How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[The Tanager]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #3776]

Moderator Comment

There is no benefit to adding comments like "Ridiculous. Laughable." It is uncivil and against the rules. Keep making your critiques, but without those additions.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #3782]

Moderator Comment

Do not make personal attacks on posters. If you have a problem with a poster's actions you can flag them or contact the moderator team or not to respond to them at all. Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[William]

Hello otseng
You say - "God being the source of objective morality is the only viable explanation on the table. It is entirely reasonable to then accept that explanation. "Atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie accepted that, if objective moral truths existed, they would warrant a supernatural explanation."
----------
Allow me to make observations on this and allow me also to seek clarification of your use of this quote.

- you use the opinion of an atheist to make your religious point

A majority of my sources are from secular sources. This quote was also from a secular source.

- you suggest that the phrase 'supernatural' ,that is contained within this person's quote, is pertinent to your point of illumination to us here. Why is that so? What connotations does this extremely vague term hold for you?

It supports my claim that God is the source of objective morality and atheism cannot account for objective morality. Do you believe atheism can justify objective morality?

Hello otseng
Super natural, by it's Latin origins means ' above nature'. It's true use is found within comparison, ie this phenomena is now above nature and it is ,by inference, superior to same.
That is why this atheist's use of the word, is indeed supportive of your argument. The problem with this linguistic logic is that you made the subjective call of superiority of God over nature by integrating this borrowed phrase into your unfurling illumination to us all. You arbitrarily decided to put your God over and above the natural world, which is a recurring Eden theme in your doctrine.

You ask - ". Do you believe atheism can justify objective morality?"

Answer - "Why not.?.Yes"

I think of the phenomena described as being a product of two parts at odds with one another and "feeding" of the "energy" reflected off of each other.

Atheists make mention of "Supernaturalism" because that is what many theist's refer to "it" as.

In turn, Supernaturalists' take that as a type of "compliment" or a show of indirect support for the possibility of supernaturalism being right and correct (as a philosophy to follow and support.)

If indeed morality is "objective" then the first port of call must be in focusing one's attention on Natural explanations for its existence, which is problematic because morality requires mindfulness and mindfulness is subjective rather than objective.

Therefore, one natural answer to the problem is that mindfulness is universal and if Morality existed on the planet before humans did, then pointing to a mindful universe (or to keep it more localised) a mindful planet - should be the first thing to examine, before jumping to the conclusion of some supernatural mind called "God" is even considered.

Yet - the observation is that atheists and supernaturalists agree that such a consideration as a mindful planet is an unacceptable notion and explanation for Morality - not because the notion itself is somehow more bizarre than supernaturalist or materialist beliefs, but because the notion threatens said beliefs and therefore must be ignored.

[otseng]

(POI) If the God you believe in does not condemn chattel slavery, then the God you believe in's definition of loving his creation includes granting permission to instill "full slavery in its traditional form whereby slaves are the complete property of their master, can be bought and sold by him and treated in any way that he wishes, which may include torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation". I have already laid out my case here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=40608).

The key words in your definition of chattel slavery is "which may include". First off, there is no definition of chattel slavery that includes that. Secondly, other things may include "torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation", not just chattel slavery. Debt slavery could include that or being a hired servant or even being a free person.

True, there is no commandment in the Bible that condemns these activities from the negative perspective, but there is a commandment from a positive perspective on how people should act.

[Lev 19:18 KJV] 18b thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.

[Jas 2:8 KJV] 8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

I guess the above quoted conditions are a-okay?

According to the second greatest commandment, no, it is not a-okay to torture, brutalize, oppress, or rape.

(U) I've never brought up punishment.

POI I know. I did. It relates to "might makes right." If one violates God's nature, God may punish them.

If you attack claims that I have not made, then isn't that a straw man?

But let's go with your argument. What is wrong with punishing someone who violates objective morality? Isn't that what the state does? If someone murders or steals or rapes, they are punished.

Also, God does not punish people every time they violate objective morality. So, there is no might or punishment in these cases.

Now, if you're referring to "might" as authority instead of punishment, then I agree with you. In all cases authority would apply.

But why is God's nature "objective"? Kind of a rhetorical question here... In essence, God's personal opinion becomes the law. If a human disagrees, they are wrong and may be punished because this human violates this God's personal opinion.

It's not really God's personal "opinion", but God's personal "nature". It's not like God arbitrarily decided on what right should be, but that right is a reflection of who God is.

POI If people violate God's opinion, they may be punished.

Correction, if people violate God's nature, they may be punished.

Torture, brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation is all okay, according to the God you believe in. In your case, any chattel slave master, who performs the above acts to their deemed lifetime chattel slaves, is also exempt from punishment.

