Atheist author fights back

[Axion]

It’s funny how people always try to dog Christianity by quoting the Old Testament.

If they were really honest they’d use the OT to criticize Judaism first. Christianity is centred on the New Testament.

And the new testament teaches love for one another, even our enemies and to treat others as we would be treated. This is the reason, of course why Christianity is the only major society to have abolished slavery and seen it as wrong. The main opponents of slavery were Christians who saw it as incompatible with Jesus’s message.

Slavery was prominent in the Roman Empire before Christianity took over. Although a powerful institution, it had all but vanished in a few centuries. Yes it has been re-introduced in certain eras, most particularly in the Americas, but it has always been seen as a wrong. In other societies it has been seen as part of the natural order. The strong oppress the weak. That is a very Darwinian position too, as Hitler noted.

 

[deb1]

Well it’s really very simple:

1. We all have a moral duty to speak the truth as we know it, with the best of our ability, including theists and atheists alike. That means we should politely debate, discuss and explain our beliefs with others willing to do so. (Unfortunately, some people of almost every belief system prefer to be hostile about it)

I agree with you! But be aware that atheistic based political systesm are responsible for many deaths in the last century. So, many of the criticism of Christianity can be applied to atheists also.

I think that some people are not so much worried by Christianity as they are by the potential of fundamentalists in any belief system to attempt to force their beliefs on others. This worries me also.

 

[deb1]

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" (1 Peter 2:18).

“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ”(Ephesians 6:5)

In Christianity, we are supposed to return kindness for cruelty. We are suppose to turn the cheek. We often don’t, but that is what we should do. Jesus spoke of the servant on earth being
given a higher place in heaven. Also, considering the fact that Christianity at the time, had little power, there was very little that Peter or Paul could do to end the situation beyond advising servants and slaves to be good. It is strange though, isn’t it, that there were many slaves who became Christians. Not something that would have happened, if they saw the religion as further degrading them.

"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids” (Leviticus 25:44).

“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money” (Exodus 21:20-21).

Slavery was a fact of life in ancient times. Like it or not, God’s rules dealt with this fact and were actually much more humane then the surrounding cultures.

What would be better, saying don’t own slaves, knowing that the people probably would anyway and then having those slaves treated horribly or setting up rules to make certain that they are treated at least decently.

The above rule, although allowing slavery and the beating of another human, punishes the man for killing his slave. I don’t think that any other culture punished the master for killing his slave.

In Rome, masters could have their slaves crucified on whim. In Southern states, no laws kept owners from killing their servants.

I’ll continue with the other verses in a different post. I need a computer break.

 

[Maranatha]

Well it’s really very simple:

1. We all have a moral duty to speak the truth as we know it, with the best of our ability, including theists and atheists alike. That means we should politely debate, discuss and explain our beliefs with others willing to do so. (Unfortunately, some people of almost every belief system prefer to be hostile about it)
2. Supernatural religious beliefs have consequences for society via the behavior of believers, whether those beliefs are true or not.

For instance, a significant minority of theists may be complacent about the deterioration of the environment because they believe that God would intervene or that it is part of God’s plan for the end times. This is not necessarily the case but nevertheless, it is a concern to nontheists. We all like to be on the same page when confronting our society’s problems.

1. All people tend to feel more comfortable with people of like beliefs. Atheists are a small minority and it would naturally make them feel more accepted if more people believed as they did, or at least more people understood how atheists feel and that atheism is a reasonable position to hold.

As an atheist I recognize that theism is reasonable, but I simply disagree with it as a truth claim.

I agree that answers 2 and 3 are valid reasons why an atheist would pick up the intellectual debate. Both reasons have diminished in importance in the past few decades. With the advent of aggressive secularization and the judicial activism to back it up, atheist should feel more comfortable then ever.

I think the first argument is rather silly. If all we are is evolved protoplasm, then there is no such thing as morality. Animals can’t do anything morally wrong. If all we are are well evolved animals then there is no ultimate morality.

If this is this case atheist have no moral duty to speak truth. If this is the case, I can own slaves and rape people and in one thousand year no one will know or care.

