Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

I got the Pope on the line, he would like to know why in the hell does a Christian think that there is no eternal hell.

edit:
For clarification, heres a snippet from the Brick Testament on the Hell sectiony bit.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_hell/mt25_41.html

Heres from the beginning of the speech on hell:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_hell/mt25_31.html

edit 2:

just to hit the hammer home further, heres the last page:

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_hell/mt25_46.html

Matthew 25:46
'Then they will go away to eternal punishment.'

So JGS, what is your version of Christianity called?

Sorry I didn't see it. My version of Christianity is called....

Spoiler

Christianity.

I already addressed Mathew 25:46 in the last post.

I am not Catholic and the Pope should only concern himself with that religion since no one else particularly cares what he has to say nor should they outside of that religion.

My particular religion is irrelevant and only serves to distract. A lot of views are my own and are of no import to my religion. I am not going to tell you what I think just to have the religion of my choice suffer for it.

Think of me as a congregation of one and then disprove what I say. However, it would be pretty sad if the only reason to dismiss my views is because the Catholic Church said so.

EDIT: I didn't look at the Brick stuff either, but I'll assume you know how to explain it to me if it's really important. I figured it's wouldn't have been anything mind numbingly eye opeing. If I'm wrong let me know.

 

[leroy hacker]

There was an individual thread on Buddhism some time ago but I can't find it... can anyone link me to it?

This one?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=390455

 

[Slightly Live]

I think the reason why people are wanting to know what specific school of Christianity you belong to is because they would be able to look at and examine the particular school independently and then be able to question you maybe in certain specifics relating to that.

Many atheists simply cannot understand why a particular religion has so many different branches with branch claiming to be the truth and only true religion.

As a Christian, you are dismissing the Pope and the oldest surviving Christian institution. However without explaining why, people are left in the dark as to what tenants of faith your hold, which scriptures you accept and reject and what interpretations your specific subscribe to.

In all honesty, it's not important to anyone but yourself however many of the atheists here and other members of other religions have no issues public stating, and clearly, what specific school of thought they subscribe to and maybe expect the same from those they would engage with in debate.

 

[JGS]

I think the reason why people are wanting to know what specific school of Christianity you belong to is because they would be able to look at and examine the particular school independently and then be able to question you maybe in certain specifics relating to that.

Many atheists simply cannot understand why a particular religion has so many different branches with branch claiming to be the truth and only true religion.

As a Christian, you are dismissing the Pope and the oldest surviving Christian institution. However without explaining why, people are left in the dark as to what tenants of faith your hold, which scriptures you accept and reject and what interpretations your specific subscribe to.

In all honesty, it's not important to anyone but yourself however many of the atheists here and other members of other religions have no issues public stating, and clearly, what specific school of thought they subscribe to and maybe expect the same from those they would engage with in debate.

I know why people would want to do that, but I don't wish to share it.

I am not acting as a spokesman on the board for that religion. I chose it specifically because it matched best with the views I held not because that's what they taught me [at first]. In other words, it matched what I read in the Bible, not just what was told to me.

I'm here for the same reason most others are and conversion to my beliefs isn't it. I comment on things to let everyone know that beliefs are not limited to the Catholic way of things which seems to permeate normal discussion. To be clear, I'm not knocking the Catholic Church, just saying I don't agree with it or their history of dealing with things.

My responses are offputting to say the least (Religious talk or not) and that does not reflect in the slightest how my religion responds to things.

It's a nice enough size, most definitely Christian, and uses the Bible as the basis of beliefs. It as a whole is much nicer than me.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I don’t normally quote every single individual argument, but here I’ll make an exception.

You keep worrying about ones that never got the choice. I'm not sure why.

However, dismissal or refusal is not even remotely the same as not given the choice. That is no one's fault but your own. There is not a mandate to convert everyone or else no one dies.

God is supposed to judge us for the choices we make…and you don’t understand why it’s a problem that most people don’t get a choice? One can’t refuse or dismiss what one doesn’t know, which would apply to most cultures throughout history. I’ll address something you said later on here since it’s relevant: “The choice is fair since it involves two options and [probably] no punishment for the ignorant.” I’ve asked this question three or four times already and have yet to receive an answer. Why didn’t god create a world in which everybody gets a clear, sober choice and then judge equally for that? Then there would be no need to abstain from punishment in certain instances. You also didn’t address my argument when I said that abstaining from judgment is itself an injustice by god because people who might have rejected god are instead saved. The lesson here is that it is better to die ignorant. It is better to die as a child, for instance. That has all kinds of implications.

The proper choice is to go with the one that can help you the most. If you have daubts, you don't have faith anyway by definition. To your points:
1. The mind can make right decision on the limited information it has easily. If you dismiss the book as soon as you read it, you're making a decision. If you are already satisfied with your outlook on life, then how does making the wrong choice affect you in the slightest?

2. If you don't know why you think the way you do, then you need to figure it out and then proceed. If you don't believe in God but don't know why, it should be an easy, non-therapeutic way to figure out why. If you do believe in God and don't know why, then you research/study more until you do. If you believe in God it requires effort. If you don't though, it requires none unless you want to "debate" about it.

What in the hell does satisfaction have to do with the truth? E=MC^2 will not change because I am unhappy with it. And anyway, more information is not a guarantee of the truth, but less information does make it much harder to learn the truth. For example, if I don’t know, say, my girlfriend is home, then how can I know if she’ll answer when I call? I could guess and be right, but the odds are not particularly good. You can say that the “the mind can make right decisions on limited information”, but I bet it’s something that you never actually practice. You probably wouldn’t take out a mortgage based on limited information. Or try to operate a saw. Nor would you trust a cook to cut up a poisonous fish who had no idea how to do it. So then how can one make eternally important decisions based on a potentially incomplete picture?

