. The latter would redeem the girl by a payment to her master and take her as his wife… The situation projected in our passage is as follows: An Israelite slave girl, here called shifhah, was pledged by her master to another Israelite man. The designation had already been made, but had not been finalized by payment to the girl's master or, possible, the man had not yet claimed his bride. Legally, the girl was still a slave and unmarried. If at this point, an outsider had carnal relations with her, he would have caused a loss to her master because, no longer a virgin, would be less desirable as a wife, and the prospective husband would undoubtedly cancel the proposed marriage… In parallel circumstances, Exodus 22:15-17 stipulates that one who seduced a free maiden who was not yet pledged as a wife had either to marry her himself or pay her father the equivalent of the marriage price (mohar). In our case, the option of marriage was ruled out because the girl had been pledged to another man--leaving only one way to deal with the situation. The man who had had carnal relations with the girl had to pay an indemnity to her master to compensate him for his loss. Presumably, since the marriage was called off, and the young woman rendered undesirable, the owner would have to continue maintaining her in his household… " [JPStorah]*

That is the stuff that I copied from the article link above. 

*Well because I don’t believe I have the right to sell my own child as a sex slave my morality is based on the golden rule.*

Your Morality is based on the Golden Rule? Really? And why should we listen to your opinion that your morality is based on the Golden Rule? Also, the Golden Rule comes from Bible. "Do unto others as you want to have done to you"

https://www.gotquestions.org/Golden-Rule.html

"Some have accused Jesus of “borrowing” the idea of the Golden Rule from the Eastern religions. However, the texts for Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, cited above, were all written between 500 and 400 BC, at the earliest. Jesus takes the Golden Rule from Leviticus, written about 1450 BC. So, Jesus’ source for the Golden Rule predates the “silver rule” by about 1,000 years. Who “borrowed” from whom?"

I want you to tell me why selling others into slavery is wrong, especially females? What is your basis for saying that that is wrong, other than it just simply being your opinion?

*not on the words of a contradictory book of nonsense*

Oh really? The Bible is contradictory?? Will you please point to some examples of what you think is a contradiction and try to make sure that it isn't one that has already been addressed and show to not be a contradiction. Please realize that most of the so-called contradictions have been addressed and have simply been shown that they are not contradictions.

*written by a group of flea ridden Bronze Age goat herds based on the alleged words of an unproven supernatural “deity”*

When you use words like these, that shows that you simply have no idea what you are talking about? But, regardless, it would be a good idea if you actually provided some evidence to your claims. If the Bible has contradictions in it, why not provide examples? 

"Usually the slavery thing is coming from an Atheist trying to somehow invalidate God or the Bible. To me the atheist first has to answer the question What's wrong with slavery? I mean in the naturalistic worldview shouldn't the stronger dominate the weaker? In fact shouldn't the stronger encourage the slaves to breed more of the "weaker" perpetuating a slave race to serve the stronger? It would be a Darwinian dream come true. I'm not sure where the naturalistic moral imperative would come from other than personal preference."

This quote above, I got from a website, but I cannot remember where it is from, but when I find it, I will provide it. 

IdolRocks

@Dee Can you tell me whether or not if you are a Moral Relativist? 

ZeusAres42

@BrandyKnight

Faith cannot be taught nor can it be understood by those who don't have it. There is no sense in attempting to argue it.

You're right and as soon as some use the appeal to faith it is the end of an argument or as I like to call it "Rational Discussion." At this point, I realize that I am no longer having a discussion with a reasonable person and can only hope the best for them.

ZeusAres42

I think one of the issues with the religious fanatic community is that they tend to equivocate "morality" with "relativism" when the two are not the same things at all. "Relativism," of course, is subjective and with its roots in subjectivity. With morality, however, in it's purest form and especially at its roots is objective and the only authority governing it is that of basic "human nature." The latter is also backed up by an ordinate amount of research on science and philosophy with lots of evidence supporting it too.

Furthermore, to believe that something is morally right in the name of "God" is not only fallacious thinking but also extremely dangerous! In fact, because of this thinking, more than 200 people lost their lives on 11th September 2001! Thousands more too because of this thinking.  Quite frankly, to believe that killing someone or torturing someone for fun or in the name of "God" is morally justified is akin to "Psychosis."

We can thank goodness that at least in the western world that our legal system does not work this way, however. 

Also, to use the appeal to faith is not a valid argument either and while this may persuade the religious radicals easily manipulated by cult leaders it won't be enough to persuade logicians, thankfully not and rightfully so.

