Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by Dardedar »

DOU: "Darrel,
At the most basic God is the Creator and Originator of all life.">>

DAR
I know of no evidence supporting that assumption, and you don't provide any.

DOU: "The Bible ascribes that He knits us together in our mothers wombs and knows us before conception.">>

DAR
Right. But since God knows all things from beginning to end, he also knows you before the earth was created. So the fact that there is a body growing in a mother has nothing whatsoever to do with God's knowledge. This is a bit of poetry talking about God and says nothing about the legal/moral status of the fetus.

DOU: "Jeremiah 1:5"

DAR
Poetry. If God was against abortion, he could have said so. He didn't. Not a word.

DOU: "The Lord hath called me from the womb: from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. Isaiah 49:1"

DAR
Again, poetry talking about God's knowledge of you before you are born. But he had knowledge of you, before your parents met. Did you have the status of personhood before your parents met? This makes the fetus irrelevant to the equation.

DOU: "Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us within our mothers? Job 31:15">>

DAR
Since God (supposedly) makes all things, this doesn't accomplish anything for you either. Very poetic though.

DOU: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Psalm 139:13-14"

DAR
Same as above. Poetry, talking about God action and God knowledge. Since this poet is going on about how his God does all things and knows all things, this accomplishes nothing regarding the legal/moral status of the womb inhabitant.

DOU: "And he named them “Mankind”[a] when they were created. Gen.5:1-2">>

DAR
Not clear how this is relevant in any sense. Adam and Eve were never womb inhabitants. He was made from dirt and when he couldn't find a suitable mate from the animals, she was made from a rib. Sounds true to me.

DOU: Exodus 21:22-25 makes no exclusions which means it applies to both the mother and the prematurely born child.">>

DAR
Wrong. If men have a fight and one of them causes a pregnant woman to miscarry, the penalty was a fine; if the mother was harmed, it was "life for life." Notice this difference in value. The fetus was not considered to have the value of a human life, as was the case with the mother.

DOU: "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world and ALL who live in it. Psalm 24:1">>

DAR
I guess you've reached the bottom of the barrel now!

DOU: "Considering that the fetus is alive and not inanimate matter, the unborn belongs to God. The childs life is no ones but God's to end, and that implies you do not have the right to encourage other people to end a life that belongs to God.">>

DAR
Hey Dou, my body makes 11 million sperm and hour, and each one is alive, and human, and genetically unique and not inanimate matter. Your body does too. What right do you have to kill them or even let them die!? Murder! Does this look like the arrangement of a God that gives a flip about killing things that are alive, and human, and genetically unique and not inanimate matter? No, I don't think so.

DOU: "Even the jackals offer their breasts to nurse their young, but my people have become heartless like ostriches in the desert. Lamentations 4:3">>

DAR
I guess we hadn't reached the bottom of the barrel before. But now we have.

I have given multiple lines of evidence showing that the Jews, and their book, and their God, did not give a fetus the status of personhood. You have not addressed any of these. But you did share some nice poetry that talked about the attributes of the Hebrew god.

Look, you have a hard case here. While there are multitudes of verses which take the time to condemn every sort of little thing from wearing clothes of mixed fiber (Leviticus 19:19) to touching the skin of a dead pig (Leviticus 11:7, 10) along with pages of instructions for making a holy box, a tent, curtains, lamps, candlesticks and wash basins (see Exod. chapters 25-30) including the length of the priest skirt (Exod. 28:42), at no time does the Bible take a moment to say a single word against abortion. So you are reduced to quoting bits of poetry about what God "knows" or "formed." Since he "knows" everything, and "forms" everything, this accomplishes nothing whatsoever for your case.

And then we have clear evidence that even a newborn didn't have personhood status. They didn't count them in a census. Persons get counted in a census. We're more lenient now.

For census purposes in Numbers 3:15, only male babies older than one month were to be counted. Below this age, they were not considered persons to be counted.

Jewish law is quite clear in its statement that an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, bar kayama) until thirty days after its birth. One is not allowed to observe the Laws of Mourning for an expelled fetus. As a matter of fact, these Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his thirtieth day.

Try addressing my arguments Dou, they are conveniently numbered, here:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/fetus.shtml

D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by Dardedar »

DOU: "You over look the fact that skin cells are not a person, just part of a person.">>

DAR
The Jews considered a fetus not a person, just part of a person.

DOU: "Same with a spermatoza.">>

DAR
I answer your questions directly. You forgot to address mine. Again:

"My body makes 11 million sperm and hour, and each one is alive, and human, and genetically unique and not inanimate matter. Your body does too. What right do you have to kill them or even let them die!? Murder! Does this look like the arrangement of a God that gives a flip about killing things that are alive, and human, and genetically unique and not inanimate matter?"

DOU: "We are not talking about killing, we are discussing murder.">>

DAR
Actually, murder always involves killing, by definition, without exception. So we are discussing both. And the question we are addressing is, is it "murder" (wrongful killing). Careful not to beg the question. If a fetus does not have the status of personhood, then it is not wrongful (murder) to kill it. So your task is to establish Bible based personhood. I have given multiple lines of evidence showing the Bible did not give a fetus the status of personhood. You need to address these arguments. I've addressed each of yours.

