show_no_mercy

Solipsism

Johnny Skeptic

No, that is not what being skeptical means. I am not skeptical that President Bush exists. Do you know anyone who is? Being skeptical is questioning claims that are not supported by logical evidence. The claimed existence and good character of the God of the Bible are not supported by logical evidence. If a God exists, it is reasonable to assume that he would be able to make those issues as apparent as the fact that President Bush exists. If heaven and hell are actually at stake, one would think that a loving God would have already done that instead of providing lots of needlessly confusing evidence, including evidence that has even confused Christians for thousands of years, and needlessly confusing prophecies. A God would not have any trouble at all convincing over 95% of the people in the world that he is able to predict the future.

Civil1z@tion

You're thinkg of a radical skepticism. Radical skeptics are annoying as hell because there is no way to have a discussion with them.

Johnny Skeptic

Are you confused about the opening post? The post clearly shows that if a God inspired those texts, he is immoral.

Kosh3

A large part of the American slave trade consisted of buying slaves off of Africans who had captured them (slavery was a pre-existing practice in Africa). That is, Americans did not go around capturing them themselves. Would that be then consistent with gods law?

beforHim

Thx guys for the explanations and distinctions. I really don't want to be stereotypical, which is why I inquire.

Sabine Grant

Actually, if you take the history of slavery, what you will find is that slave traders had "mercenaries" they would hire to cause/trigger wars in between tribes such as in the old Kingdom of Mali. Such tribes would then make captives from the wars and exchange them for various items offered by slave traders.

The other method was to kidnap natives from the African continent and ship them to the Island of Goree (Senegalese coast) where they would be held in transit (against their will) to the Northern American continent.

Further, the "apologetic" argument for Biblical slavery is that such impoverished persons would not have survived without their "masters" providing them with shelter and food in exchange for labor. Almost portraying such slavery practice as a humanitarian gesture.

Reality check : such practice resulted in maintaining the slave in his/her poverty status by withholding wages from him/her. Such person would remain economically dependent instead of being empowered and equipped to become economically independent by earning wages. Pure exploitation of our fellow human beings. Keeping folks in such dependent status for survival guaranteed persistent and continued co dependency and that to the benefit of the "masters".

Such exploitative practice I have seen while living in Naples, Southern Italy and that in the 21st century. Where immigrants from continental Africa will be hired for labor locally in exchange for a bowl of pasta and the "privilege" of sharing a shack with other immigrants living under the same slavery conditions. Same with young African females coerced into the sweet vision of being hired "au pair" or as a nanny by a wealthy Italian family... as they end up exchanging sex labor on the Domitiana road for the right to not be killed.

Kosh3

I heard someone argue similarly for female slaves captured in war by Muslims: 'they had no one to provide for them, so god did the right thing in allowing Muslims to marry them' (to paraphrase).

Noble and pious stuff there from god. lol

Johnny Skeptic

It appears that fundies currently do not have any interest in this thread, and quite conveniently I might add. The Scriptures that I quoted in the opening post reasonably prove that the God of the Bible is immoral, and that he is a racist.

Johnny Skeptic

No, the article by Christian apologist Glenn Miller is not a good explanation of slavery at all because it does not discuss the Scriptures that I discussed. Miller conveniently cherry picked Scriptures and conveniently avoided mentioning the Scriptures that I discussed.

You have obviously not learned that posting links cannot do all of your debating for you.

The opening post clearly proves that if a God inspired the Bible, he is immoral.

Just so I understand you correctly, is it your position that no matter who God is, and no matter what he does, he has to be good, fair, and moral?