Why should the Bible have to list out all possible negative scenarios? What about experimenting on people, skinning people alive, drugging people, impaling people, and we could go on forever.

Instead, there is a single positive commandment that gives the general principle of how people should act.

POI Then we need to know if some invisible arbitrator actual exists for ALL SORTS of stuff in which does not have an invisible objective arbitrator in reality, such as:

high vs not high
tall vs not tall
tastes good vs doesn't taste good
overweight vs not overweight
rich vs not rich
etc etc etc etc.............

Irrelevant. What we are talking about is morality.

If a doctor told you that you needed to lose weight, would you give him/her the same type of nonsensical answer you give here? (i.e.) weight is subjective. I doubt it. It would not even likely cross your mind, even though weight IS subjective (under your rationale).

You fail to understand the philosophy of morality. There are serious people (including atheists) who discuss this and I've covered them in:

Ronald Lindsay – How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters – Without God
Morality and Evolutionary Biology
Michael Tomasello – The Origins of Human Morality
Doris Schroeder – Evolutionary Ethics
Gary Whittenberger – Toward a Universal Ethics

Christian apologists seem to use your argument as a go-to. Why? Because it becomes a technicality in wiggling themselves out of the facts about the God they believe in... The God they believe in sanctions/allows/permits actions in which they would never likely do themselves, rather than to just condemn it. So please, continue on with your charade. We will all read along as you continue to shoot yourself in the foot and hide behind the flimsy technicality you feel you have.

What I see here is just posturing, mischaracterizing my position and accusations.

POI I, again, have to chuckle here... Your deflection is the avoidance. Stating "chattel slavery is subjective" is the deflection you have opted to run with...

It's not deflection, but the fundamental issue. What we see actually is your avoidance of this fundamental issue because it undermines the entire argument you are trying to make. So, who's the one deflecting?

Well, according to the God you believe in, he is a-okay with treating many humans as lifetime property, beating them just short of death with complete impunity, breeding new chattel slaves, etc... If your God exists, and his opinion on these matters are indeed objective, then you should agree with him. That such acts are a-okay. Do you?

Yes, God accepted the practice of owning people as property. Even further, as Christians, we are to be slaves of Christ. So, not only does God accept it, Christians are to be properties of Christ.

As for beating slaves, I don't see a commandment either way that says it is okay or not okay to beat slaves. What we see is the case law of how to handle cases if a slave was beaten. And again, these case laws are similar to the other laws in the ANE.

We've already covered the breeding of slaves.

Not everything in the Bible is necessarily an objective statement. That is, not all commands apply to all people at all times. The objectivity that we're currently talking about is the philosophical nature of morality.

POI As explained prior, I doubt there exists some invisible celestial economic arbitrator which gives objective laws about economics.

Another straw man. Nobody is claiming this.

(U) We have to ask the question why do you avoid answering the question about why chattel slavery should be considered objectively wrong? The only reasonable answer is you cannot, but instead deflect.

POI Again, according to the God you believe in, God is a-okay with keeping humans as property for life, beating them with impunity, breeding new chattel slaves, etc. I guess this means you do to, right?

I've answered these. Now please answer my question.

The Bible God thinks chattel slavery is a-okay. Do you think keeping chattel slaves (for life and sometime against their choice), beating them without just cause and with impunity, and breeding them, is perfectly a-okay?

You're equivocating. There is a difference between "chattel slavery" and "chattel slavery where the master beats them without just cause and with impunity".

The implication with your question is there are cases where chattel slavery is acceptable. What if a master treats his chattel slaves well and does not beat them? Is that OK?

-- You assume all Israelites knew all of the Torah. You have much more faith than I do. This would be like assuming all Christians know the NT.

I'm not necessarily assuming that they know all of the Torah, but they should at least know it exists and it is their ruling document and know of someone to ask if they have any questions.

-- Ignorance to the law does not absolve one from the law.

Of course.

This also assumes the slave could even read. The poor often could not.

Probably true, but they can still hear. It was mainly an oral tradition back then, so they would have heard the laws. Even today the Jews have the practice of reading through the entire Torah out loud in the synagogue every year.

-- Slave offspring, females, and non-Israelites, and maybe others, are not given the choice to leave otherwise lifetime chattel slavery. Why?

I've already addressed this.

-- The Bible does an equally crappy job in explaining laws in which merit further clarification. One of them being chattel slavery, as evidence by the vast discussion needed here...

And as I've extensively argued (and which has not been refuted), chattel slavery is subjective morality and it is impossible to make a normative commandment about it. For addressing the possible cases of abuse within chattel slavery (or any other type of slavery), people should follow the second greatest commandment.

Which begs the question of your topic, why trust the Bible? Maybe we shouldn't trust the Bible, if it does no better to explain things.

We can trust the Bible because:
- It affirms the existence of objective morality.
- It provides a rational justification for objective morality.
- It withstands the skeptics' moral attacks on genocide and slavery.
- It exposes the weakness of skeptical arguments since they often have to resort to fallacious arguments such as straw man arguments, equivocation, false accusations, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks.

[POI]

(U) First off, there is no definition of chattel slavery that includes that.

POI Yes there is... (http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/chattel-slavery)

(U) Secondly, other things may include "torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation", not just chattel slavery. Debt slavery could include that or being a hired servant or even being a free person.

POI You already agreed the Bible condones chattel slavery. Chattel slavery deems the slave direct property of the slave master. The master is free to do virtually, as he wills, with impunity -- (ala the Bible's say so).

(U) True, there is no commandment in the Bible that condemns these activities from the negative perspective, but there is a commandment from a positive perspective on how people should act.

[Lev 19:18 KJV] 18b thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.

[Jas 2:8 KJV] 8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

POI It's as if you did not read the OP argument that I've repeatedly sent you.

(U) According to the second greatest commandment, no, it is not a-okay to torture, brutalize, oppress, or rape.

POI But you already agreed the Bible endorses/condones/permits chattel slavery. Either it does or it doesn't. Pick a lane.

(U) If you attack claims that I have not made, then isn't that a straw man?

POI That is not what I've been doing. I'm explaining "might makes right." Please do not deflect.

(U) But let's go with your argument. What is wrong with punishing someone who violates objective morality? Isn't that what the state does? If someone murders or steals or rapes, they are punished.

POI You have yet to demonstrate that the Bible offers "objective morality". You first need to demonstrate God, and then explain why his morality is objective. You have done neither.

(U) if you're referring to "might" as authority instead of punishment, then I agree with you. In all cases authority would apply.

POI "might" implies he is all powerful and his opinion is THE opinion. And if you do not agree, he may punish you for it. Not much different than a dictator or mafia boss.

(U) It's not really God's personal "opinion", but God's personal "nature". It's not like God arbitrarily decided on what right should be, but that right is a reflection of who God is.

POI Just like you and I, we have opinions, or gut reactions. It is in your "nature" to react a certain way. Asserting a God does not then, all of a sudden, make the opinion or nature become objective -- just because he has more power or creates.

(U) Why should the Bible have to list out all possible negative scenarios? What about experimenting on people, skinning people alive, drugging people, impaling people, and we could go on forever.

POI Why is the chattel slave master instructed to be immune from punishment, if the slave master should decide to beat his slaves, just short of death? Why are the females, non-Israelites (males and females), as well as the offspring, instructed to remain with the chattel slave master for life?

(U) Irrelevant. What we are talking about is morality.

POI I'm afraid it is quite relevant. Simply replace the term 'morality with 'economics' and <you> have the exact same argument and rationale.

(U) You fail to understand the philosophy of morality. There are serious people (including atheists) who discuss this and I've covered them in:

Ronald Lindsay – How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters – Without God
Morality and Evolutionary Biology
Michael Tomasello – The Origins of Human Morality
Doris Schroeder – Evolutionary Ethics
Gary Whittenberger – Toward a Universal Ethics

POI Please do not patronize me and then offer up a Gish Gallop. If you have a point, just make it. My argument is predicated, so far, upon the "Euthyphro dilemma" as well as asking for demonstration of this asserted "God's" existence to begin with... I haven't even needed to go further yet. But I will if I actually need to, which I'm not sure I will need to....

(U) Yes, God accepted the practice of owning people as property.

POI Thank you. Why does God allow chattel slave masters to own other humans as chattel slaves, where they can be beaten (just short of death) with impunity, bred, and kept for life (without their choice) if God also claims to love his creation?

(U) As for beating slaves, I don't see a commandment either way that says it is okay or not okay to beat slaves.

POI I've already disclosed where the Bible grants permission, as well as commands impunity for slave beatings. But it seems you are ignoring this part.

(U) I've answered these. Now please answer my question.

POI I've already answered. According to the God you believe in, chattel slavery is a-okay. The ones who instead opt to abolish these practices are wrong, because they should instead permit/allow chattel slavery. But this command, from the God you believe in, is illogical, if this God you believe in also claims to "love" his creation?

(U) You're equivocating. There is a difference between "chattel slavery" and "chattel slavery where the master beats them without just cause and with impunity".

The implication with your question is there are cases where chattel slavery is acceptable. What if a master treats his chattel slaves well and does not beat them? Is that OK?

