Internet philosophers love to point out contradictions…especially perceived contradictions in the Bible. The charge that the “Bible endorses slavery” is rampant and definitive. To those making the charge, no further argument is needed, and the case is closed because <outrage font> “slavery is wrong!”
Let’s analyze this claim and tactic. By what absolute standard do YOU declare slavery to be wrong/immoral/evil? For those who claim the worldview of naturalism/materialism/absurdism, what is evil? The priests of naturalism have this to say about human origins:
- Carl Sagan – “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”
- Tyson – “We (humans) are not figuratively but literally stardust.”
- Dawkins – “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
- Nye – “We are just a speck, on a speck, orbiting a speck, in the corner of a speck, in the middle of nowhere.”
So, if humans are the accidental aggregate of stardust on a speck of a speck in the midst of a blind, pitiless, indifferent universe made only of atoms, how can they justify unchanging, abstract universals like truth, morality, math, laws of logic, and physical laws by which to judge something or someone as evil? It is inconsistent and absurd for the naturalist to make judgments against the Bible as somehow immoral. What does stardust (humans) care about morality? What intrinsic value does stardust have such that it needs to be protected from slavery? How could stardust reason…and with what unchanging absolute tools?
So, if you do not start with the God of scripture, who revealed Himself in creation, in the Bible, and in Jesus – your outrage against ANYTHING God does, commands, or endorses is impotent.
But how do Christians understand the “endorsement of slavery” within the Bible? Is there a positive case to be made that would help Christians to understand the negative perception? Let’s look at scripture and see:
- God is eternally Holy. His character defines morality since He created mankind in his image. It is only because the unchanging, transcendent Creator has revealed Himself do we have any justification for declaring anything as “immoral” or “evil.” Adam/Eve were the 1st humans and their rebellion against God’s requirement affected all of creation (Genesis 3.) Since then, every human has followed suit in their rebellion against God, so EVERYONE deserves God’s righteous judgment. This is key: EVERYONE. But God’s plan was to send his only Son, Jesus to die and take the punishment for sin of everyone who repents of their rebellion. So, by his amazing grace, although everyone deserves punishment, some repent and receive mercy and abundant life! So, since everyone is guilty of disobedience against the perfectly holy Creator, slavery is better than what the rebellious actually deserve.
- Because everyone has sinned and there are uncontrolled consequences for rebellion against the Creator, mistreating people has become ubiquitous. Since the fallen idea of might-makes-right was recognized as the dominant paradigm in place of being God’s image bearers, slavery had a fertile garden in which to grow. The mightiest, richest, and/or craftiest have always been able to selfishly extort and manipulate other people. Slavery is actually the expected result of the human condition BECAUSE of the sin nature within mankind.
- The charge is that the Bible endorses slavery. What is the definition of slavery? In 1960, if someone said they were gay, what would that have meant? They were happy. In the 21st century, saying you’re gay has a completely different connotation. In the 21st century slavery is a polarizing term that means: White people owning/abusing/killing black people. To put this into perspective, let me explain a few things, Americans have received free education from our respective local governments from K-12 grades. We learned reading, writing, arithmetic, history, sociology, physics, music, and biology. With that education, and in a capitalist society, we can use those precious gifts to find employment and support our respective families. This was not the case 3000 years ago when the Bible was written. All over the world, for someone to live and eat they would need to “sell or rent” themselves into indentured servitude (slavery). Those who did not own land or were uneducated had no recourse other than to serve in the military or serve as a laborer. Both the old and new testaments set requirements for masters to treat their workers as valuable humans. The Bible gives clear boundaries and punishments for masters to treat their indentured servants as they themselves would want to be treated.
- Those who would kidnap and enslave others involuntarily are specifically condemned: I Timothy 1:10 “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.”
- In Matthew 22 Jesus is recorded to have said “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” So whether as a master or an indentured servant, love God and love people.
- The Egyptians, who had enslaved the Israelites for over 400 years, were harsh masters…so much so that the Hebrews cried out to God for divine intervention (Ex 3:7). God delivered them from the harsh slavery of the Egyptians, and told the Hebrews very clearly to treat indentured servants with mercy. Deuteronomy 15:12-15 says “If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the LORD your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.”
- The Apostle Paul wrote an impassioned letter to a fellow Christian, and it is included in the Bible under the name of the recipient, Philemon. Philemon is the master of an escaped indentured servant, Onesimus. Paul exhorts Philemon “For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother”
- I listened to the audio books of Game of Thrones. I one of the books there were several chapters that described the story of the Dragon queen conquering a land that was defined by slavery. She succeeded in ending slavery in the whole land. When she (as the new queen) began seeing petitioners, one of the former slaves asked her to re-instate slavery because he and many others were now suffering as indigents. He makes the case that as a slave, he was cared for and protected in his master’s house, but when slavery was forcefully ended, it created a new class of homeless and downtrodden. In much the same way, the world prior to Western Culture was plagued with generational slavery. Because many masters were evil and de-humanized their slaves, chattel slavery flourished. But the Christian abolitionist, William Wilberforce helped to re-calibrate the philosophical assumptions that described certain classes of slaves as sub-human to instead show that they were created in God’s image and thus had inherent value. His crusade to end chattel slavery in England swept across Europe and finally into the western hemisphere. Thankfully, today, in this culture, slavery has ended and is unnecessary (for the indigent). Sadly, in other countries, young girls are still forced into sexual slavery because of generational illiteracy and corrupt rulers/elite.
The charge that the Bible is immoral fails for these and other reasons.
Because God has revealed Himself as Holy, unchanging, and transcendent, we can trust his revelation and praise Him in fulfillment of our created purpose. Jesus truly is worthy of all praise!!!
ApoloJedi 
Exodus 21:16 NIV “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is very very good! Going to post it on Friday with our Presup round up!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Late January 2019 Van Tillian Apologetics’ Links | The Domain for Truth
Another christian attempting to misrepresent the bible. Lets correct a few things shall we.
First yes whether you want to believe it or not we are all stardust.
You’re assuming, as many christians do, that morals are objective and can only come from a god which isn’t the case. Many, including myself, agree morality can and has proven to be subjective in the sense of us picking a goal then creating objective derivatives based on such goal. Example being we can subjectively agree murder is wrong then can make objective evaluations; such as murdering for money is wrong but in self defense is ok.
Even though this goal is subjective it’s a universal one; to reduce pain and suffering. When we steal, lie, cheat and murder it increases pain and suffering. When we show empathy towards another it decreases pain and suffering. Now many christians like to come back with, “but that’s your opinion, who gets to decide what’s right or wrong if it’s just subjective?” Short answer the population who wishes to have a greater chance at survival as well as better quality of life. Just like our ancient relatives homo neanderthalenis and homo erectus, homo sapiens are a social species. Like them, we’ve figured out we better our chances of survival by working together. This includes showing empathy toward one another.
Whether christians want to admit it or not they share the same moral standard as atheists – to decrease pain and suffering. Take a minute and ask yourself why do you believe in god or let alone chose to devote your life to him? Some follow a god because it takes away some sort of pain or doubt while others follow in hopes of a reward. Both ultimately do so to reduce pain and suffering in some way. All humans share the same moral standard and don’t need a deity to outline it for us.
Aside from the fact the christian god has in no way been proven to exist, even if it did most of us wouldn’t chose to worship and follow him anyway. Why on earth would anyone want to follow a deity that commands the slaughter of children and homosexuals? Why would anyone follow one that not only condones slavery but gives clear instructions on how to practice? To many of us women are and should be treated as equals to men, but not according to the christian god. The fact of the matter is most moral human beings would and should reject this type of deity.