Here is a nice short tract that may also be useful to you as your put your arguments together:

http://ffrf.org/shop/nontracts/What-Doe ... -Abortion/

Just so you know what's coming.

D.

***

DOU: You can not claim that God holds no regard for the fetus as a person,">>

I just did. And I provided multiple lines of evidence, straight from the Bible.

DOU: "and deny His existance.">>

Whether God exists or not is an entirely different question from the question of what the Bible teaches about the status of a fetus. Don't confuse them.

DOU: "I may dare to venture you are not a believer,">>

DAR
Bingo.

DOU: "which makes your arguments automatically empty.">>

No, belief in God or lack of belief imparts no special status to a person's arguments. None whatsoever.

DOU: "you are seeking to use His word for your purpose.">>

When a person's purpose is to establish the Bible's position on the issue of a fetus, it's necessary to appeal to what the Bible says. Their personal belief in God is a different question and irrelevant to the question.
One doesn't have to believe in the Alice in the "Alice in Wonderland" novel in order to refer to specific statements made in that book.

DOU:
The Bible is to define who we are, it is not for us to define the Bible.">>

If you would like to talk about the Bible and it's accuracy, that would be fine (I wrote a book about that), but that's a different question. Perhaps we should focus on the abortion question.

DOU:
2 Tim. 3:16 clearly states that all of Scripture is inspired by God,">>

DAR
That's nice, but not relevant to the question at hand. Inspired or not, does the Bible assert that the a fetus has the status of personhood. No. It doesn't matter if it's "inspired" by God or not. Feel free to assume it's inspired.

DOU: "and there fore the poetry that you are so flippantly dismissing.">>

It doesn't matter whether it's poetry or not. Those verses you quoted, and I addressed each one of them, speak of God's attributes, not of the fetus. Your verses don't address the question or support your argument.

DOU: "poetic expression it is non the less inspired by God.">>

"Inspired" doesn't help your case. In my responses I don't need to question whether they are inspired. Feel free to assume they are.

DOU: "With regard to Ex. 21, you are adding to the verses, there are no qualify as to who the fine is for.">>

DAR
From my Jewish study Bible in front of me:

"When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,..."

I am not adding to the verses, and I trust the Hebrews to understand their Hebrew better than you do.

A longer explanation:

"Exodus 21:22-23:

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot"

The traditional interpretation of this text, which even rabbinical scholars accepted for thousands of years, is this: if a man hurts a woman enough to cause a miscarriage, he reciprocates according to how much injury he caused her, i.e., an eye for an eye, etc. However, if the miscarriage resulted in no injury to the woman, then all the assailant had to pay was a monetary fine. The fact that the Bible does not equate the assailant's life with the stillborn's life is proof that the Bible does not count the fetus as a person.

This was the traditional interpretation -- until recently, that is, when pro-life Christians became alarmed by the pro-choice side's successful use of it in the debate on abortion. They took a close second look at the passage, and discovered a second possible interpretation. The text actually turns out to be ambiguous. It does not say who exactly suffers the "mischief" or harm; it could be the fetus as well as the mother. In that case, a miscarriage resulting in a live birth was punishable by a monetary fine, but a miscarriage resulting in fetal injury or death would call for the same from the assailant.

This new interpretation suffers from three drawbacks. First, the Jews, who know their own tradition best, have always accepted the first interpretation. Second, the laws of surrounding cultures (Assyrians, Hittites, Sumerians, Babylonians, Hammurapi and Eshnunna) were similar to Israel's, due to widespread copying of laws. There is no ambiguity in their laws; any harm caused clearly refers to the mother. Finally, miscarriages in ancient times almost always resulted in stillbirths; saving premature babies is an achievement of modern science."

DOU:
I checked the Hebrew and there is no qualifier as to how the fine should be, the child/ the mother or both.">>

DAR
All major scholarly translations think the best way to translate the literal “goes forth” in Ex. 21:22 is with the word “miscarriage.”

This includes:

Revised Standard Version
The American Standard
New English Bible
Today's English Version
The Douay-Rheims Bible
The Jerusalem Bible
The Jewish Study Bible

Please don't tell me you know how to translate Hebrew better than these scholars do. I don't find that persuasive.

DOU:
I see no reason to insert woman into the text where it clearly is not.">>

All of the scholarly translations disagree with you. Fundie Bibles don't count.

DOU: "The Bible also tells us that God is not a respecter of persons.">>

You are begging the question (fallacy) of whether a fetus is a person. You can't assume that because that is the actual point in question.

DOU: "He does not look at or judge the unborn person any different than one lying on their death bed.">>

Sorry, I know you would like to define your way out of the problem by assuming a fetus is a person but that's question begging. That's a fallacy, can't do that.

And the Bible makes clear that a fetus is not a person. They didn't even count them as a person until they were three months old.

And God gives instruction on how to perform an abortion.

Your position has lots of problems and no biblical support.

D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by Dardedar »

DOU: "You are making a judgment call about a society, of which you only know through a book of which you doubt its Author.">>

The status of the supposed author has nothing whatsoever to do with what the book in question says. My position is supported by standard, mainstream, Christian scholarship and as I have shown, a straightforward reading of the Bible. You should try to address my arguments. I have responded to all of yours. If I have missed one, let me know.