You missed my point with the second part. The point is that the truth is only as good as our ability to perceive it. If all of the disasters throughout history have taught us anything, it’s that people are lousy at decision making. Facts can be dismissed. Biases can rule. Anyone can have an excuse for anything. Again, this is not a matter of disobeying god. It’s an intellectual failing.

I don't get the eternal fate.

Your example is flawed because it does only look at one point in time while acknowledging the two individuals had multiple opportunities

If both of them flouted religion their whole life, then they had multiple opportunities to change their choice. I guess you feel that people should should have unlimited choice until they hit a magic age, never, or if they are already living in a paradise to begin with. Thus, God is wrong simply for setting up the choice which is odd. Choice is the only proof that we have free will which kind of makes sense by definition.

God doesn't judge at points in time necessarily, but the point of rejection is a good marker- and one that can change depending on the amount of time the person has left as you demonstrated in your example.

Scripture indicates that many people who did not know him can be "saved" by him. However, those are largely based on ones who are ignorant. If you reject him, I see no reason why second chances after death.

If you think the point is flawed for that reason, then you missed the main point. The point is that a completely random act – the physical forces that guide a bullet – may decide whether a person has 10 years to accept that decision or 50 years. Why should one person get one and another person get the other?

But to be fair, I was also trying to make the point that the idea of a changed mind cannot be squared with the idea that god judges us for our decisions. In other words, we cannot even begin to reconcile those two ideas. Not even unlimited choices would make it a logically coherent position. Why do people usually change their minds? Disillusionment. Life-changing events. Let’s even say that some people may become smarter and develop better arguments. Or they find new information. Let’s also treat these two totally distinct beliefs as different things. Let’s forget for a moment that there is such thing as a “before” and “after”. It is simply “believer” and “non-believer”. One person, two diametrically opposed beliefs that could not get any further apart. What logical reason, then, should “non-believer” be judged over “believer”? To judge one is to favor one at the exclusion of the other. The point here is that something eternal – a soul – cannot be judged because of something ephemeral that could change. We are either rebels against god for all time or we aren’t. Otherwise, it is proof that something incredibly random and vague is deciding our fates.

You're twisting things. Judgement has always been in the context of living on this planet including and a result of the injustices. The religious you have spoken to are incorrect imo. God usually deals with children based on the actions of their parents or caregivers until they are old enough to decide things are their own- earlier than the legal age of 18 in most instances.

He didn't create this world as it is. We did. The injustices are ours which is why I said it's not fair to expect him to both eradicate it and THEN let you make the decision in a vacuum or paradise conditions we would have already had set up if not for our screw ups. The whole point was to see whether we live better on this planet as run by us- a place you admit is full of injustice. The choice is fair since it involves two options and [probably] no punishment for the ignorant.

We created hurricanes? We created parasites? We created genetic diseases? We created the fact that we’ll die if we starve? Those things are results of physical forces, which god put in place. Many of them are the result of things that the bible says god created directly through his hands. This, for instance: “My reply was the point that we prone to the disease in the first place and how do we contract them.” It’s not a reason. It’s not an argument. You have not ever established why things must be the way they are. There is no reason why punishment for sin, on top of already being judged, involves living in a world in which hurricanes occur, except for the fact that god allowed it to happen that way. He set up the physical forces that create hurricanes.

I'll just address the sanitation point quickly here (some of the other points are addressed elsewhere throughout this post). Modern inventions like indoor plumbing have done more to alleviate suffering than just about anything. How is that a choice? Either one has them or one doesn't. And hundreds of millions of people in the world still don't have access to them.

People are equal in God's eyes, it's human eyes that view them as differently.

The only partiality God shows is he favors the ones who worship him which makes sense.

Yet Israelites were allowed by god to subjugate other people and take away some of their rights.

That's the problem. I explained my "truth of doctrine". Other religious folks have not nor have you because you are repeating what they say - even though you don't believe it. I gave specific answers that you call vague because they don't match up with what you were ready to "debate" about.

It is either impossible for you (I'm talking about you personally) to understand something you don't believe or you are extremely condescending. You are stating your view in the form a question which doesn't work. I don't have a problem talking about it in the context of my beliefs, but not because it's really a debate of any kind. It's why I have to continually reanswer questions, because my answers did not compute. All you're trying to do is educate your view which is fine even though incorrect.

The truth of doctrine is not the same thing as the truth. l I believe that eternal punishment is a part of Christian doctrine and perhaps even communicated in the Bible, which is the argument. The argument is not whether hell actually exists. Obviously it would be stupid of me to argue the latter, but I am not. You have failed to make that distinction, so yes, I am going to get a little uppity that the argument is not proceeding past that point. And I once did believe in hell, so I think that I have some angle into the Christian mind on this issue.

Furthermore, you are vague. People – not just me – have considered many of your statements completely opaque to understanding – the latest is Dude Abides on the previous page – and you continuously make logical leaps and unsupported points. When I said that your statements are vague, what I really meant is that they were unsupported. You talked for a full paragraph in the last thread about how the meaning of hell is not interpretation, it’s based on simple language, with no reasons for actually thinking so. Which brings me to the final point. There are only maybe a handful of verses that mention that the punishment for sin is death. But the fact of death is not good enough. We can see from Revelation that the devil will be thrown into the lake of burning sulfur to be tormented forever. What is this lake? The second death. If the devil doesn’t die, then how can it be called the second death? Because it’s a state of destruction. Spiritual death is not necessarily the cessation that we think of when we imagine physical death. Elsewhere, it mentions that the punishment for following the beast is eternal torment, unequivocally without rest, so we know that eternal punishment is sanctioned by god. We can argue about that point, but don’t think that the mystery is solved just because death is referenced.

 

[JGS]

I don’t normally quote every single individual argument, but here I’ll make an exception.


God is supposed to judge us for the choices we make…and you don’t understand why it’s a problem that most people don’t get a choice? One can’t refuse or dismiss what one doesn’t know, which would apply to most cultures throughout history. I’ll address something you said later on here since it’s relevant: “The choice is fair since it involves two options and [probably] no punishment for the ignorant.” I’ve asked this question three or four times already and have yet to receive an answer. Why didn’t god create a world in which everybody gets a clear, sober choice and then judge equally for that? Then there would be no need to abstain from punishment in certain instances. You also didn’t address my argument when I said that abstaining from judgment is itself an injustice by god because people who might have rejected god are instead saved. The lesson here is that it is better to die ignorant. It is better to die as a child, for instance. That has all kinds of implications.

The choices are in context of a desire to worship him.

If you don't desire that, then it's fair for him to judge. If you don't have the opportunity to know about him, then we don't know what the judgement would be. We are not required to know what God's decisions for EVERYONE are. We just worry (or not) about ourselves.
Seprating out this point since you seem to have missed the answer 3 or 4 times. I want no excuses or dodging accusation anymore:

Why didn’t god create a world in which everybody gets a clear, sober choice and then judge equally for that?

The answer is extremely simple. God did create that environment and the choice of most humans was they preferred to do things on their own. Because of those choices, life is indeed a mess.

We are not a toy set that God can pull out and manipulate for perfect positions. We are people that have particular motivations, desires, and weaknesses. Couple that with the societal arrangements we form and the fact that God does not controller us like someone with a remote controller, and you come up with the myriads of options we have today.

People are judged equally because it is tied to one decision- whether you agree to worship God or not. You seem to want judgement to be based either on hindsight or on absolute environmental control by God which would make choice pointless. He could just go ahead and make everyone do his will.

If that didn't answer, then you're never going to get an answer.

What in the hell does satisfaction have to do with the truth? E=MC^2 will not change because I am unhappy with it. And anyway, more information is not a guarantee of the truth, but less information does make it much harder to learn the truth. For example, if I don’t know, say, my girlfriend is home, then how can I know if she’ll answer when I call? I could guess and be right, but the odds are not particularly good. You can say that the “the mind can make right decisions on limited information”, but I bet it’s something that you never actually practice. You probably wouldn’t take out a mortgage based on limited information. Or try to operate a saw. Nor would you trust a cook to cut up a poisonous fish who had no idea how to do it. So then how can one make eternally important decisions based on a potentially incomplete picture?

I have never heard someone equate emotions with math. Satisfaction and desire isn't quantifiable as far as I'm concerned although at the basic levels it's pretty predictable.

More information is a guarentee for the truth when it's tied to a person's thought process. You cannot tell me whwether my opinion is wrong. It's my opinion and will always be right in that context. You can tell me the facts behind my opinion are wrong (Hypothetically, but you haven't done that yet.), but the belief I hold is only mine to change. I have never told you anything but the truth in regards to my opinion.

If we are spending all this time talking about God's judgement ability, then that means that his opinion by default is truth. Further, he spells out pretty clearly what we should put our trust in, so it's not is fault that you don't see it or fail to see it's import.

You missed my point with the second part. The point is that the truth is only as good as our ability to perceive it. If all of the disasters throughout history have taught us anything, it’s that people are lousy at decision making. Facts can be dismissed. Biases can rule. Anyone can have an excuse for anything. Again, this is not a matter of disobeying god. It’s an intellectual failing.

This simply means that when arguing you have failed perception. Again you are asking for perfect clarity. That is not remotely necessary for an imperfect person to acquire.

We completely agree about what humans can and can't do, but disagree on God's level of responsibility for it.

God is biased and his impartiality is based on that bias meaning he is not going to turn aside some people who want to accept his terms of rule. He wants things a particular way and will judge anyone who agrees to that way favorably regardless of position in society.

We are biased too. We want things a particular way. Whose bias takes precedent in your life is the question. Your problem is you're looking at it too intellectually. You need to dumb yourself down a little bit and think the way the bronze Agers do - Does God want me to do this? Nope? OK, I won't.

Instead, you want to weigh the pros and cons of each decision which is your right, just like it's your right to offer 10 dollars for a new car because that's the fair price to you. The problem is the sticker price indicates you will not get that car (Although will will be able to have some haggle room).

If you think the point is flawed for that reason, then you missed the main point. The point is that a completely random act – the physical forces that guide a bullet – may decide whether a person has 10 years to accept that decision or 50 years. Why should one person get one and another person get the other?

Again, you missed my point. A person should not be so dismissive of a thing that could save their life even after a bullet hits them. 10 minutes is enough time to be open minded about what God wants or whether he exists. 10 years or 50 years is plenty.

The real solution is to consider the idea of worship without immediately dismissing it.

But to be fair, I was also trying to make the point that the idea of a changed mind cannot be squared with the idea that god judges us for our decisions. In other words, we cannot even begin to reconcile those two ideas. Not even unlimited choices would make it a logically coherent position. Why do people usually change their minds? Disillusionment. Life-changing events. Let’s even say that some people may become smarter and develop better arguments. Or they find new information. Let’s also treat these two totally distinct beliefs as different things. Let’s forget for a moment that there is such thing as a “before” and “after”. It is simply “believer” and “non-believer”. One person, two diametrically opposed beliefs that could not get any further apart. What logical reason, then, should “non-believer” be judged over “believer”? To judge one is to favor one at the exclusion of the other. The point here is that something eternal – a soul – cannot be judged because of something ephemeral that could change. We are either rebels against god for all time or we aren’t. Otherwise, it is proof that something incredibly random and vague is deciding our fates.

Sure it can. Even in an imperfect society people are judged based on a changed mind, so why wouldn't that standard apply with God?

