
let me put it like this: If you tried to impose a totally radical law on a bunch of ruffians who barely listened to what you had to say, you’d likely ease them into the type of behavior you wish for. for example, putting regulations on a population that won’t stop taking slaves (bad) that mandate they do it somewhat ethically, because if you just outright tried to ban slavery, they wouldn’t listen to begin with. Again I reiterate, God was working in a broken world
regulating is not the same as condoning. The ultimate Christian story presses towards human dignity. i can’t know exactly what you’ve been told, but you’ve obviously received some bad information. I’m glad to hear you’re aware of the historical context, it just didn’t seem like it thanks to your “good or bad” method of arguing, which, let’s be real, is arguing in bad faith
If I limit someone to shooting someone one time instead of 10, that’s still immoral. You can agree to that. If you any know what I’ve been told; then why assume it’s not because of my own study? What evidence did you use to suggest it was being fed to me instead of me just learning this on my own? That’d disingenuous for you to paint me and my experience that way. Is it EVER okay to you, for someone of authority to tell others to own people as property, without those people’s consent?
that’s a good argument! regulating evil is not the same as endorsing good, you’re right. you started by stating God told people to own children. That’s a far stretch from the point you’re trying to prove now, I hope you can concede that. my point wasn’t that slavery is moral, but that the text is imposing regulations on an already fallen order. (1/2)
Second, saying this understanding may have been influenced by teachers or tradition was not an attack on your intelligence or sincerity. Everyone’s reading is shaped by prior frameworks, including yours and mine. That is not “disingenuous”; it is just how interpretation works. (2/2)
Not necessarily. Regulating something can mean you are permitting it in a limited civil sense, not that you regard it as morally good. We do this all the time when govts regulate divorce, prostitution in some places, war, alcohol, and prisons. That does not mean they think all of those things are morally ideal. It means they are dealing with realities they believe exist and are trying to restrain damage.
Look, I clearly can’t convince you guys. I’ll respectfully thank you both for the opportunity to exercise some debate skills, and wish you a wonderful rest of Holy Week. You’re both great people IRL I’m sure. Hope you guys find Christ one day, and all the amazing benefits that come with that.