Now lets debunk a few things in this article. You claim atheists believe we’re some accident as again many christians do. This just isn’t the case. Although some believe this many of us don’t. Most of us simply default to “I don’t know” because, well none of us do. We don’t know if the big bang was the beginning. All we do know is it was the beginning of our known universe. There could’ve been some act prior to the big bang…we don’t know. You simply can’t claim to know something you can’t prove…that is where faith comes into play. Faith has never nor ever will be a pathway to truth. Saying you have faith is fine, but claiming to know better come with hard falsifiable evidence.
Now lets talk about slavery in the bible and how this author misrepresents it. First lets correct him on a few statements:
“Both the old and new testaments set requirements for masters to treat their workers as valuable humans.” – Wrong! Exodus 21:20-1 clearly states the following, “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.” There is never a time where it should be ok to beat anyone, let alone own them. If this was voluntary servitude, such as a summer job, would you work under the same conditions? If you walked into Burger King and saw the manager beating their employee would you find that acceptable? Hopefully not.
The author also claims the definition of slavery has changed over the years like other words. Again this isn’t the case. Slavery has always meant owning another as property.
Too many christians want to pass off slavery in the bible as voluntary…which couldn’t be further from the truth. It may have been voluntary or indentured servitude if you were a male Hebrew, but everyone else is labeled as life time property with no chance of escape.
Exodus 21:7-11 – “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.” – Not indentured servitude!
Leviticus 25:44-46 – “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born into your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelite ruthlessly.” – Not indentured servitude!
Numbers 31:17-8 – “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” – Not only not indentured servitude but ever worse, sex slave.
The truth is it couldn’t be more crystal clear that the bible does endorse slavery and gives explicit instructions on how to own one. It’s sad in 2019 we still have modern day christians trying to find anyway to justify this. They’ll claim without god we have no moral basis or it was different back then but anyway they spin it they’re still defending slavery. I’ve even had some use the excuse this practice was common back then. Even if that’s the case who cares? The argument isn’t was it common but rather why would an all good deity allow it? It’s one thing to overlook but this deity supports it, making it far worse.
The minute you find need to justify slavery, treating women as property and murdering children should be the time you seriously start reconsidering your religion.
LikeLike
This interaction started on Twitter, so some of the responses to which Stephen (SE hereafter) refers, began in a conversation on Twitter.
SE-”Another christian attempting to misrepresent the bible. Lets correct a few things shall we.”
ApoloJedi- To correct things, SE would need to be able to justify invariant, abstract, absolutes like laws of logic, truth, morality, and induction. Because of epistemological assumptions that bind naturalism, there is no way to account for them. So, SE has no truth anchor, no moral anchor, and no deterministic tool (laws of logic) by which to judge something as right/wrong.
SE-”First yes whether you want to believe it or not we are all stardust.”
ApoloJedi- This is a wild assumption and bluster. If SE wishes to have faith in this, he can, but it invalidates much of what he wants to say going forward. Inert stardust or some hypothetical future accidental product of stardust has no value, purpose, or consciousness. As Dawkins said, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
SE-”You’re assuming, as many christians do, that morals are objective and can only come from a god which isn’t the case. Many, including myself, agree morality can and has proven to be subjective in the sense of us picking a goal then creating objective derivatives based on such goal. Example being we can subjectively agree murder is wrong then can make objective evaluations; such as murdering for money is wrong but in self defense is ok.”
ApoloJedi- There are many problems with SE’s paragraph.
1. SE’s example clearly shows that he does not understand the terms subjective and objective. “Many” “agree” “picking” are all subjective words.
2. Who is the “us” to whom he refers? Even the “us” he chooses is subjective.
3. He is irrational: For the accidental aggregate of inert stardust in a purposeless, blind, pitiless, indifferent cosmos, what is a goal?
4. He is inconsistent: For a product of evolution (Red in tooth and claw) why would murder be wrong? To help advance evolution, there could be strong benefits in thinning the weak & unfit from the gene pool. If the purpose of evolution is to propagate your selfish genes and protect limited resources for your offspring, murder could prove invaluable.
