Johnny Skeptic

Confirmation bias? Oh my, fundamentalist Christians are certainly as guilty of that an anyone else is, certainly moreso than most skeptics are. Consider the following:

If you are not aware that the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians rubber stamp most or all of what the Bible says, and practice Bible based predispositionlism, which means that they have already assumed their conclusion before they conduct research, you are more naive than I thought you were.

You believe that the flood was regional, even though there is not any scientific evidence that a regional flood occured that agrees with what the Bible says about the flood. That is because you are guilty of confirmation bias. A regional flood is not reasonably possible.

If the God of the Bible exists, and provided skeptics with additional evidence, most skeptics would be happy to consider the evidence. That proves that most skeptics are open minded. In addition, if the God of the Bible exists, he would easily be able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to become Christians.

Johnny Skeptic

On the contrary, you have lost hands down regarding your outrageous, undocumented claim that non-Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom.

Better stated, some Scriptures say that Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom after six years without paying anything, and no Scripture says that non-Hebrew slaves were guaranteed their freedom.

Consider the following translations of Leviticus 25:46:

KJV - And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

NASB - You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

NIV - You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

The Amplified Bible - And you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall you take your bondmen always, but over your brethren the Israelites you shall not rule one over another with harshness (severity, oppression).

The texts clearly show that there were two standards of treatment, one standard for Hebrew slaves, and another standard for non-Hebrew slaves. There is no doubt that the writer of the verse considered forcing Hebrews to be slaves for life to be unacceptable, and that he considered forcing non-Hebrews to be slaves for life to be acceptable.

sschlichter

The state of slavery is not immoral. We put people in prison for their entire life based on their behavior all the time. Slavery, (in it's form condoned by OT law) was used for the purpose of rehabilitation.

Take for example this person.

(Exo 22:3) A thief must surely make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he will be sold for his theft.

He becomes a slave because of his theft. He learns how to work for a living under the rigorous rules prescribed by the law. he develops a skill, he saves money, and in time, after his correction...

(Lev 25:49) or his uncle or his cousin may redeem him, or anyone of the rest of his blood relatives - his family - may redeem him, or if he prospers he may redeem himself.

Take all the prisoners, in our culture out of the prisons and they can live with you as free men - since you think their imprisonment is unjust.

Do you find the state of cleaning the toilet immoral? If not, then you should have no problem cleaning my toilets. Perhaps you should consider the difference between immoral and enjoyable.

~Steve

Johnny Skeptic

On the contrary, the state of Old Testament slavery is immoral, as I showed in my previous post.

sschlichter

Is imprisonment immoral?

Johnny Skeptic

If one ethnic group of people are guaranteed freedom, and other ethnic groups of people are not guaranteed freedom, such as in the Old Testament, yes, that is immoral. I made that quite apparent in my post #392.

The most immoral imprisonment is that the God of the Bible intends to send skeptics to hell of eternity without parole. No loving, merciful God would do that. If love and mercy are about anything, they are about rehabilitation, and second chances.

Many if not most skeptics would never send anyone to hell for 1,000 years without offering them a parole, let alone for eternity without parole. Obviously, the majority of skeptics are more loving and merciful than the God of the Bible is.

sschlichter

so, if that were not the case, then slavery would not be immoral?

sugarhitman

True non Hebrew slaves could be kept forever but so could Hebrew slaves. Also The Jewish bible's interpretation of Exodus 21 laws is for injured "bondmen".....slaves. Which are laws to discourage abuse.



you lose.

Johnny Skeptic

Better stated, unlike non-Hebrew slaves, Hebrew slaves could not be kept forever if they wanted their freedom. In the NASB, Exodus 21:2 says "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment."

Involuntary slavery for life is abuse if a slave wants to be freed. That applies even if a slave is treated well.

sschlichter

murderers who are imprisoned want to be freed. Is it immoral to imprison them? surely, your iron-clad argument in post #392 can hold up to a couple of questions.