Dee

@IdolRocks

I would say that my position is one of descriptive  moral relativism, I don’t like labels but that’s close enough 

Dee

@IdolRocks

You never answered .....Is owning another human ever moral, or not?

You say ......No I am not confused because (you think that) the Bible says its fine, which it actually doesn't, (but I will talk about that more below). 

My reply ......It actually does say it’s fine and the Bible was used to justify slavery by plantation owners and others who were pillars of society and deemed so by their pastors and preachers , so you’re saying they were all wrong and you are right, how do you explain this?

You say ......I am simply asking you why it is wrong? What are you using to decide what is right and what is wrong and it cannot just be based on your opinion? 

My reply ......Of course it can be based on my opinion as I treat others as I wish to be treated myself , why does this not seem reasonable to you?

You say .....IOW, it cannot just be Subjective.  

My reply ..... Why not?

You say .....And also, your opinion isn't better than my mine, 

My reply .....Why would I care about your opinion? I don’t care about the opinion of others regarding their morality as I’m not my brothers keeper , is that not fair?

You say ......since your opinion is that the Bible supports something, when it actually doesn't. So, your opinion actually cannot possible be better or right since it is wrong. 

My reply .....The Bible does support it totally , are you suggesting slavery was not the norm during the life and times of Jesus?

Your attempt at justifying slavery using Christian sources is not worthy of a response as the Bible implicitly states how one is to treat a slave and the various rules regarding slavery denial of such is absurd 

You say ......Your Morality is based on the Golden Rule? Really? And why should we listen to your opinion that your morality is based on the Golden Rule? 

My reply .....Yes , really. I never asked nor do I care whether you listen to me or not , live and let live I say , but you seem to disagree?

You say .....Also, the Golden Rule comes from Bible. "Do unto others as you want to have done to you"

My reply ...... It’s actually a lot older than that and even if I accepted it only source was the Bible so what? 

You say ....."Some have accused Jesus of “borrowing” the idea of the Golden Rule from the Eastern religions

My reply .....Because he did ......

Wiki.....

Ancient Egypt

Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom(c. 2040–1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."[10][11] This proverb embodies the do ut desprinciple.[12] A Late Period(c. 664–323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."[13]

You ask again ...I want you to tell me why selling others into slavery is wrong, especially females? What is your basis for saying that that is wrong, other than it just simply being your opinion?

My reply .....I’ve explained several times now I treat others as I wish to be treated myself , you seem to have great difficulty in accepting this as a valid stance why so? 

You say ......Oh really? The Bible is contradictory?? 

My reply .....I can start you out with 50 contradictions but that’s another debate , you want proof?  Here you are arguing about slavery yet Christians worldwide used the Bible to justify the slave trade do you condemn these Christians?

You say .....When you use words like these, that shows that you simply have no idea what you are talking about? 

My reply .....That’s simply not true , the book was written by Bronze Age goat herds mostly going on one of the main areas of employment at the time , the charge of being flea ridden is speculation going on hygiene standards of the times “ lie down with the dogs get up with the fleas “ , also it is said tounge in cheek don’t take things so seriously as I’m actually enjoying our little exchange 

You say .....But, regardless, it would be a good idea if you actually provided some evidence to your claims. If the Bible has contradictions in it, why not provide examples? 

My reply ....Sure thing , but let’s resolve this first ok? 

You say ......” Usually the slavery thing is coming from an Atheist trying to somehow invalidate God or the Bible. 

My reply .....I don’t care about a god or the Bible until one quotes it at me then I will dismiss it for the nonsense it is 

You say .....To me the atheist first has to answer the question What's wrong with slavery? 

My reply .....I keep answering you won’t listen 

You say .....I mean in the naturalistic worldview shouldn't the stronger dominate the weaker? In fact shouldn't the stronger encourage the slaves to breed more of the "weaker" perpetuating a slave race to serve the stronger? 

My reply .....Why are you asking me what a collective worldview of atheists should be?

You say ..It would be a Darwinian dream come true. I'm not sure where the naturalistic moral imperative would come from other than personal preference."

My reply ....Why would I care about Darwinian dreams and other theories , I float my own boat and you are free to do likewise 

Will you address my opening question from our first exchange you totally ignored it .....

My question is based on what you’re saying .....Is owning another human ever moral, or not?

ethang5

@Dee

>No one has the right to restrict your daughter from being a sex slave?

Do you think someone does?

>Bet you would whistle a different tune if your child told you she had sex with your middle aged neighbor as no one has the right to restrict her .....or maybe you wouldn’t?

Debate loser. On what moral grounds would someone restrict her? The point is not whether we agree with her decision, but whether our position has any greater moral validity.

>Of course you can call it a “right “ to make your child a sex slave the Bible is on your side , no doubt with your wife’s support.

Not the point. We know you disagree, you can stop with the self-righteousness now. What makes your position more valid than mine? Can you get past your moral outrage and debate?

>You’ve got that wonderful “objective morality “ on your side so puff your chest out buddy and proclaim to the world that it’s your “right “ to allow your daughter to be a sex slave ......How much would you and your wife ask for her?

You are an . To show the failing of the subjective moral system, we pick a position that is clearly against the norm. So what that you disagree with it? Morality is not determined by what you like.

Instead of focusing on why your position is morally more valid than mine, you want us to see your moral outrage.

But just as I keep saying, the only reason you consider your self-proclaimed "golden rule" moral, is because you just like it. Nothing else.

Morality is not based on your personal tastes.

ethang5

@IdolRocks

>No I am not confused because (you think that) the Bible says its fine, which it actually doesn't, I am simply asking you why it is wrong?

They can't answer you Idol, so instead they will pretend your simple question means you agree with slavery.

They cannot tell you why anything is immoral, except that they don't personally like it. Refuse to base your morality on their personal tastes, and they get morally outraged and call you immoral.

>Your Morality is based on the Golden Rule? Really? And why should we listen to your opinion that your morality is based on the Golden Rule?

He just wants you to. That is all. He wants his opinion to trump yours. And for the Iife of these liberal atheist, they are unable to see that is fascism.

>"Usually the slavery thing is coming from an Atheist trying to somehow invalidate God or the Bible. To me the atheist first has to answer the question What's wrong with slavery?

The last time I tried to pin him on that question, the pretended I was requesting he tell me because I didn't know slavery was wrong, and declared his morality better because he knew slavery was wrong.

But he never once said why it was wrong.

YeshuaBought

Hypocrite! You never attack Islam.

ethang5

>You never answered .....Is owning another human ever moral, or not?

Is killing another human ever moral, of not?

>I am simply asking you why it is wrong? What are you using to decide what is right and what is wrong and it cannot just be based on your opinion? 

>My reply ......Of course it can be based on my opinion as I treat others as I wish to be treated myself , why does this not seem reasonable to you?

Idol did not say it was unreasonable, he said there is no reason for him to care about your opinion or to base his morality on your opinion.

>IOW, it cannot just be Subjective.

>My reply ..... Why not?

Because your opinion has no authority for anyone. If it's based only on your opinion, then Idol can dismiss it out of hand.

>And also, your opinion isn't better than my mine, 

>My reply .....Why would I care about your opinion? I don’t care about the opinion of others regarding their morality as I’m not my brothers keeper , is that not fair?

Yet you're asking for his opinion on whether owning another person is moral. Why should he care about your opinion of your golden rule morality?

>Your attempt at justifying slavery using Christian sources….

(See Idol? Your simple question has made him claim you are “supporting” slavery, but yet cannot tell you why slavery is wrong. Next he gets on his high moral horse to say how much better his morality is than your "slavery morality" neat trick huh?)

>Your Morality is based on the Golden Rule? Really? And why should we listen to your opinion that your morality is based on the Golden Rule? 

>My reply .....Yes , really. I never asked nor do I care whether you listen to me or not , live and let live I say , but you seem to disagree?

He is a theist on a religion board, you are the atheist who has come here questioning him. You're the one with a disagreement.

>You ask again ...I want you to tell me why selling others into slavery is wrong, especially females? What is your basis for saying that that is wrong, other than it just simply being your opinion?

>My reply .....I’ve explained several times now I treat others as I wish to be treated myself , you seem to have great difficulty in accepting this as a valid stance why so?

How is it valid? And how can you treating others as you wish to be treated yourself, make slavery wrong?

You aren't telling us why slavery is wrong, you’re telling us why you don't do it. Tell us why it is immoral. If you did not believe in treating others as you wish to be treated yourself, would slavery be moral? No? Then give us a reason why it is immoral that is not based on your opinion.

>To me the atheist first has to answer the question What's wrong with slavery? 

>My reply .....I keep answering you won’t listen 

You never answer. Slavery is not wrong because you treat others as you wish to be treated. Why slavery is wrong has nothing to do with what you think.