5. He is arbitrary: Why choose murder to be wrong? Why not instead to protect Gaia (or creature) by murdering humans?
6.He does not understand the definition of murder. Self-defense is not murder. Murder is the unlawful/premeditated killing of another human
SE-”Even though this goal is subjective it’s a universal one; to reduce pain and suffering. When we steal, lie, cheat and murder it increases pain and suffering. When we show empathy towards another it decreases pain and suffering. Now many christians like to come back with, “but that’s your opinion, who gets to decide what’s right or wrong if it’s just subjective?” Short answer the population who wishes to have a greater chance at survival as well as better quality of life. Just like our ancient relatives homo neanderthalenis and homo erectus, homo sapiens are a social species. Like them, we’ve figured out we better our chances of survival by working together. This includes showing empathy toward one another.”
ApoloJedi- Notice a pattern here? SE gets right back into being irrational, inconsistent, and arbitrary…with some additional unfounded assumptions
1.He is irrational: For the accidental aggregate of inert stardust in a purposeless, blind, pitiless, indifferent cosmos, what is “better”? What is “quality”? To know if there was a “better chance of survival” SE would need to have all knowledge to know if society betters chances. Does SE have all knowledge? No. So he’s being irrational at worst and presumptive at best.
2.He is inconsistent: For a product of evolution (Red in tooth and claw) why would empathy be good? To help advance evolution, there could be strong benefits in exposing humanity to suffering to thin the weak & unfit from the gene pool. If the purpose of evolution is to propagate your selfish genes and protect limited resources for your offspring, suffering could prove invaluable.
3.He is arbitrary: Why choose reduction of pain and suffering? “That which does not kill us makes us stronger”, so wouldn’t suffering be a strong indication of fitness? Why not instead have humans limit empathy, so they will be stronger and more fit.
4.This isn’t a post specifically about the evolution of humanity, so I won’t sidetrack the main focus except to say, he makes unfounded assumptions that humans evolved from simpler creatures to which Darwin himself said “can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?” So, if humans did evolve from lower creatures, then thinking is untrustworthy. It evolved to provide a survival value NOT truth value. Rational thought is therefore COUNTER to naturalism. Everytime SE tries to use rational thought, he undercuts his entire foundation
SE-”Whether christians want to admit it or not they share the same moral standard as atheists – to decrease pain and suffering. Take a minute and ask yourself why do you believe in god or let alone chose to devote your life to him? Some follow a god because it takes away some sort of pain or doubt while others follow in hopes of a reward. Both ultimately do so to reduce pain and suffering in some way. All humans share the same moral standard and don’t need a deity to outline it for us.”
ApoloJedi- Having the same moral standards as atheists is a CHRISTIAN prediction. Romans 2:15 “since they (the nations) show the requirements of the law are written on their hearts.” As image bearers of the Almighty, a Christian would expect people to be subject to the objective (nay absolute) standards that God set. THAT is why we all know murder is wrong. God wrote this on every heart.
For the naturalist/atheist, as we have already discussed, there is nothing but purposeless/pitiless indifference.
Through all of this SE continues not to make a case for any imaginary atheistic morality.
SE-”Aside from the fact the christian god has in no way been proven to exist, even if it did most of us wouldn’t chose to worship and follow him anyway. Why on earth would anyone want to follow a deity that commands the slaughter of children and homosexuals? Why would anyone follow one that not only condones slavery but gives clear instructions on how to practice? To many of us women are and should be treated as equals to men, but not according to the christian god. The fact of the matter is most moral human beings would and should reject this type of deity.”
ApoloJedi- Most of the above paragraph can be categorized as the fallacy of personal incredulity. He didn’t actually make an argument against the case I’ve presented, he just stomped his feet and shrieked! His personal incredulity does nothing to build his case for some outside morality by which to judge the Almighty. SE has only irrationally assumed that his foundation of stardust can conjure up morals to bring condemnation. As pointed out, this is a continual failure.
Continuing the pattern SE has already established, he persists in irrationality, inconsistency, and arbitrariness.
The proof of God is that without his revelations (creation, Bible, Jesus) nothing could be proven and we could not know anything. Since we all know things and there are proofs, we know God’s revelation is confirmed. Everyone worships something. We can worship the Creator as we were designed to do, or worship something infinitely lesser.
Regarding slaughter: Everyone has sinned and it is only by God’s persistent grace that EVERYONE is not immediately condemned. So, if there is not immediate slaughter, then everyone is a recipient of mercy. God telling the Israelites to drive the Canaanites from the land and kill those who stayed is not only JUSTICE from God (Deut 18:9-13) for their depravity, we should expect God to do so since He is holy.
Regarding slavery: The world has perpetuated slavery with the idea that might-makes-right as part of the rebellion against the Creator. Slavery has been ubiquitous throughout human history and sadly persists even today. Where human slavery had no boundaries on treatment of humans, God set firm boundaries that the master must not be cruel but instead be loving. While SE irrationally wails about the cruelty of beating slaves, there are instances when discipline is beneficial. As in the case of a slave raping or murdering someone else. If the master had no recourse but to gently scold the slave not to behave in such a way, raping and murder would be enabled. The greatest commandments in the law are to 1) love God and 2) love man. The masters were commanded to be loving instead of cruel.
SE-”Now lets debunk a few things in this article. You claim atheists believe we’re some accident as again many christians do. This just isn’t the case. Although some believe this many of us don’t. Most of us simply default to “I don’t know” because, well none of us do. We don’t know if the big bang was the beginning. All we do know is it was the beginning of our known universe. There could’ve been some act prior to the big bang…we don’t know. You simply can’t claim to know something you can’t prove…that is where faith comes into play. Faith has never nor ever will be a pathway to truth. Saying you have faith is fine, but claiming to know better come with hard falsifiable evidence.”
ApoloJedi- SE claims he doesn’t know about the past, and on this we can agree. The Christian is not saddled with this ignorance because the Omniscient One has revealed some of history to us. The parts that He wants us to know, He preserved in his written word. Verification of this history is in the fulfilled prophecies, in Jesus Himself, and in the way that reality conforms to exactly what God revealed.
SE-”The truth is it couldn’t be more crystal clear that the bible does endorse slavery and gives explicit instructions on how to own one. It’s sad in 2019 we still have modern day christians trying to find anyway to justify this. They’ll claim without god we have no moral basis or it was different back then but anyway they spin it they’re still defending slavery. I’ve even had some use the excuse this practice was common back then. Even if that’s the case who cares? The argument isn’t was it common but rather why would an all good deity allow it? It’s one thing to overlook but this deity supports it, making it far worse.
The minute you find need to justify slavery, treating women as property and murdering children should be the time you seriously start reconsidering your religion”
ApoloJedi- For the accidental aggregate of insert stardust, what is invariant, abstract, absolute TRUTH? You claim truth, but you cannot justify it. You claim knowledge, but “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” and you have rejected Him.
No Christian wants slavery. Thank God that Christians worked tirelessly in the 19th century to end the barbaric practice of chattel slavery in England and the USA. SE has shown nothing but misunderstanding of scripture, the fallacy of personal incredulity and irrational, inconsistent, arbitrary rambling.
I will close with this: With all of your shrieking about how evil Christians are for murder and slavery, do you think it’s moral to murder unborn children?
LikeLike
I was, and started to reply to each of your responses but instead of writing a novel will try to keep it shorter. Let me ask you a couple short questions if you don’t mind.
Do you believe morals are only written on human’s hearts or animals and insects as well?
If we do need a moral authority and can’t figure it out ourselves why does it need to be a god or let alone your gods? Or does it need to be?
Touching on the slavery topic you again seem to find the need to justify it in defense of your religion. This is why religion is both dangerous and toxic to society. I’ll answer your question gladly on what we can assert is true. To keep it simple that which produces consistent and effective results can be asserted as true. Example I claim it’s true soap keeps me clean because it continues to produces effective and consistent results. Truth just means accurate doesn’t it?