DOU: "The death of a sperm is through the natural cycle of its life and the given virables of life.">>

You miss my point. The death of a fetus is also often natural. But this is beside the point. I have given you several specific examples of the Bible NOT giving the status of personhood to a fetus. You don't have any showing it did.

DOU: "...you are going to have to do better than an article from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.">>

This is the genetic fallacy. Truth is independent of it's source. Learn about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy I don't care whether you read that tract or not. I was just trying to help you learn more about this subject.

DOU: "This would be similiar to me using Hitler to support why religion should be in schools, of which he does have a statement about.">>

Yes he does, after all, Hitler was a very devote Christian man in favor of religious instruction in schools. The statements made in that FFRF tract are either true or false, independently of the fact that you have a bias against teh people who wrote it. Respond to the arguments, don't dismiss the source out of hand (genetic fallacy).

DOU: "If you can find something from RC Sproul, Ravi, Thomas Aquinas, Chuck Smith, etc. It might bear weight in the argument.">>

I am sure you like your fundie authors. I am very familiar with their work. I trust if they had any good arguments you will use them. Unfortunately, you've pretty much tried out all they have, and it doesn't get the job done.

D.
ps. This debate has also been going on with messages. I have copied these exchanges on our freethinker forum here:

viewtopic.php?p=23527#p23527

Doulous has said he will respond over there.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
DoulosforGod
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by DoulosforGod »

Darrel, I am kind of surprised that you are only posting your responses to me. This is highly misleading... I am still working on putting a response together....
DoulosforGod
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by DoulosforGod »

Darrel, I am kind of surprised that you only post your responses, of which only contain the small clip of the argument you are responding to. This is dishonest and misleading. I am working on a rsponse and am already receiving feedback from the Jewish and Messianic Jewish community...
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by Dardedar »

DoulosforGod wrote:Darrel, I am kind of surprised that you only post your responses, of which only contain the small clip of the argument you are responding to."
I posted your main comments/arguments and my responses. Here is a link to the thread in case anyone wants to read your comments unabridged. I also invited you here to post freely. Feel free to post your older comments if you wish. I don't think there was anything I missed.
This is dishonest and misleading.
I don't think it is at all. You are free to post your comments in full. I addressed all of your main points, verbatim, and if I missed an important one, please point it out and I'll address it directly.
I am working on a rsponse and am already receiving feedback...
Good. And are you going to get around to addressing my affirmative arguments for the non-personhood status of the fetus in the Bible? And the standard Christian scholarship I have already posted?

For those that don't know, "doulos" is ancient Greek for "slave."

D.
-------------
Let me number my affirmative arguments for you. Please address them directly as I have yours.

1) If men have a fight and one of them causes a pregnant woman to miscarry, the penalty was a fine; if the mother was harmed, it was "life for life" (Exod. 21:22,23). While a small number of politically correct fundamentalist Bibles try to fix this verse (NIV), all of the major scholarly translations think the best way to translate the literal “goes forth” in Ex. 21:22 is with the word “miscarriage.”
This includes:

Revised Standard Version
The American Standard
New English Bible
Today's English Version
The Douay-Rheims Bible
The Jerusalem Bible
The Jewish Study Bible

2) Numbers 5:17-31
"…and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water."

This passage describes a method by which the husband could induce an abortion, with the help of the priest. If a husband suspected that his wife had engaged in an adulterous relationship, then he would bring her to the tabernacle and the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would then have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce a miscarriage. There is no concern about the fate of the fetus. There was no similar magical test that a woman could require of her husband if she suspected him of adultery.

3) Leviticus 27:6
"If the person is from a month old up to five years old, your valuation shall be…"

A child was only given a value after the age of one month; boys were worth five shekels; girls three. Below the age of one month they were given no monetary value.

4) Numbers 3:15

"…every male from a month old and upward you shall number."

Only male babies over one month of age were counted as persons during a census. A baby under one month of age and a fetus were not counted as a person.

5) Genesis 38:24

Tamar was found to be pregnant and because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's twin fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action. (Judah later changed his mind when he found out that HE had impregnated Tamar when she posed as a prostitute.)

***
Note: The color you are using for text is reserved for the moderator.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
DoulosforGod
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by DoulosforGod »

Darrel wrote:I don't think it is at all. You are free to post your comments in full. I addressed all of your main points, verbatim, and if I missed an important one, please point it out and I'll address it directly.
The problem is that until I or anyone else you set yourself against comes to your site, and places our responses on here, you have already posted atleast a few of yours, it off sets the flow of the conversation. Like wise you argue against the premise and the conclusions of an argument as though they were seperate arguments, or comment on part of an argument while convienently skipping the rest.
Darrel wrote:Good. And are you going to get around to addressing my affirmative arguments for the non-personhood status of the fetus in the Bible? And the standard Christian scholarship I have already posted?
Darrel your article will be addressed specificly and directly, and then a response from the Mesianic Jewish community will be given towards your general understanding of God's stance on the unborn child. I am hoping to also get a response from the Jewish community as well, but we will se what happens.
Darrel wrote:For those that don't know, "doulos" is ancient Greek for "slave."