>My question is based on what you’re saying .....Is owning another human ever moral, or not?

You are the one saying that there is no objective morality, if you are right, owning another human could sometimes be moral. That is YOUR position. We disagree with you.

If you affirm that owning another human is never moral, then you admit the existence of objective morality, and must account for it.

Where does it come from? What makes it always wrong?

Debate and stop playing semantic games.

IdolRocks

@Dee ;My reply ......It actually does say it’s fine and the Bible was used to justify slavery by plantation owners and others who were pillars of society and deemed so by their pastors and preachers , so you’re saying they were all wrong and you are right, how do you explain this?

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

"Some “white”2 Christians have used the Bible to convince themselves that owning slaves is okay and that slaves should obey their “earthly masters.” Regrettably and shamefully, “white” Christians have frequently taken verses of Scripture out of context to justify the most despicable acts. In some cases, it could be argued that these people were not really Christians; they were not really born again but were adhering to a form of Christianity for traditional or national reasons. Nevertheless, we have to concede that there are genuine “white” Christians who have believed the vilest calumnies about the nature of “black” people and have sought support for their disgraceful views from the pages of the Bible."

Of course it can be based on my opinion as I treat others as I wish to be treated myself , why does this not seem reasonable to you

For the simple fact that it is merely your opinion. That does not make it right or wrong. It is simply wrong in your opinion. 

Why not?

Morality cannot be subjective for the simple reason that it does not work. The article below explains more. 

https://carm.org/what-is-wrong-with-subjective-morality

The Bible does support it totally , are you suggesting slavery was not the norm during the life and times of Jesus?

*Your attempt at justifying slavery using Christian sources is not worthy of a response as the Bible implicitly states how one is to treat a slave and the various rules regarding slavery denial of such is absurd*

Slavery happened in the Old Testament. God therefore made rules for how they are to treat them. 

https://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

I am sorry if you do not like the websites that I am using, but nevertheless, I am going to continue to do so. The fact that the majority of the verse are being taken out of context to make them say something that they don't actually say is actually what is absurd. 

I don't deny that slavery happened in the Bible. The fact that it happened though does not mean that God approves of it. Remember God did not like Divorce but it happened, so God dealt with it happening. Also, there are many instances where the Bible records something happening but does not condone it. 

https://creation.com/how-can-we-tell-when-the-bible-condones-what-it-records

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)"

"So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party.1 Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath,2 slander a slave,3 have sex with another man's slave,4 or return an escaped slave.5 A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first.6 In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".7

Also read the Footnotes as well, please.

"*Your attempt at justifying slavery using Christian sources"

Of course they are not worthy of response, that is because you don't have an answer that makes sense that will refute them, otherwise, surely you would have just done so. If the articles are wrong, then you should have no problem refuting them.

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/four-differences-between-new-testament-servitude-and-new-world-slavery/

My reply .....I can start you out with 50 contradictions but that’s another debate , you want proof?  Here you are arguing about slavery yet Christians worldwide used the Bible to justify the slave trade do you condemn these Christians?

50 contradictions? How about just 1 or 2 to start? Yes Christians have used the Bible to justify slavery and they took the verses out of context.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/

No, I do not condemn those Christians, nor do I consider them to be actual Christians. They may have called themselves Christians but based on their actions, they weren't. 



I think we should discuss the reason why Slavery existed in the first place and also, the fact that it was very different from the Slavery that we think of nowadays and like what we see in movies, where people are keeping slaves because of the color of their skin. 

"Also note that the slavery regulated in the Bible had absolutely nothing to do with race, color, or ethnic background.  While it is true that certain nations, as a whole, were captured and enslaved because of their wicked, idolatrous practices, it is not true that they were enslaved due to their allegedly inferior nationality."

http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1587

My reply .....That’s simply not true , the book was written by Bronze Age goat herds mostly going on one of the main areas of employment at the time , the charge of being flea ridden is speculation going on hygiene standards of the times “ lie down with the dogs get up with the fleas “ , also it is said tounge in cheek don’t take things so seriously as I’m actually enjoying our little exchange 

"mostly going on one of the main areas of employment at a time"

Can you please explain to me what this means?

" the charge of being flea ridden is speculation going on hygiene standards of the times “ lie down with the dogs get up with the fleas “ , also it is said tounge in cheek don’t take things so seriously as I’m actually enjoying our little exchange "

I do not know what any of this. Is this something from the Bible? I am not understanding?

*My question is based on what you’re saying .....Is owning another human ever moral, or not?*

It depends on what you mean by that.