You also claim I’ve rejected god but can you really reject something you don’t believe in or is it simply just not believing in it? Do you personally reject Santa or just not believe due to lack of sufficient evidence?
And you also claim christians worked tirelessly in the 19th century to end slavery in England and the US but have you looked closely at history? Did you know many slave owners used the bible to justify slavery? Were these the same ones who helped end it’s practice? I think not. It was those who saw it inhuman to own another as property. Clearly your god doesn’t share the same view according to scripture. Also if your god permits slavery and gives clear instructions on how to practice why “work so hard” to abolish it? Please answer that for me.
One last note if I’m misunderstanding scripture please help me understand. What does fathers may sell their daughters who may not go free mean? And what does you may buy slaves from foreign lands mean? You also never answered my original question. Do you ever believe it’s ok for a father to sell their daughter?
And personally I don’t believe abortion is moral. I believe it’s disgusting to kill any unborn child especially that which has no say in the matter.
LikeLike
Stephen,
I’ll get to the answers to your questions, but 1st it’s important that you understand the whole point of this discussion.
You have brought your irrational, inconsistent, arbitrary, and subjective morality in order to condemn God’s character. So, with no foundation/authority you’re attempting to judge the Bible. That’s really the end of the argument.
Animal/Insects? No, only humans are held accountable for their choices. Since humans are made in God’s image, when we do not behave in accordance with God’s image, we lie about who He is. Only Jesus was able to love God constantly with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. Because of that, everyone who does not repent and trust Jesus will be judged
SE-“If we do need a moral authority and can’t figure it out ourselves why does it need to be a god or let alone your gods? Or does it need to be?”
How can the accidental product of stardust figure anything out? There’s no mechanism for building consciousness, truth, beauty, goodness… Yes, the Creator is required for morality. He revealed Himself in creation, in the Bible and in Jesus as the self-authenticating Authority. Without the transcendent Creator, there’s no explanation for unchanging, abstract, absolutes like laws of logic, truth, math, morality, induction.
For more eloquent reading on this topic (not specifically morality but knowledge and epistemology)
https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/are-you-epistemologically-self-conscious/
You bring up “lack of sufficient evidence”. God says you have enough evidence for your condemnation (Romans 1). So, what evidence could convince you of the God you already know exists?
Yes, I know that people have misused the Bible for their own selfish purposes. But you should be careful not to jump into the fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because someone misuses the Bible, does not mean the Bible is wrong. That would be like says, “Well, that guy killed someone with a hammer, so hammers are evil and should be banned.” Remember in one of our 1st interactions when I said you didn’t understand slavery? When you hear the word, you think cruel chattel oppression of Africans by white people. This slavery IS immoral and Christians worked to end this slavery in the face of resistance from others who misused the Bible.
SE-“Do you ever believe it’s ok for a father to sell their daughter?”
1. My answer to the way you have worded the question is No, not today. This passage was written to a people who were surrounded by slavery. It was intended to denote that the buyer or buyer’s son wed the girl when she matures. It would have been a strong deterrent for the Hebrews of 1500BC to try to endure their poverty WITHOUT selling their daughters because it was intended to be a lifelong commitment of marriage to the buyer.
2. For someone to be in a situation where they felt their daughter would die due to poverty, or sell her into a lifelong marriage, the choice would be difficult, but the commandment was that the dad couldn’t just come take her back. She would be wed. If the buyer did not marry her, the girl would be free.
3. This strict boundary on how to treat people is in line with the commandment to love one another. It would be loving for a father to sell her into marriage rather than letting her die of starvation
You are unique as an atheist who does not celebrate abortion.
LikeLike
Let’s keep this simple. Is morality based on well being or is it based on a god?
All morality is is the distinction between right and wrong correct? Is well being concerned with right and wrong? Answer yes. So morality is simply concerned with well being. In short asking what is moral is simply asking what helps and harms well being.
If you define morality in a different way we’re talking about something different and am curious to know what your definition is. If, however, you do agree with this definition why do we need to start with a god? And if we do, like it or not, you are also subjectively choosing god as your standard.