 

[Maranatha]

So, it commands people to take slaves, says it’s okay to beat slaves to death, slaves must be good and kind to their masters even if their masters beat them, foreigners should all be taken as slaves, it’s okay to sell your daughter into slavery

Wonderful moral guide, and I see you don’t even deny that the bible promotes rape.

You forget two important points. First, the alternative to taking defeated people as slaves at the time was killing them. So telling people to take them as slaves was tantamount to telling the Israelites not to kill their defeated enemies. If you do take slaves, then your going to have to be able to discipline them. You don’t mention the passages in the Old Testament that freed all slaves at certain intervals.

Second, you also don’t mention the obvious evolving morality of the Bible. The Israelites were taken from the general culture of the time and over the course of several hundred years less emphasis was placed on the physical laws of cleanliness and abstinence and more emphasis was placed on morally good action. If you want to criticise the Bible you need to also be able to look at the big picture.

 

[Maranatha]

My problem is with the claim that the bible is a good guide to morality. I do, incedently, have a problem with 90% of christians who say the bible is divinely inspired, and therefore these calls to violence, rape, slavery, genocide, ect, are all either true or “metephorically” true.

I agree with you here. Using the Bible to justify you immoral actions is unconscionable.

 

[Blackbog]

Well it’s really very simple:

1. We all have a moral duty to speak the truth as we know it, with the best of our ability, including theists and atheists alike. That means we should politely debate, discuss and explain our beliefs with others willing to do so. (Unfortunately, some people of almost every belief system prefer to be hostile about it)
2. Supernatural religious beliefs have consequences for society via the behavior of believers, whether those beliefs are true or not.

For instance, a significant minority of theists may be complacent about the deterioration of the environment because they believe that God would intervene or that it is part of God’s plan for the end times. This is not necessarily the case but nevertheless, it is a concern to nontheists. We all like to be on the same page when confronting our society’s problems.

1. All people tend to feel more comfortable with people of like beliefs. Atheists are a small minority and it would naturally make them feel more accepted if more people believed as they did, or at least more people understood how atheists feel and that atheism is a reasonable position to hold.

As an atheist I recognize that theism is reasonable, but I simply disagree with it as a truth claim.

Well said. Thank you for sparing me the need to reply to these folks. The author is clearly speaking out against the people who believe in a God that (he believes) doesn’t exist, not speaking out against a God that (he believes) doesn’t exist.

I am a convert from atheism, but (and probably because of that) it bothers me greatly when Catholics make weak arguments.

 

[Mersenne]

The Bible does not promote slavery or rape.
As with easy divorce, which Jesus discussed with regard to the Law covenant, many things were tolerated under the Old Law that were never intended by God, but were tolerated because of the hardness of heart of the Israelites. Easy divorce was but one example.

Well, no, some of those statements came from the new testament. Even still, is there any biblical support for your statement?

As for the Israelite exterminations of the Canaanite peoples under God’s command, that was a very unusual circumstance. God had told Abraham 400 years before that he and his people could not have the land yet because the wickedness of the land’s inhabitants had not yet reached the point of no return. When it had, the Israelites were told by God (who has the ultimate right to decide life and death) to go in and wipe out those wicked civilizations. Don’t like it? Argue with Yahweh. You’ll lose.

If Yahweh wishes to come down and argue this issue with me, you’ll find I’ll be much more open to the idea of accepting the morality of the bible. He has an open invitation, any time, I will cancel plans if I have to. He can even wake me up in the middle of the night. I’m normally pretty cranky, but I’ll tough it out for such a visit.

Paul’s urging of Christian slaves to be shining examples to their masters was not because slavery was such a cool or great thing, but a means of Christians bearing witness to the edifying and sanctifying power of Christ and the Holy Spirit, with conversion of sinners in view. Christ, God in the Flesh, deliberately suffered violence, torture, and death. Christians, for our sanctification, are called to endure mistreatment as well."

The theological rationalizations behind such morality is irrelevent. The point is that, without faith, such morality would be considered by most people to be terrible, so this claim that the bible is a great moral guide is similarly ridiculous. Were the blacks during american slavery who escaped their masters sinners? By the bible, it seems so.

 

[Mersenne]

It’s funny how people always try to dog Christianity by quoting the Old Testament.