You don't wait for major changes in life to make a choice. This goes back to the point where if you are interested in God or want to learn more about him, you work at it at that time. If you become dissilusioned for some particular reason, then that's the risk you put yourself in. You say that everyone has a right to infinitely change their mind, but fortunately, God's standard has stayed the same as a backdrop to all those mind changes of ours. There is a ton of leeway too.

We created hurricanes? We created parasites? We created genetic diseases? We created the fact that we’ll die if we starve? Those things are results of physical forces, which god put in place. Many of them are the result of things that the bible says god created directly through his hands. This, for instance: “My reply was the point that we prone to the disease in the first place and how do we contract them.” It’s not a reason. It’s not an argument. You have not ever established why things must be the way they are. There is no reason why punishment for sin, on top of already being judged, involves living in a world in which hurricanes occur, except for the fact that god allowed it to happen that way. He set up the physical forces that create hurricanes.

Yours is not an argument either. To say that God should use magic instead of science to control matters is silly. My answer is more scientifically accurate than yours!

Mine actually was a pretty good argument since God has instilled in us the intelligence to avoid many disasters and also the intelligence to find cures for some disease (Something you argued about before) and ways to avoid many, many others. Disease that are inherited are a result of our imperfections. God has not agreed to give us perfection, so those should not be shocking or surprising.

A hurricane is not an injustice. Neither is disease for that matter. They exist. You deal with them. You can avoid some of them all together. The injustice would be if God judged you for being in a hurricane which he does not do.

Those same physical forces that create hurricanes create rain, snow and other various cycles that most scientists would agree are necessary for life to continue.

I'll just address the sanitation point quickly here (some of the other points are addressed elsewhere throughout this post). Modern inventions like indoor plumbing have done more to alleviate suffering than just about anything. How is that a choice? Either one has them or one doesn't. And hundreds of millions of people in the world still don't have access to them.

I disagree. Cleanliness has done more to alleviate suffering. Plumbing helps cleanliness. If you are no where near poop, you will not get poop related illness. If you wash in clean water, whether in a river, a pond, or a shower, you will not get disease related to unclean water.

We are extremely advanced regarding technology now, but I might get food E.coli from lettuce now? It's because the conditions were unclean. But like I said indoor plumbing does indeed help the cleanliness process. However, you just confirm that the choices of one can affect the choices of many which is a point I don't remeber disputing. None of that has to do with worship though.

Since indoor plumbing exists and the means to get it is relatively easy, then the problem isn;'t that people don't have it. It's why they don't have it. The answer is their fellow man does not care enough about them to install it. It's sad.

However, long before plumbing came on the scene, people had the ability/choice to be clean.

Yet Israelites were allowed by god to subjugate other people and take away some of their rights.


The truth of doctrine is not the same thing as the truth. l I believe that eternal punishment is a part of Christian doctrine and perhaps even communicated in the Bible, which is the argument. The argument is not whether hell actually exists. Obviously it would be stupid of me to argue the latter, but I am not. You have failed to make that distinction, so yes, I am going to get a little uppity that the argument is not proceeding past that point. And I once did believe in hell, so I think that I have some angle into the Christian mind on this issue.

The reality is that the ones who lost their freedom because they lost the land God gave his people could still worship him equally and receive protections from the law, up to and including adoption and inheritance.

Further, Christians who owned slaves were on completely level ground in regards to worship. A slave could be an elder in the congregation overseeing his master, but report to his master outside the church.

Furthermore, you are vague. People – not just me – have considered many of your statements completely opaque to understanding – the latest is Dude Abides on the previous page – and you continuously make logical leaps and unsupported points. When I said that your statements are vague, what I really meant is that they were unsupported. You talked for a full paragraph in the last thread about how the meaning of hell is not interpretation, it’s based on simple language, with no reasons for actually thinking so. Which brings me to the final point. There are only maybe a handful of verses that mention that the punishment for sin is death. But the fact of death is not good enough. We can see from Revelation that the devil will be thrown into the lake of burning sulfur to be tormented forever. What is this lake? The second death. If the devil doesn’t die, then how can it be called the second death? Because it’s a state of destruction. Spiritual death is not necessarily the cessation that we think of when we imagine physical death. Elsewhere, it mentions that the punishment for following the beast is eternal torment, unequivocally without rest, so we know that eternal punishment is sanctioned by god. We can argue about that point, but don’t think that the mystery is solved just because death is referenced.

Prove it.

The example you gave about my view on Hell was weak. There was nothing vague about my lack of belief in Hellfire and eternal torment, only your disbelief that a Christian would not believe it. That means YOU FAIL at communication skills. Your understanding was the weakness here. You are confusing as anyone, but I have better things to do than highlight all the times you stop making sense.

If I'm that vague, stop talking to me since it's not going to get better. You require me to apparently provide sources which are completely Biblically based, so being the Bible scholar you are, you should know them. However, you only talk for paragrahs on end about you views with no source material either. Whacky.

If I am vague it is purely because you fail to grasp what I'm saying. How I write may be a weakness, but there is nothing that I actually say that should be even remotely considered vague speak. If you want to know the straight story on something than ask a simple question rather than expound on your philosophy of life and judgement.

Now back to the Lake of Fire. This is how this conversation is going to go because it already went there:

I said ages ago that the only time eternal torment/torture is mentioned in the Bible is in regards to parables & symbolic writing. I always get some silly response like how do you know which is which. I say because the Bible tells you it is. This is then rinsed and repeated because a bunch of guys who claim to have read the Bible aren't intelligent enough to pick up on when there is a change to symbolic language. I bring this up because of this Lake of fire stuff.

Let's see how vague you accuse me of being this time:

1. Revelation is explained in the very first chapter to be a book in signs. So what makes you think that Satan and a literal wild beast and a literal false prohet are hurled into a literal lake of fire to be literally tormented forever and ever?

