bacht

You should drop the plantation reference, it's irrelevant.

You seem to be assuming that a better approach was possible at that time and that place for those people. This is not obvious to me.

Johnny Skeptic

I never said that if a God inspired the Bible, he is perfect.

I never said that if a God inspired the Bible, it would result in perfect human behavior.

Same as before.

The biblical God should not have endorsed the wrongful abuse of non-Hebrews.

Yes, you seem to have a lot more trouble with skeptics than you do with fundamentalist Christians. Why is that?

I will judge anyone who I wish to judge, especially people, whether ancient or modern, who wrongfully abuse people who are not members of their own ethnic group.

If a God inspired the texts, he would easily have been able to address the needs of proper interpretation for future generations.

I am willing to consider your methods for debating fundamentalist Christians. What are they? Do you ever debate fundamentalist Christians?

Chili

So what shall we call a guy who is angry at the God he does not believe in?

bacht

You obviously have your own reasons for being here. They don't have to be mine.

As for skeptics, I don't believe they have all the answers. No-one has it all figured out, that's part of being human.

Your case in this thread seems to be that the Bible writers could have set a higher standard for the Jews, is that it?

James Brown

As has been mentioned in this thread already, God apparently had no problem enforcing monotheism on the Hebrews, even though they repeatedly reverted back to polytheism for centuries. Jehovah never gave the Hebrews a pass on worshipping other gods simply because they were surrounded by polytheistic cultures. So maybe God did provide rules and expect his chosen people to obey despite the fact that those rules were difficult to follow.

We don't. It's fundamentalist Christians who assume that. It's those who argue that gays ought not to be allowed to marry because Leviticus calls them an abomination. It's those who argue that the Ten Commandments should be plastered on every courthouse (at taxpayer expense) because the US was formed on Judeo-Christian principles from the Bible. It's those who think that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" gives them permission to burn women at the stake, and to burn those who defend them. And it's those who argue that owning blacks was perfectly natural because of the curse of Canaan.

You can't have it both ways. Either slavery was sanctioned and regulated by an omnipotent God, in which case he is immoral, or slavery was sanctioned and regulated by an immorally immature group of people who used their deity to back up their assertions, in which case they should not be considered the source of modern morality.

Pick one.

bacht

Okay, so this thread is really about fundamentalism, is that it? Why are talking about modern morality in this thread?

Johnny Skeptic

You are free to have your own reasons for being here, and I am free to have my own reasons for being here.

Who has said anything different?

Who has said anything different?

Your case is that skeptics should never criticize the God of the Bible, and the Bible writers, is that it? If your case is that it is sometimes appropriate for skeptics to criticize the God of the Bible, and the Bible writers, which cases?

My case in this thread is that whether the Scriptures that I quoted were inspired by God, or were made up by some Bible writers, the texts endorse the wrongful abuse of non-Hebrew slaves.

How do you suggest that skeptics oppose fundamentalist Christianity? I am referring to skeptics who wish to oppose fundamentalist Christianity. Surely you are not trying to convince all of the skeptics in the world to stop opposing fundamentalist Christianity.

Do you believe that a global flood occured? If not, do you object to skeptics debating fundamentalist Christians about that topic?

Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead? If not, do you object to skeptics debating fundamentalist Christians about that topic?

James Brown

There are no more fundamentalists in today's society?

Johnny Skeptic

I am not aware of any credible evidence that it has ever been justifiable to wrongfully abuse people because of their ethnic group. You might as well say that all ancient barbarism was just fine because no one knew any better. Fundamentalist Christians believe that God created morality. If they are right, why did he endorse the wrongful abuse of non-Hebrew slaves? If he cared about the best interests of Hebrews, which he apparently did, he should also have cared about the best interests of non-Hebrews.

Do you have any idea why God chose the Jews to be his chosen people?

Perhaps one day you will find fault with a post that a Christian makes, or perhaps not. Perhaps your only reasons for being here are to defend Christians, and to criticize skeptics. I would not be surprised if you never criticize the God of the Bible and the Bible writers, and only criticize skeptics.

Sheshbazzar

No, this thread was not about fundamentalism, which was given very little consideration until post #129
Perhaps you ought to look in the mirror?
What was being discussed before your entry was the contents of the Biblical texts, a textual discussion which you attempted to cast in a light of "beating up on the Hebrews"
Hell man, it is their account, not ours, and this forum exists for the purpose of analysing and discussing those writings.
I went through a series of posts with you to get this thread back on track, that is discussion of the contents of the TEXTS pertinent to the subject of "Slavery".
And although you promised in Post #141
Your questions are still engaging in attempts to derail and change the subject into a discussion of modern fundamentalism.
That some (myself included) have attempted to address your protests, while continuing on with our original discussion, does not change the fact that this thread was not, and never was about fundamentalism, until you managed to lead it there.