God Condoned Chattel Slavery

Originally posted by @divegeester
Looks like Jacob is coming over to see you FMF...

Is FMF a national attraction? 😛

Originally posted by @divegeester
Ooh no thanks, your immense intellect and flat-earth factoids will overpower me in seconds.

Don't sell yourself short, little buddy.
My 'expertise' is pretty limited, maybe two (or possibly three) issues to address, both of which I have been unable to resolve.
You should be able to sew it up in a snap.
Of course, no one else has been able to figure it out, but a guy like you, with your background and the mental acuity demonstrated here?
Bet you have it figured out lickety-split.

Originally posted by @secondson
[b]"Slavery is wrong. Slavery has always been wrong. Slavery will always be wrong."

"In the above passage God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery."

You must be suffering from some sort of ambiguous mental disorder. You state that slavery is wrong, and then state that God condones slavery.

Thanks for letting us know how much smarter than God you are.[/b]

You state that slavery is wrong, and then state that God condones slavery.

Read what you quoted:

"Slavery is wrong. Slavery has always been wrong. Slavery will always be wrong."

"In the above passage God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery."

Are you unable to make a distinction between stating that "God condones slavery" and "God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery"?

I even drove the point home with the following:
<<Why not simply assert that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery by the Jews was wrong since it is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus?>>

Hint: Note the word "depicted".

Perhaps it is you who is "suffering from some sort of ambiguous mental disorder"?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b]You state that slavery is wrong, and then state that God condones slavery.

Read what you quoted:

"Slavery is wrong. Slavery has always been wrong. Slavery will always be wrong."

"In the above passage God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery."

Are you unable to make a distinction between ...[text shortened]... icted[/b]".

Perhaps it is you who is "suffering from some sort of ambiguous mental disorder"?[/b]

You use the word "depicted" to describe how God is represented by the Jews as condoning slavery.

With me so far?

Perhaps it didn't register with you that Leviticus 25 is God speaking Himself.

Catch that?

You blame the Jews, and anyone else that you think condones slavery, for depicting God as condoning slavery.

Try to understand what you're saying. In essence you are accusing God as "depicting" Himself as condoning slavery, since it is God Himself that is establishing the rules of slavery in Leviticus 25, and not the Jews themselves.

1. You misread Leviticus.
2. You misunderstand Leviticus.
3. Your comprehension of Leviticus 25 is misconstrued.
4. Your entire argument is flawed.

I'll give you one thing though. You clearly demonstrate how ignorant people can be.

Originally posted by @secondson
You use the word "depicted" to describe how God is represented by the Jews as condoning slavery.

With me so far?

Perhaps it didn't register with you that Leviticus 25 is God speaking Himself.

Catch that?

You blame the Jews, and anyone else that you think condones slavery, for depicting God as condoning slavery.

Try to understand what you're ...[text shortened]... s flawed.

I'll give you one thing though. You clearly demonstrate how ignorant people can be.

As a neutral observer, he had that coming.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
As a neutral observer, he had that coming.

Well, I try to be kind, but the truth is the truth.

Originally posted by @secondson
You use the word "depicted" to describe how God is represented by the Jews as condoning slavery.

With me so far?

Perhaps it didn't register with you that Leviticus 25 is God speaking Himself.

Catch that?

You blame the Jews, and anyone else that you think condones slavery, for depicting God as condoning slavery.

Try to understand what you're ...[text shortened]... s flawed.

I'll give you one thing though. You clearly demonstrate how ignorant people can be.

And then there's reality.

Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You 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. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,..

In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as:
Expressly giving permission for Jews to buy slaves. Expressly stating that they are their property. Expressly stating that they can be bequeathed to their children. Expressly stating that they can be made slaves for life.

By the very definition that is chattel slavery and God is depicted as expressly condoning it.

The reality is that In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.

The reality is that chattel slavery flies in the face of what Jesus taught is the foundation of the will of God (Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:37-40) :
1) Chattel slavery flies in the face of "treat people the same way you want them to treat you".
2) Chattel slavery flies in the face of "‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF".

The reality is that chattel slavery flies in the face of the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.

The reality is that chattel slavery flies in the face of the righteousness preached by Jesus during His ministry.

The reality is that chattel slavery flies in the face of the righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry.

The reality is that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46 flies in the face of righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry.

Your posts are emblematic of the sophistry that's required for many Christians to maintain their belief in the fallacious doctrine that they have been taught. They hate reality. They hate truth. If God is truth, then they hate God.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
And then there's reality.

Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You 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. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited p ...[text shortened]... they have been taught. They hate reality. They hate truth. If God is truth, then they hate God.

As an atheist, how do you logically justify the existence of moral absolutes?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
As an atheist, how do you logically justify the existence of moral absolutes?

If you have a point to make about my post, then plainly state it.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
If you have a point to make about my post, then plainly state it.

The obvious point is that your argument is moot if you are arguing that it is evil for God to condone slavery. As Ravi Zacharias would say, when you say something is evil you assume there’s good. When you assume there’s good you have to assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil.

As a neutral observer, Becker has ToO on the ropes.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The obvious point is that your argument is moot if you are arguing that it is evil for God to condone slavery. As Ravi Zacharias would say, when you say something is evil you assume there’s good. When you assume there’s good you have to assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assu ...[text shortened]... e's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil.

What does any of this have to do with my post? Did you even read it?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
What does any of this have to do with my post? Did you even read it?

If you would like to persist with a moot argument, be my guest. No one is stopping you.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you would like to persist with a moot argument, be my guest. No one is stopping you.

The fact is that your "point" has nothing to do with my post.

Evidently you were unable to understand the following from my post:

The reality is that In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.

The reality is that chattel slavery flies in the face of what Jesus taught is the foundation of the will of God (Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:37-40) :
1) Chattel slavery flies in the face of "treat people the same way you want them to treat you".
2) Chattel slavery flies in the face of "‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF".

The reality is that chattel slavery flies in the face of the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.

The reality is that chattel slavery flies in the face of the righteousness preached by Jesus during His ministry.

The reality is that chattel slavery flies in the face of the righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry.

The reality is that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46 flies in the face of righteous God spoken of by Jesus during His ministry.

If you still can't understand it, then I suggest you ask someone with decent reading comprehension skills to explain it to you.