Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've tried to get you to define slave and property so we could evaluate your claims properly but so far you have just wanted to assume what the words mean.

From the Non-Sequitur cartoon I linked earlier: "Define 'wet'."

Now you're just playing games. Look up "slave" and "property" in any dictionary. Those are the definitions I am working with, just as they undoubtedly are the definitions that modern scholars who translate these texts are working with. They aren't going to translate into Shakespearean English. That would be silly. If anything it is you who are trying to utilize and/or justify an eccentric (or perhaps obsolete?) definition. I'm just using the dictionary definition of words that I know in our present usage of those terms.

I'm not bothered by it. What parts should I be bothered by?

Owning people as property, perhaps? That's what it says, even in your NET translation. If I were a xian I would be tremendously bothered by that being regarded as acceptable.

Why should anyone care what your personal preferences are?

Empathy? Human flourishing? Some form of the Golden Rule (that exists in most societies, but not the bible as I recall)? Enlightened self-interest? You certainly would care if suddenly people had to power to enslave YOU and YOUR family.

As I've said, it seems to me that as an atheist, you can't really affirm that something is immoral. On what basis could you?

All of the above I just mentioned, and probably more if I thought about it. It is you who have no basis. An edict passed down from on-high? That's just an edict, backed up by force (e.g. smiting). It does not follow that any edict from an authority is necessarily "moral". In fact, I would judge many of them in the various scriptures (not just xianity) to be decidedly immoral because they victimize the innocent, promote slavery (thereby reducing other people to little more than chattel), justify cruelty, and so forth. You have an authority which you assume issues only moral commands. You have no basis for that assumption (either its existence, or the edicts are in fact moral). That is removing your responsibility for thinking about these issues and saying "I was just following orders". That is not an acceptable defense for atrocities, no matter what authority you may be following. I fail to see why you are "puzzled".

The atheist thinks about these things, and most of the time seems to come to superior moral judgments. Which is probably why a few homosexual xians hang out on the atheist board because they know they're not welcome on the CF board. Sadly.

Though this thread has wandered off a bit. I said a while back I wasn't going to say you were wrong about prayer since it was your perspective. And I wouldn't argue the "good god" thing either, at least in that context. But now we're faced with the possibility of arguing about that in a different context. Just want to be clear that with respect to prayer I'm still not arguing with you. You said something I can grok even if I don't agree with the premise, which answered my original question. If we continue it must be with the understanding that the subject has now changed and I may need to start arguing the alleged goodness of the Abrahamic deity. I try to keep my word...it's a morality thing. ;-)
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.