D.
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/v ... umber=1401
For those who don't know, "doulos" is a Greek term for a bond servant. Slave can be used. In particular to the Judeo Christian faith. A doulos was a person who incurred a debt they could not pay off. So they became a slave to the person who owned their debt. After they had worked the debt off, if they found their master to be good and fair, they could choose to stay in his service rather than living life under their own governing. By the time of the New Testament, the term be came a derogatory term. I have found God to be a good, fair and righteous Master. Who has paid my debt, and I chose to be in His service rather than live life under my own accord.

God has called me not to argue or banter, and I will (to the best of my ability) not do so. This will be my last response on here, until the rebuttal of your article is finished. Thank you for allowing me the time and opportunity to present the truth.
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by Doug »

DoulosforGod wrote:http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/v ... umber=1401
For those who don't know, "doulos" is a Greek term for a bond servant. Slave can be used. In particular to the Judeo Christian faith. A doulos was a person who incurred a debt they could not pay off. So they became a slave to the person who owned their debt. After they had worked the debt off, if they found their master to be good and fair, they could choose to stay in his service rather than living life under their own governing. By the time of the New Testament, the term be came a derogatory term. I have found God to be a good, fair and righteous Master. Who has paid my debt, and I chose to be in His service rather than live life under my own accord.
DOUG
SlaveforGod is doing what many fundamentalists try to do: misrepresent slavery in the Bible as if it were nothing immoral, just a business arrangement, like leasing a car.

The word "doulos" refers to someone who is owned by another, is the property of another, and who has no ownership rights.

That's a slave. That is also the standard translation from the Greek: slave.
Strong's 1401. doulos

a slave
Original Word: δοῦλος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Adjective; Noun, Feminine; Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: doulos
Phonetic Spelling: (doo'-los)
Short Definition: a male slave
Definition: (a) (as adj.) enslaved, (b) (as noun) a (male) slave.
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1401.htm

Just so we are clear: The slavery in the time of Jesus was exactly the kind we had here in the U.S. People were owned for life, their children became the property of the master, and the slave could be bought and sold at the master's whim.

Jesus never uttered a word against the institution of slavery. Paul openly endorsed slavery, even returning a runaway slave at one point. Isn't that interesting?

In the Old Testament, there were different kinds of slavery. The Israelites could buy fellow Israelites who wanted to pay off a debt by becoming temporary servants. They were freed at the end of the 6th year (see Exodus 21:2-6). Doulos is right that the person who is going to be freed could opt for lifelong slavery--but the Bible does not say that he would decide this if the master was "good and fair." Exodus 21 tells us that if the slave had a wife and/or children, and the wife was given to him by the master, the slave's family was not freed. So the slave might not want to leave his enslaved family. He could (reluctantly, to be sure) decide to be a slave for life. The master would take him before some judges who would stand the slave at a doorpost and drive an awl through his ear, marking him as a lifelong slave, never to be freed, nor were his family.

The young women sold into slavery by their fathers had no freedom at the end of a specified time:
“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
(Exodus 21:7-11)

So the Israelite slave women were only freed at the end of 6 years if they went into the slavery with a husband. The husband and wife were freed together. If they went in single, even if they got married while a slave, they remained the master's property for the rest of their lives.

Note, too, that foreign slaves were treated like slaves were here in the U.S: People were owned for life, their children became the property of the master, and a slave could be bought and sold at the master's whim.

See Leviticus 25:44-46 (NIV)
“‘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 in 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 Israelites ruthlessly.
Leviticus 19:20-21 explains that if a master has sex with a female slave who is engaged to someone else, she is punished but the man may be forgiven by giving a ram to the temple. And if she is not engaged to someone else? I guess raping her is no crime, according to the Bible.

And people could be forced to become slaves by being conquered by the Israelites:
Exodus 20:10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
There are lots of other examples, such as women as war booty, slaves (in the NT) asked to obey their masters just as they obey Christ, etc.

Some pretty awful ethics.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by Dardedar »

DoulosforGod wrote:The problem is that until I or anyone else you set yourself against comes to your site, and places our responses on here, you have already posted atleast a few of yours, it off sets the flow of the conversation. Like wise you argue against the premise and the conclusions of an argument as though they were seperate arguments, or comment on part of an argument while convienently skipping the rest.
DAR
Well I certainly didn't mean to "skip" anything. Why don't we just start fresh. This started as a discussion about abstinence and then drifted into Abortion, and then it got reposted under a vague "facebook debates" page.

I've started a new thread with an appropriate title: "Does the Bible consider a fetus a person?"

Since you are making the case in the affirmative, you can go first.

D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
kwlyon
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by kwlyon »

Might I recommend that you really do start fresh if he takes you up on the offer. Allow him to make his case anew...don't dig up bones or refer to points previously made. Give this guy a chance to start fresh and see how the argument unfolds...I would enjoy reading the exchange.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by Dardedar »

kwlyon wrote: Allow him to make his case anew...
But of course.
don't dig up bones or refer to points previously made.
I would never.
Give this guy a chance to start fresh...
A new thread has been created, he can begin at any time.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
kwlyon
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by kwlyon »

And Darrel, If I may make one more suggestion. I think It would also be a show of good faith if you would provide him with a complementary tube of Astroglide before the exchange begins....
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by Dardedar »

Been having a few rounds with "He's Alive!" A fellow who friended our freethinker facebook. Here is the thread in question.