2. I find it amazing that you have to go to the very end of the Bible to find reference to something that even remotely referencing eternal torment and yet I'm the one whose vague and making logic leaps:lol. If torment was a staple of a Christian Doctrine, it would be in hundreds of places just like the idea of death for sin is.

3. This is getting into prophecy which I purposely avoid since it's pointless. However, my vagueries have included many references to a resurrection. The second death is final one for judgement. God has the power to resurrect ones - rightous and unrightous. He will not do so after the second death. Clear? Hopefully it is since it talks about this in the same chapter you reference but don't source.

Let me know the parts that are opaquey for you and I'll try to Windex them up for you, but vague and worthless accusations get you nowhere except a view by me that you can't explain your own stuff, thus complain about how others do so.

 

[JGS]

Your implication is that before the word of God was spread, that humans had no morality?

Here let me ask you this, do you think the people from 3,500 years ago with their little villages and rules for the villages, do you think they thought they were moral or immoral? Even if some of their actions don't gel with what you believe to be moral, would it be possible that they had a different standard of morality?

On the same token, in 1,000 years wouldn't it be possible that the standards of morality could change drastically, and people would look back at you and call you immoral, even claiming that in your ignorance of the true meaning of God's written word, you sinned left right and centre?

Sorry, I missed this one.

I don't understand your bolded part. Are you saying I'm wrong now or I'm going to be wrong in the future. Either way, you would be incorrect without proof of wrongness so I guess it's irrelevant.

I didn't imply at all that humans had no morality. I'm not sure where you get that from what you quoted unless you didn't read the previous posts. I specifically have said that morality comes from various places with the one most important to me being God's standard of morality.

I think your scenarios no longer applies with this clarification. In fact, I said just as much, but I'm using history whereas you are using the future. They do not change with God and I have no problems with any of them. Further God's moral law does not encompass everything nor should it.

Now from the quote I was saying that since we are created by God, we may have morality instilled in us, but that is not connected to the laws God has in place for his worshippers to follow and that were spread to others.

 

[Sh1ner]

But JGS, a congregation of one can also be a crazy person. Does it not worry you that you and only you share a slightly different of christianity from the mainstream crowd? How do you know that yours is the correct one? There are so many versions to choose from and with no guide, unless God speaks to you directly.... thats a whole other ball game.

 

[JGS]

But JGS, a congregation of one can also be a crazy person.
How do you know that yours is the correct one? There are so many versions to choose from and with no guide, unless God speaks to you directly.... thats a whole other ball game.

I didn't say I was congregation of one!:lol I said treat me that way for the purposes of the board which is purely to debate, discuss, and argue.

I am not going to involve my religion in these debates because, like everything else, not all my thoughts are based on religious belief, but on opinion and sources outside the Bible like commonly known history of ancient times. Religion is not that all-encompassing in life- at least not Christianity.

I blend them all together based on the topic. However, my Biblical beliefs are based entirely on the Bible and with the context of the timeframe the Bible was written in, so it's not that difficult to figure out why I believe as I do. What is apparently super difficult is to distant my beliefs from the largest religion claiming Christianity.

However, there are definitely a lot of religions to pick from. Personally, I talked talked to people of various beliefs. They're not hard to find. I dismiss the ones I had no interest in.

As stated, religions I visited before that could not address the issues I had with their teaching were dismissed. I thought at one time I was agnostic, but that wasn't really true because I believe in God. It was not an option for me to not believe without lying to myself and an atheist has never given me a reason to stop believing. I found one that matches up. Worst case scenario is I'm wrong (I doubt it but...). I'm content now which is what matters.

Does it not worry you that you and only you share a slightly different of christianity from the mainstream crowd?

It doesn't bother me at all since it isn't just me & I can hold my own on this board (I mean to say I don't feel any discomfort in replying to things).

From a majority standpoint, I fit in just fine with society- a lot better than an atheist does if we're talking a strength in numbers argument. Trust me when I say that I am not alone in the belief that eternal torment is not a shared belief amoung all Christians. The thread Mgoblue201 referenced even verifies that.

 

[JGS]

I think I'll just go ahead and admit that I have no idea what type of God JGS actually believes in :/ I suppose that's kind of the whole point of a personal god...it's personal so it's pretty much impossible to debate in any sort of meaningful way. After all, you can just kind of make up the rules on the fly, lol.

You don't have any idea what type of God anyone worships. That's the problem.

You essentially just said that God (the supposed creator of "scientific law") can't change something...because it would require a change in scientific law. So, does that mean JGS' god is bound by the limits of scientific law? That's...a new interpretation of god

But then you say that god isn't limited by that. So someone asks "well, why not just stop earthquakes/hurricanes from destroying thousands of human lives? No one chooses for that to happen, so the free will defense doesn't factor here", that's apparently being a spoiled brat. Or that people should just move to a different country. Or something.

I didn't say that and you need to stop paraphrasing. You're not good at it at all.

Let's see if I can paraphrase you correctly. You basically said God should make us fly to help alleviate problems and that he should alleviate all free thought in order to protect us from ourselves which means protect us from him since he created us.

Divine lobotomies for all I guess!

He should go ahead and break the laws he put into place because they potentially hurt people too. Get rid of child rapists by getting rid of sex and/or handing out the death penalty before a crime is committed or give the child rapist a [second?] divine lobotomy.

After all, EVERYONE knows that if you CAN do something, you SHOULD do something. Humans prove that all the time which is why there is no war, crime, poverty, & famine. Wow, humans do know more than God!

You already know what's best for humans, but are apparently too weak, insignificant, & flightless to do anything about it. Correct?