POI I am doing no such thing. I explained in the OP of my thread, for which you have not refuted. God sanctions beating with impunity, breeding, and lifetime chattel slavery without their choice. Any way you want to sugar coat it, your God is in conflict with the term "love".

(U) I'm not necessarily assuming that they know all of the Torah, but they should at least know it exists and it is their ruling document and know of someone to ask if they have any questions.

POI And all Christians should know the NT, but hardly any really do. My point being you are merely arguing (ought verses is). I'm demonstrating the (is), you want the (ought).

(U) Of course.

POI And yet, God offers no safeguards against many falling into lifetime chattel slavery. What a God!

(U) Probably true, but they can still hear. It was mainly an oral tradition back then, so they would have heard the laws. Even today the Jews have the practice of reading through the entire Torah out loud in the synagogue every year.

POI More of that (ought verses is) shining through. But even if this WERE true, non-Israelites, women, and offspring need not apply. Why?

(U) And as I've extensively argued (and which has not been refuted), chattel slavery is subjective morality and it is impossible to make a normative commandment about it. For addressing the possible cases of abuse within chattel slavery (or any other type of slavery), people should follow the second greatest commandment.

POI You cannot have your cake and eat it too. God weighed in on it. His position is that it is a-okay. Anyone who does not agree is wrong. So is this objective, or not? Again, pick a lane buddy.

(U) We can trust the Bible because:
- It affirms the existence of objective morality.
- It provides a rational justification for objective morality.
- It withstands the skeptics' moral attacks on genocide and slavery.
- It exposes the weakness of skeptical arguments since they often have to resort to fallacious arguments such as straw man arguments, equivocation, false accusations, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks,

POI According to what and/or who???

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #3365]

Do plants and animals even have the concept of morality?

Do you mean "are these able to be examined (re behaviour) and seen to be displaying what we humans would consider "acts of morality?"

Lindsay tacitly acknowledges atheists have not been able to provide an adequate solution.

Here he seems to want to change the definitions. Let's see what he actually means. But first he addresses the common arguments by atheists.

Argument from well-being:
Or, if one wants to approach the issue from the other direction, well-being is a good thing, and, all other things being equal, people want to have well-being. The argument will then proceed by using this foundation to argue that we have a moral obligation to avoid inflicting pain or to increase well-being. But this will not do. Granted, pain is “bad” in a nonmoral sense, and people don’t want it, but to say that inflicting pain on someone is presumptively morally bad implies we have some justification for saying that this action is morally bad, not just that it’s unwanted. From where does this moral obligation derive and how do we detect it?

This is related to the problem of Mind.

If a Mind ("God" as Christians oft refer to It "Him") created Life on Earth and allowed for the critters to experience pain, then this can be regarded as the Mind that created the circumstance as being responsible for inflicting pain (the experience of) onto It's created critters.

This (naturally) goes against the understanding of morality, as to purposeful inflict pain upon others can be argued as an immoral aspect (of morality) and thus such a Creator-Mind doing so (or having set up the circumstances whereby such is achieved) "must be evil" as in "Immoral".

The dilemma therein is that it becomes difficult to argue the same Mind is also "Loving".

The apparent contradiction is magnified when assigning such a Mind as being outside of the human experience (supernatural) and not Itself partaking in the pain humans experience because of this supernatural situation the Mind is claimed to exist in, from which the cause (of the Universe) is claimed to have derived from (or "of" to be more actuarate.)

The dilemma is solved when one begins to understand that The Mind (which all religions in their own way have theories and make claims about) is understood as being that of the Planet itself, and not some supernatural thing distant and aloof.

Therein, all inspired human thinking and subsequent documenting can be said to have derived from the Planet Mind and there (in theory) should be no resistance or complaint against such a concept, since it can also be said that the Planet Mind would not be detached or aloof from the suffering of Its created critters but - more to the point - participating in all the experience humans undergo whether these are deemed (or otherwise known to be ) "good" or "evil".

My proposal here (of course) is that the Bible (as per the thread topic) is indeed inspired by a Mind which can indeed be argued to be a "God" and that Mind is the Mind of The Planet.

Reading the Bible with that (concept in mind), makes sense of an otherwise controversial thing, and there should be no reason for atheists to object other than to point out that even if the Earth was mindful and thus could be regarded as a "God", atheists/atheism are/is required to "lack belief in Gods" therefore the very concept of the Earth being Mindful would be rejected on account of that. Denial that it could be possible, and demands for evidence that the Planet is Mindful would ensure.

However, religions/religious humans would have a difficult time in explaining why the Earth should not be regarded as Mindful and the reason for why religious documentation (like the Bible) exists.

