And disagree all you want. But, your trivial argument means nothing. It is wrong to torture an infant because we have a natural need to protect our young. And, in terms of individual liberty, you are causing harm to the infant which is not your right to do. In that instance it has absolutely zero to do with morality. And, if torturing infants is "objectively" wrong because of morality, then your god is immoral and you shouldn't worship him - for he ordered the torture of infants on many occasions.
Your laughable (and frequently used) revisionist argument in favor of Biblical slavery, much like the idea of moral relativism you are against, is also quite tired. Here's a real basic concept that I would think anyone in the Liberty movement should understand: It is wrong for one person to OWN another person! How hard is that to get? The reasons for such ownership do not matter. And, a big NO on your lie that slavery in the Bible was "different" than the American version. A very small amount of slaves in the Bible were "voluntary". Most were from conquered tribes, punishing your god's enemies, etc... In the New Testament more were debt slaves - but that doesn't change the idea that one person has taken another as property and taken their free will, etc... (Then again, Jesus said the slaves should just be nice and obedient so they don't get beaten and maybe they will be let free, so that helps)
I am extremely familiar with the Bible and know it better than almost anyone I know. Your third argument that a person needs to read it "in context" is equally absurd and is a Begging the Question fallacy.
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: