Your entire post is littered with flattening and surface level discussions but you call me Foo…?

You’re still conflating preference with moral truth. “Chocolate is good” is not the same kind of claim as “enslaving a human being is wrong.” One is taste, the other is a moral judgment. If morality is just preference, then you cannot say slavery is actually wrong, only that you personally dislike it. You seem to argue as if some things are objectively evil, that only makes sense if there is a real standard beyond human opinion.

The Bible does not present slavery as an ideal to imitate. It regulates an already existing social reality in a fallen world while planting the seeds that ultimately undermine it. That’s why you get things like “there is neither slave nor free” (Galatians 3:28) and the command to treat slaves as brothers. You’re aware that the slavery being discussed above, isn’t chattel slavery right? The trajectory of Scripture moves toward human dignity, not away from it. Appealing to abuses or misuses of Scripture doesn’t prove the text endorses them any more than misuse of reason disproves reason.

Yes, Hebrews says the old covenant is fulfilled and surpassed in Christ. That’s exactly the point. The judicial and ceremonial laws given to Israel were for a specific people at a specific time. They are not universal moral commands for all societies. You’re treating covenantal law, descriptive narrative, and moral law as if they are all the same category, and they’re not. You don’t teach babies how to sprint do you?

The Exodus quote is where you really sound like Foo. You’re misreading it. Israel did not sacrifice their firstborn sons. The firstborn were consecrated to God and then redeemed, which is explicitly stated elsewhere (Exodus 13:13, Numbers 18:15). Animal sacrifice is not the same thing as human sacrifice, and Scripture repeatedly condemns child sacrifice outright (Jeremiah 7:31). Pulling one verse and ignoring the rest of the Torah creates a contradiction that isn’t actually there. You’re better than that.

The passage you’re referencing on rape (Deuteronomy 22) is distinguishing between consensual relations and violent assault. In the case of rape, the man is condemned. In the case of seduction, he is forced into lifelong responsibility and cannot discard the woman. It’s not a moral endorsement of rape, it’s a legal framework in an ancient society aimed at protecting women who otherwise would have been abandoned.

Aaaaaaaand finally, on God and sacrifice. You’re framing it as if God arbitrarily demands violence, but the entire sacrificial system points forward to Christ. The claim isn’t that God “couldn’t forgive,” it’s that God chose to enter into human brokenness and bear its cost Himself. The Cross is not divine child abuse, it’s self-giving love. God doesn’t demand something from humanity that He Himself is unwilling to give.

Your argument only works if you assume a purely modern lens and strip the text of its historical, covenantal, and theological context, but once you actually read it as a unified story, the supposed contradictions start to collapse. I used to believe the same things. Then I decided to learn more.

Your arguments seem to me that you believe real moral evil exists.

This post was edited on 4/25/26 at 7:35 am