YHVH can indeed be regarded as "The Mind of the Earth" who's "voice" extends into "those of His critters minds which are able to perceive this and recognise it as valid and purposeful and explanatory and from that, (as individuals) develop a relationship with said Mind, which in turn has it that this relationship would itself extend into the environment (as a product of the first great commandment) ensuring the second great commandment gets a foothold re the affairs of humankind.

Within the structure of the doing (re said commandments) both "theism" and "atheism" become obsolete terms - or if not obsolete - then of no practical application in the overall scheme of things.

All in all it can be argued that Supernaturalism - defining YHVH (God/The Father) as "supernatural" (perhaps) inadvertently creates a stumbling block in the minds of human personalities resulting in a (naturally enough) resistance/rebellion/distrust due to the distaste of the unnatural connotations attached to the concept.

Supernaturalism is a relic of a distant darker past which religion adopted as a "suitable" explanation or hypothesis for the argument of the existence of a Creator Mind.

If supernaturalism is as I suspect - a stumbling block - then I would argue that YHVH is not supportive of being described as such.

Thoughts?

[otseng]

(U) First off, there is no definition of chattel slavery that includes that.

POI Yes there is... (http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/chattel-slavery)

Granted.

POI You already agreed the Bible condones chattel slavery. Chattel slavery deems the slave direct property of the slave master. The master is free to do virtually, as he wills, with impunity -- (ala the Bible's say so).

Why limit it to just chattel slavery? Why not any type of slavery? What about when slavery is not even involved? So, torture, brutalization, oppression, and rape are separate issues and is not exclusively limited to chattel slavery.

POI But you already agreed the Bible endorses/condones/permits chattel slavery. Either it does or it doesn't. Pick a lane.

You're equivocating "chattel slavery" and "chattel slavery where slaves are tortured, brutalized, oppressed, and raped". Yes, I said the Bible allows for chattel slavery. I have not said the Bible endorses torturing, brutalizing, etc.

POI That is not what I've been doing. I'm explaining "might makes right." Please do not deflect.

And I've explained multiple times the argument is not "might makes right". You are simply attacking what you claim it is.

POI You have yet to demonstrate that the Bible offers "objective morality". You first need to demonstrate God, and then explain why his morality is objective. You have done neither.

Yes, I've already addressed this:

The second you give reason(s) to justify any moral judgement, you no longer appeal to a God-given authority. Thus, in YOUR case, do 'objective morals' even exist? If you believe they do, you first need to demonstrate that this claimed objective moral law giver exists.

Logically, no I do not have to first demonstrate God exists. If you believe this, then we should also reject evolutionary theory since nobody can explain how the first cell arose. We should also reject the Big Bang theory since it cannot explain the origin of the initial singularity.

But, practically, there are plenty of other arguments and evidence that points to the existence of God. And we've covered some of that already in the cosmology discussion.

I'll state the argument in another way:

1. Objective morality exists.
2. There is no viable naturalistic explanation for objective morality.
3. There is a viable supernaturalistic explanation for objective morality.
4. Objective morality is best explained by a supernatural source.

The moral argument is an argument for the existence of God and it does not assume God does exist, but only could exist.

POI "might" implies he is all powerful and his opinion is THE opinion. And if you do not agree, he may punish you for it. Not much different than a dictator or mafia boss.

Sure, if one violates a command from any authority, it's possible one will be punished. Are you saying that is objectively wrong?

POI Just like you and I, we have opinions, or gut reactions. It is in your "nature" to react a certain way. Asserting a God does not then, all of a sudden, make the opinion or nature become objective -- just because he has more power or creates.

An opinion implies facts and experiences have been gathered and a judgment is made based on those to derive a position. This scenario does not apply to God and morality.

POI Why is the chattel slave master instructed to be immune from punishment, if the slave master should decide to beat his slaves, just short of death?

These are not instructions per se, but case law to handle certain situations. Here's the passage:

[Exo 21:26-27 KJV] 26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

And this also is similar to other laws in the ANE.

As for beating slaves, I don't recall the Bible either condoning it or condemning it. Not saying anything about one of them does not necessarily mean it supports the other. But, I would say the general principle of the second greatest commandment would apply. Also, they were to remember they were once slaves in Egypt with the implication they are to treat others like how they would've wanted to be treated while they were in Egypt.

[Deu 15:15 KJV] 15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.

[Deu 16:12 KJV] 12 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt: and thou shalt observe and do these statutes.

[Deu 24:18 KJV] 18 But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

[Deu 24:22 KJV] 22 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

Why are the females, non-Israelites (males and females), as well as the offspring, instructed to remain with the chattel slave master for life?