It’s funny how Christians always try to pretend like the old testament isn’t part of the bible when it disagrees with their beliefs, but feel free to treat it as the divine truth whenever it agrees with them.

And, do note, I quoted the new testament as well.

I also find it funny that you feel the need to ramp up the size of the text in your posts. Rude, says I.

If they were really honest they’d use the OT to criticize Judaism first.

1. Jewish morality is bad
2. Christian morality is bad.

Feel better? I criticized Judaism first.

And the new testament teaches love for one another, even our enemies and to treat others as we would be treated. This is the reason, of course why Christianity is the only major society to have abolished slavery and seen it as wrong. The main opponents of slavery were Christians who saw it as incompatible with Jesus’s message.

Christianity never abolished slavery, the United States did. And plenty of other countries, who are not primarily Christian, have abolished slavery.

Slavery was prominent in the Roman Empire before Christianity took over. Although a powerful institution, it had all but vanished in a few centuries. Yes it has been re-introduced in certain eras, most particularly in the Americas, but it has always been seen as a wrong. In other societies it has been seen as part of the natural order. The strong oppress the weak. That is a very Darwinian position too, as Hitler noted.

You know what else dissapeared in a few centuries when Christianity took over Rome? Rome.

“Darwinianism” doesn’t say any such things, it just points out the way things work in the wild. Animals also rape, kill, and run around naked. Simply pointing this out doesn’t condone it for human societies.

 

[Mersenne]

Slavery was a fact of life in ancient times.

Quite right. Our cultural ideas of morality have evolved quite a bit over the last few thousand years. All the more reason not to go to a book full of the moral ideas of a bunch of uncivilized cave dwellers who encouraged rape and slavery and killing anyone who doesn’t agree with you.

The above rule, although allowing slavery and the beating of another human, punishes the man for killing his slave. I don’t think that any other culture punished the master for killing his slave.

It only punishes him if the slave dies immediately. Somehow it’s okay to beat your slave to death as long as it takes awhile. Why couldn’t god have just said “It’s wrong to have slaves, but I will tolerate it, but they are human beings as well, and murder is murder” The message in all of those passage is clear, slaves aren’t people. God clearly said it was OKAY TO MURDER A FELLOW HUMAN.

 

[Mersenne]

Second, you also don’t mention the obvious evolving morality of the Bible. The Israelites were taken from the general culture of the time and over the course of several hundred years less emphasis was placed on the physical laws of cleanliness and abstinence and more emphasis was placed on morally good action. If you want to criticise the Bible you need to also be able to look at the big picture.

Oh I think I do recognize the obvious evolution of morality, that’s exactly my point. The bible is stuck in a very unevolved sense of morality.

 

[deb1]

Oh I think I do recognize the obvious evolution of morality, that’s exactly my point. The bible is stuck in a very unevolved sense of morality.

Jewish people use oral tradition to compliment the scriptures, so it was somewhat more gently practiced.

Most Christians do not use the Old Testament as a guide for morality.

 

[deb1]

It only punishes him if the slave dies immediately. Somehow it’s okay to beat your slave to death as long as it takes awhile. Why couldn’t god have just said “It’s wrong to have slaves, but I will tolerate it, but they are human beings as well, and murder is murder” The message in all of those passage is clear, slaves aren’t people. God clearly said it was OKAY TO MURDER A FELLOW HUMAN.

That is not what I read in the verse.

I read that if two days after a beating the slave is still alive, then the owner is not punished. So, if the slave dies in two days, the owner is punished. Does that make sense?

Many people do not immediately die from a beating but linger for awhile. That is the purpose for the verse, to make certain that the owner is not let off from the punishment simply because his slave didn’t immediately expire.

The text doesn’t say that a person can beat a slave for two days.

 

[deb1]

It’s funny how Christians always try to pretend like the old testament isn’t part of the bible when it disagrees with their beliefs, but feel free to treat it as the divine truth whenever it agrees with them.

.

This irritates me also and I am a Christian! You find this sort of strange attitude among fundamentalists more then Catholics or main stream Protestants.

 

[deb1]

“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Exodus 21:7-10).