I was trying to make a joke about how hard it is to paraphrase, but that actually sums up your position!:lol

And, if I follow you correctly, even if a god creates the natural world (including human brains) the subsequent actions of those human brains, and the natural world are completely separate from god and he has no responsibility at all for what happens as a result of that. That's so odd to me :/

(as a sidenote, the same powerful mystical powers god used to prevent human beings from being able to flap their arms and fly to the moon can be used to instantly switch thoughts/actions of child rape to wanting to buy ice cream and candy. Voila, no more child rape.)

You didn't follow correctly (Except for the free choice thing)

I have further news for you. It wasn't a magic switch that prevents us from flying. Even the US education system knows that.

You're missing the most obvious way to make the world a peaceful place (assuming we're the creator of all existence and starting from scratch) - not creating human brains capable of "unpeaceful" action in the first place. That would be the most straightforward way to prevent that. Of course, that doesn't make for as interesting of a story, *shrug*. And this doesn't require making us robots or "eradicating choice".

A lot of your responses seem as if you're taking the world as it is now, and fitting God and Christianity into it, rather than looking at the world from the very beginning when God (supposedly) created everything. God doesn't have to come down here and "fix" every bad thing that human beings do. God, being God, could just make bad things never happen in the first place. Just like he made billions of other things never happen in the first place. "Unpeaceful actions" would just be one of those things we would be physically incapable of doing.

I didn't miss that as an obvious solution. I gave you the the ways that obvious solution comes about. I even numbered it for you.

 

[Slightly Live]

A simple thought experiment that "proves" God doesn't exist. Well, it doesn't prove it for certain but does make a solid logical argument.

===

In order to create, to think, God's thoughts must be more than random. To create the universe and time, God must be able to think logically. If it can't think logically, then, the laws of the universe were simply random, and the Universe might as well be self-created in an atheistic manner. In other words, for God to exist, God's thoughts must have always been ordered in a logical manner otherwise God could never have created order from chaos.

To overcome chaos and randomness, God's thoughts must be inherently logical. This means that logic is a precursor. Logic, with a few simple relations and rules that lets thought itself be ordered, must have existed independently of God's creative power. God could not have created the logic because it is a requirement to have logical thoughts to do any meaningful creating. This results in two conclusions:

1) In theological terms, the first cause is the description given to the creator of the universe, time, the laws of physics, etc. But it seems that in order for the first cause to be a creator-god, then that god cannot have created logic, and cannot therefore be the first cause after all. In other words, the fact that God needs to think logically in order to create means that God itself cannot be the creator of everything, only of parts of reality. In other words, there cannot be any monotheistic creator god.

2) If God chose to create anything then it must have had reasons to do so. God's "will" is not random, meaningless, chaotic or thoughtless. This means that these "reasons" are dependent on pure logic and must have driven god to do its very first act of creation. These motivations, this initial logic, will have been dictating God's thoughts from the moment of God's inception. If there was no logic and no motivation, God did not create anything on purpose. In that case, you might as well admit that the Universe created itself randomly, and that no creator God was required.

If god created anything according to a thought-out logical plan, or, if God had a desire to create anything that wasn't pure random chaos, then, god's thoughts must have been framed around logic. This logic allowed god to think and create, and, gave motivation to God. Logic must have been the first cause; but if logic is a requirement for God and existed before God could create, then God cannot be the First Cause, and therefore, creator-god theism is false, and atheism is true.

 

[JesseZao]

A simple thought experiment that "proves" God doesn't exist. Well, it doesn't prove it for certain but does make a solid logical argument.

===

In order to create, to think, God's thoughts must be more than random. To create the universe and time, God must be able to think logically. If it can't think logically, then, the laws of the universe were simply random, and the Universe might as well be self-created in an atheistic manner. In other words, for God to exist, God's thoughts must have always been ordered in a logical manner otherwise God could never have created order from chaos.

To overcome chaos and randomness, God's thoughts must be inherently logical. This means that logic is a precursor. Logic, with a few simple relations and rules that lets thought itself be ordered, must have existed independently of God's creative power. God could not have created the logic because it is a requirement to have logical thoughts to do any meaningful creating. This results in two conclusions:

1) In theological terms, the first cause is the description given to the creator of the universe, time, the laws of physics, etc. But it seems that in order for the first cause to be a creator-god, then that god cannot have created logic, and cannot therefore be the first cause after all. In other words, the fact that God needs to think logically in order to create means that God itself cannot be the creator of everything, only of parts of reality. In other words, there cannot be any monotheistic creator god.

2) If God chose to create anything then it must have had reasons to do so. God's "will" is not random, meaningless, chaotic or thoughtless. This means that these "reasons" are dependent on pure logic and must have driven god to do its very first act of creation. These motivations, this initial logic, will have been dictating God's thoughts from the moment of God's inception. If there was no logic and no motivation, God did not create anything on purpose. In that case, you might as well admit that the Universe created itself randomly, and that no creator God was required.

If god created anything according to a thought-out logical plan, or, if God had a desire to create anything that wasn't pure random chaos, then, god's thoughts must have been framed around logic. This logic allowed god to think and create, and, gave motivation to God. Logic must have been the first cause; but if logic is a requirement for God and existed before God could create, then God cannot be the First Cause, and therefore, creator-god theism is false, and atheism is true.

Logic is a human construct.

 

[Lucky Forward]

A simple thought experiment that "proves" God doesn't exist. Well, it doesn't prove it for certain but does make a solid logical argument.

===

In order to create, to think, God's thoughts must be more than random. To create the universe and time, God must be able to think logically. If it can't think logically, then, the laws of the universe were simply random, and the Universe might as well be self-created in an atheistic manner. In other words, for God to exist, God's thoughts must have always been ordered in a logical manner otherwise God could never have created order from chaos.