Now sure why you're asking me this. As you know, this happens if they bought them as lifetime slaves and they also had children. Are you saying this is objectively wrong?

POI I'm afraid it is quite relevant. Simply replace the term 'morality with 'economics' and <you> have the exact same argument and rationale.

I see it as another equivocation fallacy. "Wow, that guy is filthy rich" does not have any is-ought judgment in it.

POI Please do not patronize me and then offer up a Gish Gallop. If you have a point, just make it.

You were the one who stated I'm giving nonsensical answers:

If a doctor told you that you needed to lose weight, would you give him/her the same type of nonsensical answer you give here? (i.e.) weight is subjective. I doubt it. It would not even likely cross your mind, even though weight IS subjective (under your rationale).

I'm simply pointing out I'm not giving nonsensical answers and have given serious treatment to scholars on this topic.

My argument is predicated, so far, upon the "Euthyphro dilemma" as well

I've already addressed the Euthyphro dilemma.

as asking for demonstration of this asserted "God's" existence to begin with...

If you want to go through all the arguments for God's existence, we can deep dive into that after morality of God and the Bible.

(U) Yes, God accepted the practice of owning people as property.

POI Thank you. Why does God allow chattel slave masters to own other humans as chattel slaves, where they can be beaten (just short of death) with impunity, bred, and kept for life (without their choice) if God also claims to love his creation?

I've addressed this above.

POI I've already disclosed where the Bible grants permission, as well as commands impunity for slave beatings. But it seems you are ignoring this part.

No, I haven't ignored this. See above.

(U) I've answered these. Now please answer my question.

POI I've already answered.

Where have you addressed the question why anybody should accept your moral judgments about slavery as being objective?

According to the God you believe in, chattel slavery is a-okay.

I'm not saying either me nor the Bible is making any normative statement about chattel slavery. As I've argued, it is subjective.

The ones who instead opt to abolish these practices are wrong, because they should instead permit/allow chattel slavery.

Only if chattel slavery falls under objective morality would this be the case.

But this command, from the God you believe in, is illogical, if this God you believe in also claims to "love" his creation?

Again, you're assuming chattel slavery falls under objective morality.

(U) You're equivocating. There is a difference between "chattel slavery" and "chattel slavery where the master beats them without just cause and with impunity".

The implication with your question is there are cases where chattel slavery is acceptable. What if a master treats his chattel slaves well and does not beat them? Is that OK?

POII am doing no such thing.

You didn't answer my question. If a master treats his chattel slave with love and respect, is it morally bad? If so, why?

I explained in the OP of my thread, for which you have not refuted. God sanctions beating with impunity, breeding, and lifetime chattel slavery without their choice. Any way you want to sugar coat it, your God is in conflict with the term "love".

And I've been addressing this since the very beginning. Simply repeating your assertion does not give greater weight to your claim.

(U) I'm not necessarily assuming that they know all of the Torah, but they should at least know it exists and it is their ruling document and know of someone to ask if they have any questions.

POI And all Christians should know the NT, but hardly any really do. My point being you are merely arguing (ought verses is). I'm demonstrating the (is), you want the (ought).

Most people don't know all the laws of anything. But as you noted, "Ignorance to the law does not absolve one from the law."

POI And yet, God offers no safeguards against many falling into lifetime chattel slavery. What a God!

Since chattel slavery is subjective, how can there be any normative safeguard?

God offers no safeguard for having cafes in churches, or having loud music in worship services, or making sure the walls of churches are not pink.

But even if this WERE true, non-Israelites, women, and offspring need not apply. Why?

Because the Torah was given to the Israelites.

POI You cannot have your cake and eat it too. God weighed in on it. His position is that it is a-okay. Anyone who does not agree is wrong. So is this objective, or not? Again, pick a lane buddy.

False dilemma. It's not either I pick chattel slavery is objectively wrong or objectively right. I'm saying chattel slavery is subjective.

(U) We can trust the Bible because:
- It affirms the existence of objective morality.
- It provides a rational justification for objective morality.
- It withstands the skeptics' moral attacks on genocide and slavery.
- It exposes the weakness of skeptical arguments since they often have to resort to fallacious arguments such as straw man arguments, equivocation, false accusations, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks,

POI According to what and/or who???

I'll let the readers assess it.

[William]

The idea that “moral principles are grounded in a moral law that is inherent in the nature of the universe.” Is not really what such are arguing, but rather that "moral principles are grounded in a moral law that is inherent in the nature of the one who created the universe."

Moral Law and Divine Command:

Some proponents of objective morality argue that moral principles are grounded in a moral law that is inherent in the nature of the universe. This law is often associated with the commands or nature of a divine being or creator. In this view, moral values are seen as objective because they emanate from a source beyond human subjectivity.