.

I told you that I would look at the other verses, so here is my answer. I am using an easier bible translation then you, so it will read a bit different. Exodus 21:7-11

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do. But if her master who had destined her for himself, dislikes her, he shall let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreigner, since he has broken faith with her. If he destines her for his son, he shall treat her like a daughter. If he takes another wife, he shall not withhold her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he does not grant her these three things, she shall be given her freedom absolutely, without cost to her.

I think that I am reading these verses differently then you are. My bible says destined means *to take as a second wife. *If a man has sex with his servant then she is considered his second wife and he has to treat her as one. If he wants to get rid of her then he can’t sell her to foreigners and and must let her be redeemed. If he denies her certain rights then she shall have her freedom without costs. It sounds like it was more of a hassle for an owner to have sex with a female slave then to just leave her alone.

 

[deb1]

“If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. . . . If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned” (Exodus 21:28-32).

“Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 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" (Leviticus 25:44-46).

.

Again my translation says something different then yours. So, I am going to quote my bible.

Exodus 21:28-32

When an ox gores a man or a woman to death the ox must be stoned; its flesh may not be eaten. The owner of the ox, however, shall go unpunished. But if an ox was previously in the habit of goring people and its owner, though warned, would not keep it in, should it then kill a man or a woman, not only must the ox be stoned, but its owner also must be put to death. If, however, a fine is imposed on him, he must pay in ransome for his life, whatever amount is imposed on him. This law applies if it is a boy or girl that the ox gores. But if it is a male or a female slave that it gores, he must pay the owner of the slave thirty shekels of silver and the ox must be stoned.

This seems basically fair. If you don’t know that your ox is dangerous, then you personally shouldn’t be punished, but if you are told that you have a dangerous animal then you are responsible for it. Notice that the verses mention that even if the ox gores a boy or girl, the punishment is the same. This is because surrounding cultures did not hold children in high regard.

Here is how my bible translates Leviticus 25:44-47. Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children
who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattel

What type of bible are you using? I am using the New Catholic Answer Bible. NAB.

By the way, speaking of slaves rights, here is an interesting verse from Exodus 21: 26-27
When a man strikes his male or female slave in the eye and destroyes the use of the eye, he shall let the slave go free in compensation for the eye. If he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let the slave go free in compensation for the tooth

So, beating a slave could result in being forced to give the slave their freedom.

 

[Nullasalus]

On slavery, I just wanted to chime in with something.

One claim I’ve encountered about the bible is that ‘The Bible condoned slavery!’ When I was younger, this was a pretty damning truth - after all, there’s laws and orders in the bible regarding slaves. You can’t have those without condoning slavery. And if the Bible - even the Old Testament - condoned slavery, how can we trust it regarding morality?

I forget at what point I came to this realization - I went through a youthful anti-Catholic/anti-religious phase - but something dawned on me at one point.

Slavery conjures up very specific images in our minds - a person captured, beaten into subservience, forced to serve against their will. But in reality, it isn’t so easy. Think about the Soviet Union. Did the soviets have slaves? You can argue that’s ridiculous - those images we have in our mind did not exist in the Soviet Union for the most part. But you still had a rather captive populace that operated under authority. Individual will was restricted, both by force and by indoctrination. You can make a strong argument that slavery did exist in the Soviet Union.

Granted, the OT is dealing largely with a specific form of the practice. But I think the greater point is that slavery doesn’t simply ‘get eliminated’ - it simply changes form.

 

[jemfinch]

I think it was George Bernard Shaw who commented that: “There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics.”

I’m pretty sure that was Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens). Some people argue that it was actually Benjamin Disraeli, but I’m disinclined to believe them.

Jeremy

 

[valient_Lucy]

I’ve read through all of it twice. I don’t think YOU’VE read it, most christians haven’t. The book is drenched with immorality, it’s hard to miss.

I’ve read through the entire Bible as well, but I missed the part where God commanded people to commit rape. Could you enlighten us and provide chapter and verse where men are commanded to rape women?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I’m pretty sure that was Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens). Some people argue that it was actually Benjamin Disraeli, but I’m disinclined to believe them.

Jeremy

Thanks - Joe