To overcome chaos and randomness, God's thoughts must be inherently logical. This means that logic is a precursor. Logic, with a few simple relations and rules that lets thought itself be ordered, must have existed independently of God's creative power. God could not have created the logic because it is a requirement to have logical thoughts to do any meaningful creating. This results in two conclusions:

1) In theological terms, the first cause is the description given to the creator of the universe, time, the laws of physics, etc. But it seems that in order for the first cause to be a creator-god, then that god cannot have created logic, and cannot therefore be the first cause after all. In other words, the fact that God needs to think logically in order to create means that God itself cannot be the creator of everything, only of parts of reality. In other words, there cannot be any monotheistic creator god.

2) If God chose to create anything then it must have had reasons to do so. God's "will" is not random, meaningless, chaotic or thoughtless. This means that these "reasons" are dependent on pure logic and must have driven god to do its very first act of creation. These motivations, this initial logic, will have been dictating God's thoughts from the moment of God's inception. If there was no logic and no motivation, God did not create anything on purpose. In that case, you might as well admit that the Universe created itself randomly, and that no creator God was required.

If god created anything according to a thought-out logical plan, or, if God had a desire to create anything that wasn't pure random chaos, then, god's thoughts must have been framed around logic. This logic allowed god to think and create, and, gave motivation to God. Logic must have been the first cause; but if logic is a requirement for God and existed before God could create, then God cannot be the First Cause, and therefore, creator-god theism is false, and atheism is true.

"Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that", and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy", says Man, and for an encore he goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

[JGS]

A simple thought experiment that "proves" God doesn't exist. Well, it doesn't prove it for certain but does make a solid logical argument.

===

In order to create, to think, God's thoughts must be more than random. To create the universe and time, God must be able to think logically. If it can't think logically, then, the laws of the universe were simply random, and the Universe might as well be self-created in an atheistic manner. In other words, for God to exist, God's thoughts must have always been ordered in a logical manner otherwise God could never have created order from chaos.

To overcome chaos and randomness, God's thoughts must be inherently logical. This means that logic is a precursor. Logic, with a few simple relations and rules that lets thought itself be ordered, must have existed independently of God's creative power. God could not have created the logic because it is a requirement to have logical thoughts to do any meaningful creating. This results in two conclusions:

1) In theological terms, the first cause is the description given to the creator of the universe, time, the laws of physics, etc. But it seems that in order for the first cause to be a creator-god, then that god cannot have created logic, and cannot therefore be the first cause after all. In other words, the fact that God needs to think logically in order to create means that God itself cannot be the creator of everything, only of parts of reality. In other words, there cannot be any monotheistic creator god.

2) If God chose to create anything then it must have had reasons to do so. God's "will" is not random, meaningless, chaotic or thoughtless. This means that these "reasons" are dependent on pure logic and must have driven god to do its very first act of creation. These motivations, this initial logic, will have been dictating God's thoughts from the moment of God's inception. If there was no logic and no motivation, God did not create anything on purpose. In that case, you might as well admit that the Universe created itself randomly, and that no creator God was required.

If god created anything according to a thought-out logical plan, or, if God had a desire to create anything that wasn't pure random chaos, then, god's thoughts must have been framed around logic. This logic allowed god to think and create, and, gave motivation to God. Logic must have been the first cause; but if logic is a requirement for God and existed before God could create, then God cannot be the First Cause, and therefore, creator-god theism is false, and atheism is true.

Logic isn't really needed for creation though as Pooty Tang proves.

As others have told me, if nothing is above God, then logic would not be either would it?

It's true that God does not do things randomly but that doesn't automatically mean it was based on some instinctual need to create order. He uses his thinking ability and power to create things in a logical manner. In other words, it makes sense why things are the way they are physically speaking. that doesn't mean that chaos is impossible for creation. However, that still from the perspective of his creation.

Even if we look at it from the angle that logic is required for creation, that doesn't mean that it's needed for a/the creator who is described as having no beginning. If that's the case, there was an infinite amount of time that God did no creating at all and he himself was not created, meaning logic did not have to exist when he was by his lonesome.

EDIT: I need to change that all into the form of a question!

 

[jdogmoney]

You guys saying that God is above logic remind me of my friend, who is a literalist that claims that this verse that implies that pi is exactly three...

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

...is factually correct, because before Jesus was resurrected the laws of reality and geometry were different.

Logic is a human construct, sure, just as pi is. The thing is, though, it works. It makes sense. If God is just "above logic" then there's literally no way anyone can have any sort of meaningful discussion.

 

[JGS]

You guys saying that God is above logic remind me of my friend, who is a literalist that claims that this verse that implies that pi is exactly three...



...is factually correct, because before Jesus was resurrected the laws of reality and geometry were different.

Logic is a human construct, sure, just as pi is. The thing is, though, it works. It makes sense. If God is just "above logic" then there's literally no way anyone can have any sort of meaningful discussion.

Geez, I remember having some whacky conversation about that verse, but that doesn't really fit in this scenario does it?

Pi and logic aren't the same, but if they were comparable, it's a quality and God doesn't have the ability to do a lot of things based on qualities or thoughts. God is love, cannot lie, is jealous for pure worship, requires justice, etc...

Logic isn't a being that sits above God so it's not that big of a deal. It certainly can't be used to disprove anything.

 

[jdogmoney]

Logic isn't a being that sits above God so it's not that big of a deal. It certainly can't be used to disprove anything.

How so?

 

[Mumei]

Did anyone want to be a slave? Of course not (Usually). But life and morality are not based on wants. In fact Godly morality is based specifically on you doing what he tells you- even if society says you can do otherwise.

So, you essentially ascribe to divine command theory - that things are moral because God commands them?

It's beating a dead horse to say in hindsight what God should do when humans weren't doing it until a short while ago in the stream of time.