IdolRocks

@ethang5 I totally thought you were another Atheist arguing against me, but now I see that that is not the case. I am glad that I took the time to read your comments. 

IdolRocks

@Dee ;

Wikipedia is a dishonest website. HS and Colleges do not want students to use that webssite

You say ....."Some have accused Jesus of “borrowing” the idea of the Golden Rule from the Eastern religions

My reply .....Because he did ......

I think it is interesting that you took the paragraph out of context and just put the part that you liked here and then responded to just that. Did you actually read the whole entire paragraph or did you stop after you read this part: "Some have accused Jesus of “borrowing” the idea of the Golden Rule from the Eastern religions"? 

My reply .....I don’t care about a god or the Bible until one quotes it at me then I will dismiss it for the nonsense it is 

Oh maybe it isn't nonsense. How about you don't automatically try to dismiss it as nonsense? Huh? How about giving that a shot? Just once? It can't hurt.

IdolRocks

@mickyg
"CHRISTIANITY has a long history of doing evil things.....starting in 310ad until 1945ad christians have been murdering ..robbing..persecuting jews...to appease world history the christian dominated UN voted to give arab land to the jews...The Jews are quiet about this but the arabs are not happy..."

Yes, so-called Christians have done evil things. But that should cause one to wonder whether or not they were real Christians. Their actions are not consistent with Christianity. They may have said that they were Christians but their actions prove that they weren't. 

https://creation.com/violence-and-bloodshed-religion-of-atheism

https://creation.com/genocide-evolution-and-the-bible

https://creation.com/christian-vs-evolutionary-atrocities

"Of course, or more accurately, they were acting inconsistently with real Christianity, which is revealed in the Bible. But atrocities in the name of evolution are consistent with the theory, as we have explained in articles such as The Bible vs slavery and apartheid."

IdolRocks

@ZeusAres42

"I think one of the issues with the religious fanatic community is that they tend to equivocate "morality" with "relativism" when the two are not the same things at all. "Relativism," of course, is subjective and with its roots in subjectivity."

We equivocate Relativism with Atheists since that is the only basis that they can provide for Morality. They cannot provide an Objective Basis for Morality. 

https://answersingenesis.org/morality/the-source-of-moral-absolutes/

*With morality, however, in it's purest form and especially at its roots is objective and the only authority governing it is that of basic "human nature.""

Yes Morality is Objective, but as an Atheist, or as a Non-Believer, you cannot account for Objective Moral Values. So "Human Nature" is what makes Morality Objective? I am simply trying to understand how you attempt to account for Objective Morality?

Dee

@IdolRocks

You say .....
Wikipedia is a dishonest website. HS and Colleges do not want students to use that website 

My reply .....You need to prove that statement instead of just asserting it 



You say .......I think it is interesting that you took the paragraph out of context and just put the part that you liked here and then responded to just that. Did you actually read the whole entire paragraph or did you stop after you read this part: "Some have accused Jesus of “borrowing” the idea of the Golden Rule from the Eastern religions"? 

My reply .....Out of context? I’m stating that the golden rule can be traced back to well before the time of Jesus how do you prove this is not the case?

You say .......Oh maybe it isn't nonsense. How about you don't automatically try to dismiss it as nonsense?

My reply ......It is I’ve read it several times. What do you mean “automatically” how do you come this conclusion?

You say .....Huh? How about giving that a shot? Just once? It can't hurt.

My reply .....You’re making assumptions based on merely your opinion and nothing else , I’m well versed in the Bible and religions as a former devout Catholic educated by the Jesuit’s 

IdolRocks

@Dee

You say .......I think it is interesting that you took the paragraph out of context and just put the part that you liked here and then responded to just that. Did you actually read the whole entire paragraph or did you stop after you read this part: "Some have accused Jesus of “borrowing” the idea of the Golden Rule from the Eastern religions"? 

My reply .....Out of context? I’m stating that the golden rule can be traced back to well before the time of Jesus how do you prove this is not the case?

The part that you put was not the entire paragraph but only a part of it. I want to know if you read the entire paragraph or not. You took out a part and then made a comment about that part, not the entire paragraph. 

IdolRocks

@Dee ;Wikipedia is a dishonest website. HS and Colleges do not want students to use that website 

My reply .....You need to prove that statement instead of just asserting it 

Which part do you want me to prove? That Wikipedia is dishonest or that HS and Colleges do not want students to use it?

https://creation.com/wikipedia