(U) It is impossible to make any normative statement about anything that is subjective. So, there is no need for God to command, prohibit, sanction, or condemn chattel slavery.
What you are assuming is chattel slavery is objectively wrong. Then since God does not condemn it, then God is not loving.
(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).
I guess the above quoted conditions are a-okay?
(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. 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. If other reason(s) exists, as to why such a violation is indeed an actual violation, aside from such action violating God's personal opinion, then you no longer need God, at all, to substantiate the action in question.
(U) But yes, it's most likely if people violate objective morality, then there can be consequences, including punishment.
POI If people violate God's opinion, 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.
(U) I brought it up to address your charge that we need to know the origin of God in order to accept God as a foundation for morality.
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.............
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).
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.
(U) Isn't slavery the topic that skeptics bring up?
POI Yes, we skeptics do from time to time.
(U) I'm not avoiding the hard topics, but avoiding the irrelevant ones that skeptics keep bringing up.
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... 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?
(U) I agree in your example that it is subjective. How is it relevant to morality?
POI As explained prior, I doubt there exists some invisible celestial economic arbitrator which gives objective laws about economics.
(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?
(U) chattel slavery falls under subjective morality and not objective morality. Since it is subjective, it doesn't matter how one views chattel slavery, because ultimately it is just one's personal opinions on the matter.
POI False. Under your rationale, being against chattel slavery is wrong. One should instead be perfectly a-okay with chattel slavery, which means many countries are now wrong. 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?
*******************************************
Notables:
-- 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.
-- Ignorance to the law does not absolve one from the law. If a chattel slave master asked an Israelite if they wanted to work for 7 years to absolve all of their debt, and did so, but did not read the fine print, would that chattel slave then be absolved for not reading the fine print when later having children with their given wife? No. They have then been duped. This also assumes the slave could even read. The poor often could not.
-- Slave offspring, females, and non-Israelites, and maybe others, are not given the choice to leave otherwise lifetime chattel slavery. Why?
-- 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... 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.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."
I drew a direct parallel. Do you have the right to judge "economics"? Let me demonstrate how annoying Christians apologetic arguments are, when confronted with topics they do not like....