***
Jesusisthewaythetruth Andthelife:
Exactly right! he did not want to do it! he knew what was coming! :) he prayed and asked if there could be any other way for humakind to be redeemed and there wasnt a another way. and on the cross when he cried out "My God My God Why hast thou forsaken me" he was taking on the whole weight of sin. my sin yours even the most vilest criminals every killer,rapist,etc thats the only time Jesus ever called his Father "God" he suffered greatly
Fayfreethinkers:
There wasn't another way? God couldn't have just decided to forgive everyone without this elaborate bit about Jesus suffering for a couple days? Why is God so limited he couldn't figure out another way? I can think of lots of ways.
HE's: "when he cried out "My God My God Why hast thou forsaken me" he was taking on the whole weight of sin.">>
Sounds to me like he was saying his God had forsaken him.
"thats the only time Jesus ever called his Father "God">>
Not really:

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet
ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say
unto them. I ascend unto my Father, and your Father;
and to my God, and your God." John 20:17

***
HA: "When he shed his blood on the cross. All of his Righteoussness he traded for our sin!">>
That's what the story says. But it seems more likely that his was just made up after the fact to try and make sense of what his followers thought was a senseless act. And this story consoles them that it wasn't for nothing.
HA: "he took on the full weight of sin! Why did God do it this way thats a good question.">>
It's a good question for which there is no answer. There are several atonement theories but none of them make any sense.
HA: "Humankind's sin requires a blood sacrifice and Christ was the Lamb of God!">>
This wasn't needed, since we have all of these goats. We have a tract which explains this here:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/scapegoat.shtml

When the Christians wrote their story, they just rewrote the old scapegoat Jewish story.
HA: "hard to understand? I agree.">>
Not that hard when you realize it is just made up. Sometimes things are hard to understand because they are just false.
HA: "we are talking about Holy Sinless God and Unholy sinful people.">>
Sin is a made up human concept so Christianity is offering to solve a problem that it creates. No Christianity, no sin, no problem. Observe:

"Would you be thankful to a person who cut you with a knife in order to sell you a bandage? Would you respect a doctor who makes you sick in order to stay in business? What is more joyful: "I am guilty but forgiven," or "I was innocent all along"? Sin is a vicious concept, an insult. It keeps people subservient. Even Jesus was supposed to have said, "They who are not sick need no physician." --Dan Barker, From Preacher to Atheist: Losing Faith in Faith, p. 228.

***
HA: "if this was just a made up story and a hoax then why has it gone to the xtreme to keep a story that is false going for 20 centuries?">>
Excellent question that deserves an answer.

First of all, it need not be a "hoax." People easily make mistakes, especially when it comes to interpreting what they perceive to be supernatural experiences. And also especially when it involves emotions that tap into their fear/reward system that offers them a possible opportunity to escape death. Almost all religions do this, and as you know, the world is filled with sincere religious people who believe all sorts of bizarre things that are not true. You disbelieve in the vast majority of them and dismiss them for the same reasons I do.

Here is a quote that summarizes this phenomenon:

"....Man can contemplate his own mortality and finds the thought intolerable. Any animal will struggle to protect itself from a threat of death. Faced with a predator, it flees, hides, fights or employs some other defensive mechanism, such as death-feigning or the emission of stinking fluids. There are many self-protection mechanisms, but they all occur as a response to an immediate danger. When man contemplates his future death, it is as if, by thinking of it, he renders it immediate. His defense is to deny it. He cannot deny that his body will die and rot--the evidence is too strong for that; so he solves the problem by the invention of an immortal soul--a soul which is more 'him' than even his physical body is 'him.' If this soul can survive in an afterlife, then he has successfully defended himself against the threatened attack on his life. This gives the agents of the gods a powerful area of support. All they need to do is to remind their followers constantly of their mortality and to convince them that the afterlife itself is under the personal management of the particular gods they are promoting. The self-protective urges of their worshippers will do the rest."

[Desmond Morris, "Religious Displays," _Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behavior, 1977, Abrams, New York, p. 149-51.]

So, your religion keeps getting perpetuated due largely to the above effect, and also, for many it is a means to control people, appear moral and also extract money from them. This is not to dismiss the fact that probably the vast majority, such as yourself, are sincere and honest in your beliefs.

There are lots of examples of false stories that are far older than Christianity and they are still perpetuated to this day, and for similar reasons.

Darrel
----------------
"It is not the antiquity of a tale that is any evidence of its truth; on the contrary, it is a symptom of its being fabulous; for the more ancient any history pretends to be the more it has the resemblance of a fable. The origin of every nation is buried in fabulous tradition, and that of the Jews is as much to be suspected as any other."
--Thomas Paine, Age of Reason, pg. 104

***

HA: "I DO NOT HAVE "RELIGION">>

Of course you do. My dictionary has for Religion:

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

That's what you have. You have a religion and it is called Christianity. Saying other wise is not being honest with language and to play word games.

