Jason Lisle #fundie

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

[if you believe slavery to be immoral you are a moral relativist, so then let me ask you does God approve of slavery, is it morally acceptable]

The ironic thing about your claim Tony is that it makes no sense on your worldview. Moral absolutes just do not comport with a chance universe, where people are just chemical accidents. Your question is only meaningful in the Christian worldview, which shows that in your heart-of-hearts you really do know God. Yes, the type of slavery advocated in Scripture (helping an irresponsible person get out of debt by paying all his debt and training him to become financially responsible) is morally right. But apart from the Christian worldview, the phrase "morally acceptable" is fundamentally meaningless. You again demonstrate the truth of Christianity by the very questions you ask.

34 comments

old comment by Mister Spak

The ironic thing about your claim Jason is that it makes no sense on your worldview. Moral relativism just do not comport with a magic universe, where people are poofed out of dirt. Your question is only meaningful in the atheist worldview, which shows that in your heart-of-hearts you really do know reality is real. Yes, the type of slavery advocated in Scripture (helping an irresponsible person get out of debt by paying all his debt and training him to become financially responsible) is morally right because your god approves of you enslaving people of other religions. But other gods approve of other people enslaving you. But apart from the atheist worldview, the phrase "morally acceptable" is fundamentally meaningless. You again demonstrate the truth of observable reality by the very questions you ask.

old comment by dionysus

Moral absolutes just do not comport with a chance universe, where people are just chemical accidents.

Why not? Even if we assume it was all accidents and not simply the way the universe functions so what? If a diamond is made as a byproduct of the Earth instead of being formed by a machine does it not still shine? If a snowflake is made from clouds instead of being assembled by God is not still a snowflake?

Your question is only meaningful in the Christian worldview

Clearly you're wrong as the question obviously has meaning to the asker. Even if we assume he's pretending to be interested, the debate between moral relativism and moral absolutism rages even among atheists. The moral? Don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong, especially when you have no fucking idea what people other than you believe.

which shows that in your heart-of-hearts you really do know God

Even if we assumed we needed a source for absolute morality (and it isn't simply a matter of being the system with the best outcome for the most people, as utilitarians could posit), why would they automatically need to assume that it's YOUR god and not some other one? Hell, why does it have to be a god in the first place?

old comment by dionysus

Yes, the type of slavery advocated in Scripture (helping an irresponsible person get out of debt by paying all his debt and training him to become financially responsible) is morally right

1) That isn't the only type of slavery in the Bible. That's the type of slavery you could use for other Jews. When applied to people captured in war or gentiles it was a form of oppression, not a repayment of debt. Foreign slaves were slaves for life.

2) Repaying a debt is one thing. Being a slave is quite another. You can't beat someone to repay a debt. You can beat a slave so long as they don't die in a couple days from the beating. You can make a slave do things that violate their rights, whereas someone who's doing community service work or doing chores for someone to repay a debt still has the right to say "no" if they're asked to do something that violates their rights. A slave can be raped and beaten and they're expected to accept it. A vandal who gets caught defacing a business can sue the business and get the owner arrested if he's beaten and/or sexually violated.

3) Owning a person is never right. Even for a short time. Paying back a debt and doing thing you don't like? Fine. Being forced to do your master's bidding, whatever it is? No. A person needs autonomy, even if they are in debt to you.

You again demonstrate the truth of Christianity by the very questions you ask.

How does the debate about moral absolutism prove that Yahweh created a garden with a talking snake in it, flooded the world, impregnated a virgin with himself, became a carpenter, died, and came back to life? I'd LOVE to see the train of logic that leads from A to B on that one.

old comment by Arctic Knight

"Yes, the type of slavery advocated in Scripture (helping an irresponsible person get out of debt by paying all his debt and training him to become financially responsible) is morally right."

But what about the slavery that the Bible advocates where one person owns another person as property that can be handed down to his children as an inheritance?

Leviticus 25:44-46, "44 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.
45 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. 46 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: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

old comment by

So what's the "absolute morality" in the bible with respect to killing? Given you claim it provides "absolute morality" that should be easy, right?

"Thou shalt not kill" or

"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him."
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
"Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword."
" But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people."
"And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity. Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women."

I could certainly add more.

So which is it? Don't kill or kill? Certainly no moral absolute there.

old comment by the_ignored

My late response, with diogenes reply built in:

-------------
Lisle said:
"Yes, the type of slavery advocated in Scripture (helping an irresponsible person get out of debt by paying all his debt and training him to become financially responsible) is morally right"

Lisle seems to be ignoring the fact that people get into debt for many other reasons beside their own "irresponsibility" (ie. medical debt)...

Other problems with your view, Lisle, as brought up by a smarter person than me:

Lisle said:
"You again demonstrate the truth of Christianity by the very questions you ask."

I'd LOVE to see the train of logic that leads from A to B on that one. What's to stop any other religion from making the same claim? Try and answer that without circular reasoning and begging the question.

If we actually got our morality from your holy book, Lisle, then slavery would still be morally "right", as would killing witches, those who work on the sabbath, etc...

Our morality does not hinge in any way upon the christian "god". In many cases, they diverge.
--------------------------

Edit: I forgot that I had responded to Lisle on that topic once before.

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

34 comments

Confused?