Morals are subjective but we can evaluate them objectively. Example it’s my opinion murdering children is morally wrong. Millions agree with this. If millions agree this harms well being it becomes an objective moral truth does it not? It is a fact murdering children, in no way, increases well being. No god needed.
I also love when Christians use the argument, “you know in your heart he exists.” This couldn’t be further from the truth my friend. Atheists don’t reject god because they’re angry at him. They reject him for the same reason Christians reject Thor and Vishnu….lack of evidence. The truth is more atheists have read and studied the bible than Christians and we’ve concluded it’s simple age old mythology. Some of us are more concerned with truth over a bed time story.
SE-“Do you ever believe it’s ok for a father to sell their daughter?”
1. My answer to the way you have worded the question is No, not today. This passage was written to a people who were surrounded by slavery. It was intended to denote that the buyer or buyer’s son wed the girl when she matures. It would have been a strong deterrent for the Hebrews of 1500BC to try to endure their poverty WITHOUT selling their daughters because it was intended to be a lifelong commitment of marriage to the buyer. – Wow, just wow!
This couldn’t be a more bull shit answer if I’ve ever head one. Have you read your bible or just listened to Frank Turek interpret it for you? Exodus 21:8: SE-“If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again.” This couldn’t be more clear. The father can sell the daughter as a sex slave who may not go free. Yes, the buyer may give her to his son for marriage but she is literally being sold to the master as a sex slave. It’s very sad you’re trying to defend a woman being sold at any period of time. Again I don’t care what the time was like. This isn’t about that. It’s about an alleged all good god giving instructions on how a human can be sold. It’s disgusting you would defend such an action. I genuinely hope one day you read the bible with an unbiased mind and ask yourself, would, at any point in time, an unchanging and all loving god command this?
You can justify it anyway you like but at the end of the day you’re defending slavery my friend. The selling and owning of another human being. The bible clearly states fathers may sell daughters who then become property as well as allowing masters to buy slaves from foreign lands and beat them. Think about that.
LikeLike
Objective morality can only come from a transcendent Source. God revealed Himself to be that transcendent Source.
Why do you choose well-being as the standard for morality?
1. It is arbitrary.Why not the strongest chooses what is right? Why not let women choose what is right?Why not let the smartest choose what is right? Don’t be arbitrary
2. It is inconsistent. If the natural forces of evolution produced all that we see around us, then we should not choose well-being as the moral thing to do as it handicaps evolutionary forces. The consistent thing for someone who believe evolution is the primary driver of life/consciousness would be to choose harm as the highest morality. If someone survives harm, then they are fit to produce and have their genetic material propagated. Should the recipient of harm die, then they were not fit in the 1st place. Stress/harm are also strong selective pressures for novel features and new mutations. Be consistent!
3. It is irrational. Since humans are simply the accidental aggregate of inert stardust in a blind/pitiless/indifferent cosmos, it is irrational to declare one interaction of stardust to be wrong and another right. Your standard of morality is irrational in a second way as well. Since you (or any other human) do not have all knowledge for all time, choosing a short term well-being could have devastating effects in the future. Don’t be irrational!
4. It is subjective. Well-being for some may be torture for someone else. Who gets to decide well-being? If that person decides well-being is for them to enjoy nature by themselves on the planet, by other standard could you tell them they were wrong?
What is right and wrong for the accidental naturalist? Your worldview falls right back into the arbitrary, inconsistent, irrational, subjective trap once again.
You speak of truth. What is truth and how can you know it for certain?
You then go on to commit the fallacy of personal incredulity rather than build a case against the Bible. But this is expected because to build a case against the Bible, you must be able to account for invariant, abstract, absolutes…which naturalism cannot do. Don’t commit fallacies!
God demonstrated his love toward us in this: while we were still sinners Christ died for us. May you see the love of God and repent of your rebellion against Him.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Altruism Exchange – Part 4 | ApoloJedi
Pingback: Book Review: The Best Religion For the Task At Hand | ApoloJedi