HA: I Have a Relationship With JESUS CHRIST!>>

Jesus died nearly 2,000 years ago and hasn't been heard from since. What you have is an imagined personal religious experience. This is very common. Billions of people have them. You dismiss most of them for the same reason I do. The vast majority of them must be wrong because they contradict each other. The argument from "personal religious experience" is not persuasive to anyone not experiencing it personally because we know delusion is extremely common in humans.

HA: "ThE apostles were a group of men that published the gospel of Jesus Christ>>

Not remotely true. All standard mainstream Christian scholarship acknowledges that the gospels are anonymous. The names were added later for convenience and to add authority. We have church fathers from as late as 180 CE with the Book of "Matthew" in front of them and they have no idea who wrote it. We don't even know who the "apostles" were. The lists contradict each other. The only NT books that have known authorship are by Paul, and Paul never met Jesus. Nor does Paul show any knowledge of "the gospels" nor obviously, of who may have written them.

HA: thE Apostles all died violent deaths which would lead me to ask Why?>>

The stories of martyrdom are largely legendary. But even if they aren't they have very little to do verifying the truth of the stories they may have believed in. Note:

"As to martyrdom, it is rather easier to die for a false idea
than the apologists argue. Peregrinus, in the account of his
life by Lucian, got arrested as a Christian, and wished to
pay the ultimate penalty. His death wish was frustrated by
the Roman magistrate, who recognized the selfish desire
for attention by Peregrinus, and freed his prisoner instead.
Martyrdom is the ultimate narcissism.
In Lucian's story, Peregrinus finally dies by flinging himself
in a pagan god's fire, seeking immortality, with narration
of his glory supplied by one of his bootlicking followers."
-- Jeff Lowder

"As late as about 240/250 AD, Origen in Contra Celsum Book 3 Chapter 8
admits that the number of Christian marytrs was 'few' and 'easily
numbered'. This is after more than 2 centuries of persecution.
'For in order to remind others, that by seeing a few engaged in a
struggle for their religion, they also might be better fitted to
despise death, some, on special occasions, and these individuals who
can be easily numbered, have endured death for the sake of
Christianity..."

As Schweitzer pointed out: "Martyrdom has always been a proof of the intensity, never the correctness, of a belief."
-Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) theologian

HA: "if Christ Did Not Rise and this is Just aFAirytalk etc!">>

These fellows, if they existed, were relying upon stories they heard. Just like you are, except your stories are 2,000 years old. Yet you still believe them and perhaps would die for them. Thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses died for their beliefs in WWII, does that suggest that the Jehovah's Witness religion is true? No. This is just evidence of the gullibility of humans, not the truth of the stories people can convince themselves to die for. But again, with few exceptions, the stories of martyrdom that Christians pass around are almost without exception, bogus.

HA: "Then why would these men go about publishing it!">>

They didn't. Those names were added later. No one that knew Jesus wrote anything in your New Testament. This is standard mainstream Christian scholarship and has been known for hundreds of years.

HA: "If it was all a hoak/Faitytalke then the Apostles would have never been heard from again!! Make sense?>>

After they died, they never were heard from again. But people still believe because people are incredibly gullible and lack critical thinking skills.

Darrel.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by Dardedar »

Continued...

***
He's Alive: "Say I dont Believe in gravity we cant see gravity and we cant touch it but it is there.">>
Your analogy fails because the effects of gravity can be directly measured, observed and quantified in any hundred different ways. This is entirely unlike your God claims which cannot be measured, observed or quantified in any way. There is nothing, no thing whatsoever that you can point to and demonstrate to be "God action." This is entirely unlike gravity. So this is a fallacy of False Analogy.
HA: "it is the same with the Lord we may not be able to physically see him or touch him but he is there and loves us and shed his blood for us :)">>
There is no evidence to support your claim beyond wishful thinking.

The world carries on right now exactly as we would expect it to if Jesus died in the first century and became non-existent just like everyone else. If he existed today in some way and could do anything whatsoever, we should expect to see him doing something other than acting exactly as if he doesn't exist. Two thousand years of no sign of Jesus should probably suffice as evidence that he is gone.

D.
------------
"[The gospel accounts] are a poetic rendering of a devout wish but certainly not an authentic record... since the Crucifixion was conducted by Roman soldiers,... Jesus' body was most likely left on the Cross or tossed into a shallow grave to be eaten by scavenger dogs, crows or other wild beasts. As for Jesus' family and followers, depicted in the Bible as conducting a decent burial of the body according to Jewish law, "as far as I can see, they ran. They lost their nerve, though not their faith."
--TIME mag., 4/10/95, pg. 70, Bible scholars Robert W. Funk and Dominic Crossan.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
DoulosforGod
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:42 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by DoulosforGod »

Doug wrote:
DoulosforGod wrote:http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/v ... umber=1401
For those who don't know, "doulos" is a Greek term for a bond servant. Slave can be used. In particular to the Judeo Christian faith. A doulos was a person who incurred a debt they could not pay off. So they became a slave to the person who owned their debt. After they had worked the debt off, if they found their master to be good and fair, they could choose to stay in his service rather than living life under their own governing. By the time of the New Testament, the term be came a derogatory term. I have found God to be a good, fair and righteous Master. Who has paid my debt, and I chose to be in His service rather than live life under my own accord.
DOUG
SlaveforGod is doing what many fundamentalists try to do: misrepresent slavery in the Bible as if it were nothing immoral, just a business arrangement, like leasing a car.