The reason I point this out is that many argue that God (Mind) is supernatural, and this has something to do with separating the nature of said Mind from the nature of the universe in that one cannot uncover the nature of said Mind simply by uncovering the nature of the universe.

1. Verification and Objectivity:
• The idea that a supernatural Mind is beyond the scope of direct verification is a challenge in asserting the connection between this God-Mind and objective morality. Objectivity often implies a level of verifiability or at least intersubjective agreement, and when dealing with supernatural entities, the lack of empirical evidence or consensus poses a significant challenge.

2. Epistemic Concerns:
• If the nature and will of a supernatural God-Mind cannot be objectively demonstrated or verified, asserting that this God-Mind is the foundation of objective morality may introduce epistemic concerns. It raises questions about how one can confidently claim knowledge about the moral principles derived from a source that is not empirically accessible or universally agreed upon.

3. Potential for a Double Standard:
• There is a potential for a perceived double standard if, on one hand, proponents argue for the objectivity of moral principles grounded in a supernatural God-Mind, while, on the other hand, acknowledging the inability to objectively verify the existence or nature of that God-Mind. This may be seen as an inconsistency in the standards of evidence applied to different aspects of the argument.

These would not be problematic IF one were to understand what I pointed out in my previous post.

[POI]

(U) Granted.

POI Since you agree God is a-okay with chattel slavery, it then includes the granted definition given. Care to augment your argument now?

(U) Why limit it to just chattel slavery? Why not any type of slavery? What about when slavery is not even involved? So, torture, brutalization, oppression, and rape are separate issues and is not exclusively limited to chattel slavery.

POI As defined and also granted, they are part of chattel slavery. Deal with it. Your God is a-okay with such behavior(s). Care to augment your argument now?

(U) You're equivocating "chattel slavery" and "chattel slavery where slaves are tortured, brutalized, oppressed, and raped". Yes, I said the Bible allows for chattel slavery. I have not said the Bible endorses torturing, brutalizing, etc.

POI Then you are redefining chattel slavery and ignoring the already granted definition. See my OP in the other thread, where I clearly lay out my case.

(U) And I've explained multiple times the argument is not "might makes right". You are simply attacking what you claim it is.

POI It is "might makes right." Whatever God's nature happens to be, is "right". In this case, God's nature condones slave beatings, slave breeding, and keeping slaves for life. And anyone who disagrees, is wrong. Aside from God creating and being more powerful, humans are to adhere to God's nature, even if it does not align with ours. Otherwise, we are wrong.

(U) Logically, no I do not have to first demonstrate God exists. If you believe this, then we should also reject evolutionary theory since nobody can explain how the first cell arose. We should also reject the Big Bang theory since it cannot explain the origin of the initial singularity.

POI This is a false analogy. Your argument pre-assumes the necessity for a God without proving this so-called god.

(U) I'll state the argument in another way:

1. Objective morality exists.
2. There is no viable naturalistic explanation for objective morality.
3. There is a viable supernaturalistic explanation for objective morality.
4. Objective morality is best explained by a supernatural source.

POI Okay, here we go... Check this out.

1. Objective economics exists.
2. There is no viable naturalistic explanation for objective economics.
3. There is a viable supernaturalistic explanation for objective economics.
4. Objective economics is best explained by a supernatural source.

I guess this proves the 'Monopoly guy' on the box may indeed exist.

You cannot ground economics, as objective, without a supernatural arbitrator! I guess this means all economics classes are subjective without an absolute supernatural arbitrator.

(U) Sure, if one violates a command from any authority, it's possible one will be punished. Are you saying that is objectively wrong?

POI No. That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying your belief system pretty much parallels that of a mafia boss or that of a dictator. Cross either and you may be punished accordingly.

(U) An opinion implies facts and experiences have been gathered and a judgment is made based on those to derive a position. This scenario does not apply to God and morality.

POI In regard to 'god', why not, and how do you know?

(U) These are not instructions per se, but case law to handle certain situations. Here's the passage:

[Exo 21:26-27 KJV] 26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

POI Yes they are instructions. per se...

Ex. 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. <-- Are instructed to remain immune from punishment as long as the slave lives.

And the verse you list above is exactly WHY slave masters beat their slaves from the back side It's hard to knock out eyes and teeth this way.

(U) As for beating slaves, I don't recall the Bible either condoning it or condemning it. Not saying anything about one of them does not necessarily mean it supports the other. But, I would say the general principle of the second greatest commandment would apply. Also, they were to remember they were once slaves in Egypt with the implication they are to treat others like how they would've wanted to be treated while they were in Egypt.

