Re: i gotz cenzored!

[dodgecity]

I was in this general discussion forum where I debate all the time about a number of issues. I wanted to have a debate about slavery and the bible, and I took my time to make a well thought out argument.

A christian reported my thread and it was promptly binned.

I looked through the rules and sure enough, there is was: "No religious/political debates allowed." So I guess I had it coming, but I've been debating in the forum for a long time and there have been plenty of political  and religious debates, none of which were binned. I just hate that mine got singled out. Anyways, here is the thread, because I didn't want it to be a total waste of my time to make it.

*EDIT* Kirby and I made this into a video.



[spoiler:1b7fgsp1]I was talking with someone about slavery in the bible and thought I would bring the conversation to off-topic, as I'm interested in your responses.

Here's the deal, pickle....

We all agree that slavery is completely immoral. (or in other words, a sin).

The believers who I have spoken to have responded like so:

That's the Old Testament (or Old Law) and it doesn't apply to us because Jesus came and replaced it with the New Law, which happens to be much more agreeable.

This is the most common response I get but all it does is sidestep the issue. The problems with this response:

(1) Jesus came to fulfill the Old Law (his words), not to change it. He came to satisfy the Law, to carry it out, not to rebuke it.

(2) Even if that Law does not apply to you now, it should still make you sick that your God, whose main characteristic is to abhor Sin, never mentioned to the Israelites that it was wrong and told them how to keep their slaves. Any christian knows that the Lord is not a God of making exceptions for Sin. That's not his personality at all. All Sin is equal in his eyes. Why would he kill thousands of people for making a golden cafe and never even show a hint of dissent toward the way they were treating their fellow man? What kind of God is this?

(3) God's word is eternal, his stance on Sin is unchanging, unwavering. (Isaiah 40: Sin is Sin! It doesn't change with culture! How silly is that? How can a Christian sincerely believe that nonsense?

Another common response I get is this:

Well, slavery wasn't really slavery back then. (omg r us serious?) The slaves wanted to be slaves because they were starving and they needed work.

This is an outright lie. It's a perfect example of how Christians will make up crazy excuses to defend the validity of the Bible. Let's do some myth busting:

(1) Slavery was not voluntary. Slaves were bought and sold as property, children were born as slaves and remained slaves their whole lives. (See Leviticus 25:44-46)

(2) God gave instructions on how to beat your slave to death. As long as the slave survived the beating for 24 hours before dying, the master was in the right, because it was his property. (Exodus 21:20-21) How could this be beneficial for a person? Who would volunteer for that?

(3) Daughters were sold as sex slaves and if they did not satisfy their masters, they could be refunded, lol. (Exodus 21:7-11)


Another silly one:

Slavery is just something unavoidable that had to happen, like storms and famine. Because of free will, God has to let bad things happen to people.

This is sidestepping the question! There is a huge difference between God letting Sin happen and God supporting Sin with his law! Storms and famine are not human acts, so they are irrelevant. Imagine if God gave specific rules on how to commit adultery. It would be entirely different from him letting adultery happen. Slavery is unavoidable? Since when does God make exceptions for Sin, the thing he hates most? If he's willing to send his child to Hell because of his unchanging stance on Sin, why would he make an exception here so that people could suffer?

Another common response:

This is a strawman argument.

It would be a strawman argument if I told you that all this meant there is no God. That's not what I'm saying!

But it should make you think, nonetheless, about what you believe and why. Don't feel like you need to defend God or make up an excuse on his behalf. Instead think about truth. Do you actively search for the truth, or do you just swallow what others tell you because you're afraid or uncomfortable?[/spoiler:1b7fgsp1]

[myleviathan]

Ouch!

I was debating on a Christian forum not too long ago on the same issue. It amazes me the stuff they come up with to justify the atrocities committed in the Bible. The rebuttals ranged from avoidance, to claiming that slavery was NECESSARY at the time because there was no welfare system, to slavery was better than death, etc.

Then in response to this verse: "Deuteronomy 21:10-
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."

I got lots of answers, mostly saying that this verse is actually God's provision for the prevention of rape. Which is rediculous. I mean, when I read the verse it sounds like, if the woman is beautiful enough not to die, then the soldier may 'go to her and be her husband...' There's no real mention that the woman has any choice in the matter. It sounds like he gets to consumate the forced marriage whether she likes it or not. And if the relationship doesn't turn out to be satisfactory for the soldier, he can kick her out. The only provision she gets is that she can't be forced into slavery. Pretty brutal stuff.

[SteveS]

Well, at least you got to come share it here.  Thanks for posting it, I think you've made excellent points.

You know, as I read this, I kept thinking that maybe there's really an underlying issue here.  The slavery references in the bible surely aren't the only ones that do not seem to mesh with a modern sensibility.  All the business about stoning people to death, for instance, or how to deal with menstruation (seriously, Leviticus 15).  I agree, that a frequent response seems to be that the law changed with Jesus, and I also agree that it seems from Jesus's own (alleged) words that this was not the case.  In fact, the Witnesses who came to my door seemed quite insistent upon this point.  So I can't help but wonder how people who follow the bible deal with this.

To me, it seems like they pay much attention to the parts that aren't so bad, or parts they like, and either ignore or simple disregard the parts that are bad or that they don't like.  And, it seems to me that this would certainly qualify as following their own moral compass.  But, this is also specifically prohibited, right?

(shrugs).  Seems like a problem.

[dodgecity]

Ouch!

Indeed. I was pissed.

The rebuttals ranged from avoidance, to claiming that slavery was NECESSARY.

I know, it's crazy. I just hope that someone is caused to really think about it. It was issues like this that made me question my faith, so I know that it's possible for reason to win out.

I kept thinking that maybe there's really an underlying issue here.

Exactly!That's why Christianity is hypocritical in itself. I try to point out that they don't have faith in the bible, they have faith in their pastor's interpretation of the bible. They have faith in their own discretion as to what to cherry pick.

But, this is also specifically prohibited, right?

Again, spot on! It's preached in church to not twist the Word to your liking, yet you have to do it in order to me moral, lol.