The word "doulos" refers to someone who is owned by another, is the property of another, and who has no ownership rights.

That's a slave. That is also the standard translation from the Greek: slave.
Strong's 1401. doulos

a slave
Original Word: δοῦλος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Adjective; Noun, Feminine; Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: doulos
Phonetic Spelling: (doo'-los)
Short Definition: a male slave
Definition: (a) (as adj.) enslaved, (b) (as noun) a (male) slave.
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1401.htm

Just so we are clear: The slavery in the time of Jesus was exactly the kind we had here in the U.S. People were owned for life, their children became the property of the master, and the slave could be bought and sold at the master's whim.

Jesus never uttered a word against the institution of slavery. Paul openly endorsed slavery, even returning a runaway slave at one point. Isn't that interesting?

In the Old Testament, there were different kinds of slavery. The Israelites could buy fellow Israelites who wanted to pay off a debt by becoming temporary servants. They were freed at the end of the 6th year (see Exodus 21:2-6). Doulos is right that the person who is going to be freed could opt for lifelong slavery--but the Bible does not say that he would decide this if the master was "good and fair." Exodus 21 tells us that if the slave had a wife and/or children, and the wife was given to him by the master, the slave's family was not freed. So the slave might not want to leave his enslaved family. He could (reluctantly, to be sure) decide to be a slave for life. The master would take him before some judges who would stand the slave at a doorpost and drive an awl through his ear, marking him as a lifelong slave, never to be freed, nor were his family.

The young women sold into slavery by their fathers had no freedom at the end of a specified time:
“If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
(Exodus 21:7-11)

So the Israelite slave women were only freed at the end of 6 years if they went into the slavery with a husband. The husband and wife were freed together. If they went in single, even if they got married while a slave, they remained the master's property for the rest of their lives.

Note, too, that foreign slaves were treated like slaves were here in the U.S: People were owned for life, their children became the property of the master, and a slave could be bought and sold at the master's whim.

See Leviticus 25:44-46 (NIV)
“‘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 in 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 Israelites ruthlessly.
Leviticus 19:20-21 explains that if a master has sex with a female slave who is engaged to someone else, she is punished but the man may be forgiven by giving a ram to the temple. And if she is not engaged to someone else? I guess raping her is no crime, according to the Bible.

And people could be forced to become slaves by being conquered by the Israelites:
Exodus 20:10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
There are lots of other examples, such as women as war booty, slaves (in the NT) asked to obey their masters just as they obey Christ, etc.

Some pretty awful ethics.
Doug,
Your presentation and understanding of slavery and the various forms of servitude is either intentional or interestingly gapped. In America there were groups known as indentured servants, these are more in line with what the Bible refers to as doulos, or atleast how it was instituted in the Old Testament.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary wrote:Definition of INDENTURED SERVANT
: a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance
There were slaves taken from wars, there were slaves who worked for another because they owed a debt, and then there were those who were bought.
Exodus 21:1-6 wrote: 1 “Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them: 2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh he shall go out free and pay nothing. 3 If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. 5 But if the servant plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.
<Bold and underlining I added>

By the time of Christ... By the time of David, there was already corruption and disobediance to the commands and regulations God had established for how their society was to govern itself, it is no wonder that by the time of Christ and under a pagan government, things were drastically different than God inteded. It is also interesting that you fail to mention that Christians spearheaded the movements to end slavery...
Slavery laws in the Old Testament
The Founding Fathers and Slavery
Anti-slavery activist William Wilberforce: Christian hero
Models for Reformation: The Christian Abolitionists (1800s)
Did Jesus Christ Condone Slavery?

You understanding of what slaves and servants, even regular citizens were asked to do is also flawed. All Christians are called to submit to authority, so long as that authority does not contradict God, and then we are to stand up for our faith and defend others. As to your assertion that Paul sent Onesimus back to continue his servitude as a slave. I will let Scripture speak for itself:
Philemon 1 wrote: Greeting
1 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,
To Philemon our beloved friend and fellow laborer, 2 to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house:
3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Philemon’s Love and Faith
4 I thank my God, making mention of you always in my prayers, 5 hearing of your love and faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the saints, 6 that the sharing of your faith may become effective by the acknowledgment of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus. 7 For we have great joy and consolation in your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed by you, brother.

The Plea for Onesimus
8 Therefore, though I might be very bold in Christ to command you what is fitting, 9 yet for love’s sake I rather appeal to you—being such a one as Paul, the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ— 10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains, 11 who once was unprofitable to you, but now is profitable to you and to me.
12 I am sending him back. You therefore receive him, that is, my own heart, 13 whom I wished to keep with me, that on your behalf he might minister to me in my chains for the gospel. 14 But without your consent I wanted to do nothing, that your good deed might not be by compulsion, as it were, but voluntary.
15 For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever, 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave—a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

Philemon’s Obedience Encouraged
17 If then you count me as a partner, receive him as you would me. 18 But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. 19 I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay—not to mention to you that you owe me even your own self besides. 20 Yes, brother, let me have joy from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in the Lord.
21 Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say. 22 But, meanwhile, also prepare a guest room for me, for I trust that through your prayers I shall be granted to you.