POI It is completely condoned. They are commanded to receive complete impunity, as long as they remain alive, ala Ex. 20:20-21. Please do not re-write the command of the book you believe in....

(U) Now sure why you're asking me this. As you know, this happens if they bought them as lifetime slaves and they also had children. Are you saying this is objectively wrong?

POI My opinion does not matter. Only the God you believe in's opinions is what matters. And his opinions is that chattel slavery, as already defined and granted, is a-okay But this defies any logical definition of the term love. So, which of the two topics do you ignore, (Slavery or love), being these two topics are not compatible with one another?

(U) I've already addressed the Euthyphro dilemma.

POI Simplified... It's 'right' because God says so, or, it's right because of other reasons (which does not need God). Theists sometimes try to argue a third option, but it merely bleeds into the already given first horn of the dilemma.

In essence, your argument, thus far, is that God's "nature" is good. According to what exactly? If God's "nature" is to condone the beating of chattel slaves, with complete impunity, why is this deemed 'good'? Is anything in God's "nature" deemed 'good', no matter what? Maybe so? But why?

(U) why anybody should accept your moral judgments about slavery as being objective?

POI It's not my moral judgement at all. God is a-okay with the defined and granted form(s) of chattel slavery. And yet, he claims to also love his creation? How is this compatible?

(U) I'm not saying either me nor the Bible is making any normative statement about chattel slavery. As I've argued, it is subjective.

POI Yet again, there is nothing subjective about it, under your rationale. God commands that chattel slavery is a-okay, Anyone who disagrees is WRONG.

(U) Only if chattel slavery falls under objective morality would this be the case.

POI Under your believe, it is objective. It is objectively OKAY to beat slaves, breed them, and keep them for life, often times against their will for life.

(U) You're equivocating. There is a difference between "chattel slavery" and "chattel slavery where the master beats them without just cause and with impunity".

POI The Bible does not give the reason(s) for the "just cause(s)". All it really states is that the slave is the master's property. Your problem, not mine.

(U) You didn't answer my question. If a master treats his chattel slave with love and respect, is it morally bad? If so, why?

POI According to your rationale, and the God you believe in, it is morally good to beat your slaves, just short of death, keep them for life, and breed them. Please tell me how this is also compatible with the term love?

(U) Because the Torah was given to the Israelites.

POI Since slavery is not abolished in the NT, slavery still stands as okay today. So your response does not jive.

(U) False dilemma. It's not either I pick chattel slavery is objectively wrong or objectively right. I'm saying chattel slavery is subjective.

POI It is not a false dilemma. Chattel slavery, as defined and granted, is a-okay, or not?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #3789]
Philosopher 1. God is a-okay with the defined and granted form(s) of chattel slavery. And yet, he claims to also love his creation? How is this compatible?

Philosopher 2. Because it is not a “command” to have slaves but it is a command to treat slaves lovingly.

Philosopher 1. God commands that chattel slavery is a-okay, Anyone who disagrees is WRONG

Philosopher 2. The Mind you are referring to is commonly understood to be YHVH. YHVH does not “say" it is or isn’t “a-okay” but allows for Its offspring-Minds to learn for themselves and is always open to reasoning with Its offspring about anything they may or may not agree with.

Philosopher 1. It is objectively OKAY to beat slaves, breed them, and keep them for life, often times against their will for life.

Philosopher 2. Yes. For “the time being”. Why that is has to do with love – as in the love of a parent - is that, rather than simply force (enslave) their own child, thinks it better to allow for the possibility the child will “learn” the right way to externalize as it gifts the child with its own sense of purpose and responsibility through the potential of wrong-doing being able to assist in directing the child to correct its behavior to suit right-doing.

Philosopher 1. The Bible does not give the reason(s) for the "just cause(s)". All it really states is that the slave is the master's property.

Philosopher 2. If so, then yes. The key observation is in how one treats one’s property. With love and respect or with indifference and brutality. Or with a bit of both et al.

The idea behind this type of externalizing is to allow one to learn for oneself.
Extending upon that idea, to enslave or be enslaved without consent is problematic to allowing individual human personalities their freedom from the go-get rather than enslaving them to a instituted program they robotically follow.
Of course, the universe itself places certain constraints upon us all, so we are not truly “free” from the “laws which govern,” said universe. But there is indeed opportunity to move within that universe as “free agents” of our own choosing within those constraints.

“To learn for oneself.”

The “learning” is achieved withing the constraints of the environment one is learning within. This allows for the opportunity to own things and treat them as we want to. This also allows for us the potential opportunity to learn the “best way to treat the things that we own” by observing the impact of ownership on (primarily) humanity and even to decide from that, that the concept of ownership is false/unnatural/not workable within the constraints of universal law.