Farewell
23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, 24 as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, my fellow laborers.
25 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.
<Bold and underlining added by me.>
I only briefly skimmed your response, and would love to stay and make this longer, but I need sleep and need to focus on my studies for school... finals are around the corner.
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by Savonarola »

DoulosforGod wrote:....
I only briefly skimmed your response, and would love to stay and make this longer, but I need sleep and need to focus on my studies for school... finals are around the corner.
It is always, always, always amusing to see just how much twisting, straining, begging, hair-splitting, qualifying, and evading that Christians attempt in order to somehow try to get around the fact that the Bible clearly endorses slavery.

"Oh, but it was really indentured servitude!"
1. Only in some cases.
2. That's still ownership of another human being, i.e. slavery.

"It's all about submitting to authority."
I'll say. Especially contrived and irrational forms of authority (like ownership of a human being, i.e. slavery).

"You don't understand those times."
You're wrong, but it doesn't even matter what someone does or does not understand about the times. The Bible clearly, unequivocally, undeniably endorses slavery.

"By the time of Christ, slavery wasn't endorsed."
Slavery is clearly endorsed in the New Testament, too.

"Christians pushed for abolition of slavery."
So did Deists, freethinkers, masons, and other non-Christians, but only Christians used the Bible's clear endorsement of slavery to justify their practice of slavery. Oh, and more importantly, whether Christians pushed for abolition is irrelevant to whether the Bible endorses slavery. (News flash: It does!)

"I didn't bother really reading what you said..."
Or the Bible, apparently.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Facebook Debates, Religion (Zeitgeist too)

Post by Dardedar »

Doulos, it seems that as with the abortion issue, you haven't studied or considered this issue very carefully. Oh, and if you are going to have any credibility in such exchanges you should really begin by at least having the courtesy of reading the comments in post you are supposedly responding to.

Incidentally, we have tract that Doug wrote on this which is contained in our Fabulous Fayetteville Freethinker Fact-filled Family Fun Folder, but we haven't put it online yet (note to self and SAV, we should do this some time). It responds and refutes to most of your claims so I'll just paste it here (this is a 2007 version and may be slightly different from later versions):

***
The Bible and Slavery

Slavery was common in the ancient world, but in the modern world it is considered immoral. Unfortunately, the Bible reflects the outdated ethics of the past. It endorses slavery in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Bible clearly institutionalizes the chattel slavery as practiced in the Old South. Moses, Saul, David, Solomon, and other Bible luminaries owned slaves without hesitation.

Slaves were property, just like livestock.

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 in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life…”

Slaves could be beaten mercilessly.

Exodus 21:20-21: "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.”

Exodus 21 says if a person is gored to death by a bull, the bull’s owner is put to death—a life for a life. But if the gored person is a slave, the bull’s owner only pays a 30 shekel fine. A dead slave is considered lost property.

Some believers claim the Bible only permits “temporary” and “voluntary” slavery, as if they are indentured servants working off a debt. The Israelites did have such slavery for male Israelites (Lev. 25:39-42), but children born to the slave, and females, do not go free.

Exodus 21:1-2,4,7: "These are the laws you are to set before them: "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything…4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free…If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.”

If an Israelite chooses to remain a slave rather than abandon his enslaved family, he would become a slave for life and stay (Ex. 21:5-6). Imagine the horror of having to choose between freedom and family!
Foreign slaves were slaves for life (Lev. 25), and the god of the Bible instructs the Hebrews to enslave prisoners of war (Deut. 20:10-14), and if the enemies resist, the men are to be killed and the women taken as “plunder.” “And you may use the plunder,” the Bible instructs.

In the New Testament, Jesus never condemns slavery. In fact, Paul often speaks of slavery as something that must remain in society.

1 Cor. 7:20: “Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.”

The New Testament also says that slaves should obey harsh masters as well as nice ones (1 Pet. 2:18). The entire book of Philemon is a letter to a slave’s owner sent when Paul returns the slave to his master! Paul tells slaves “obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ” (Eph. 6:5). Should slave owners be compared to Jesus?

Some people claim that the Bible advocates the abolition of slavery. Often they cite Isaiah 58:6:

“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?”

But in Isaiah the speaker is referring to the enslavement of the Israelites as a nation. Even if God wanted those slaves to be free, authorizing slavery in the laws of Moses and elsewhere shows that the Bible does not oppose slavery.

Other defenders of the Bible refer to Matthew 23:10, where Jesus says:

“Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”

The King James Version uses “master.” However, the Greek is kathegetes, from the root word meaning “guide” or “teacher.” Many translations use “teacher” or “leader” instead of “master.” Matthew 23:10 does not refer to a master-slave relationship, and thus it does not condemn slavery.

The Bible clearly sanctions slavery, and nowhere condemns it as an institution. Our society cannot afford to use such a book to guide our ethical decision-making. We’ve advanced beyond such ancient morals.

The Bible was wrong about slavery.
Why trust its ethics in other areas?

***
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
Post Reply