I only continue to bring this up because you continue to sufficiently address it. This is not an issue of hindsight. If what God commands is moral and right, then God could have commanded his people not to free their slaves. The argument about hindsight only works if God isn't the omniscient source of morality.

I have answered repeatedly this issue and you keep failing to see another person's opinion on the matter. Debate is worthless and asking questions is worthless if you really don't want to know another view.

I don't just want to know your view. After I have asked your view and gotten a response, I have to decide if I think you're explanation makes sense. If it doens't - and I think that your explanations have often not made sense - I ask further questions to get you to clarify your meaning, or point out inconsistencies.

Further, God wasn't going with the flow. When people say that, they are essentially saying that God needs us for direction which is totally untrue. He was not tasked with solving all mankind's problems based on the terms and conditions of mankind. That would be a disaster. In fact, Israel proved it was disasterous to live for God and hold onto human wants. It doesn't work.

I must be missing something. According to the earlier part of your post, God cannot be blamed for allowing slavery based on our moral perspective now, because back when God originally said those things about slavery, people were also engaged in slavery.

What else is God doing if not going with the flow, if he can be excused for allowing slavery simply because people were doing it?

Honestly, I could not care less about where people get their moral center. If you don't worship God, then it doesn't matter at all where your morality comes from except to you. As you said if I believe I was created by God than morality by extention would be based on him as well. However, humans also have thinking ability and so they can add and remove to morality as they wish and do so all the time.

So, what if God commands you to murder your father, but you believe based on your personality morality about the taking of life that murder is always wrong.

Are you morally required to kill your father, or does your sense of morality matter?

 

[JGS]

How so?

In terms of disproving God which was the original argument.

Logic can of course disprove many things, but God doesn't fall outside of that.

 

[JGS]

So, you essentially ascribe to divine command theory - that things are moral because God commands them?

I have no idea if I subscribe to that or not. In fact, it would be better to not label someone to begin with. All indications are that there are loopholes to all beliefs you think I have even though I'm not saying anything different than Scripture or basic opinion.

From your sentence how is this different than the other thing I was accused of- I can't remember and I can't scroll but it's the one that says God morality is the only morality?

I'll try to answer anyway. I think there are things that don't require a compartmentalizing into immoral/moral. The things God says are moral/immoral are moral/immoral. He hasn't added or subtracted to that list for some time.

Godly morality = True

Human morality = Could be true, could be false.

I only continue to bring this up because you continue to sufficiently address it. This is not an issue of hindsight. If what God commands is moral and right, then God could have commanded his people not to free their slaves. The argument about hindsight only works if God isn't the omniscient source of morality.

It is definitely an issue of hindsight. You keep thinking I'm answering insufficiently because:

- You seem to overlook the fact that I think there are other forms of morality.

- You also seem to overlook the fact that I've said that slavery was not a moral issue for God.

- You seem to overlook the fact that I said slavery was not a moral issue for humans.

- You seem to overlook the fact that I said that God does not designate every action into a moral/immoral category.

Since you don't, you will continue to have an insufficient answer since it doesn't get any clearer or easier than that.

I don't just want to know your view. After I have asked your view and gotten a response, I have to decide if I think you're explanation makes sense. If it doens't - and I think that your explanations have often not made sense - I ask further questions to get you to clarify your meaning, or point out inconsistencies.

Why on earth would you go through the mental wrangling to see if a person you disagree with's answer makes sense? It should, btw, since it fits with history, the Bible, & human nature. However, if you can't see that and want to stick to your guns than do so.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind to answer the same thing over and over, but I can't be blamed for your not making sense of it because you can't get past your own opinion.

I must be missing something. According to the earlier part of your post, God cannot be blamed for allowing slavery based on our moral perspective now, because back when God originally said those things about slavery, people were also engaged in slavery.

What else is God doing if not going with the flow, if he can be excused for allowing slavery simply because people were doing it?

You are missing something. Context.
God could not be blamed for slavery now if it still existed. There is never a time that God could be blamed for slavery because he was not the cause of it or the reason it kept going. That didn't mean he wasn't concerned about it, just that morality was tied to treatment.

You keep twisting this to make it that it was obviously immoral to own slaves. If you can obviously see that now, God should have seen it thousands of years ago. I get it. I've answered that in nearly every post about slavery.

This tells me that ALL answers will be insufficient for you until realize that wasn't the case or at least acknowledge that few during that tme did.

On point to what you quoted. The Israelites promised to God that they would worship on his terms. He said OK and they failed at it. It was not because it was too hard, but because they backed out of their original promise and tried follow what other people did rather than God while worshipping God too. It didn't work. That's the context of the quote. Christians also do this too, agreee to live their life on God's terms and follow Jesus as the example. Many of us fail too because we try to live life on both sides.

Those agreements weren't with all mankind so all mankind continued to do what they wanted. This is not the same thing as God telling them to do something and they ignoring him. God wasn't in their picture. Therefore all of their actions were based on what they did. You paint the picture that their life should be based on what God does for them when he never established a relationship with them to begin with.

So, what if God commands you to murder your father, but you believe based on your personality morality about the taking of life that murder is always wrong.

Are you morally required to kill your father, or does your sense of morality matter?

God wouldn't ask me to murder so I'm not sure if my answer will be honest since it's a false hypothetical. It's like asking me what would I say to a goat that talked to me.

Following God doesn't mean you don't ask why, so that's what I would do. If no reason is given I would have a problem carrying it out. I would have a problem carrying out on a stranger too. Worst thing that would happen is I'm dead though.:lol

 

[Mario]

God could not be blamed for slavery now if it still existed.

Slavery does still exist.

There is never a time that God could be blamed for slavery because he was not the cause of it or the reason it kept going.

Humans may be the ones actually enslaving others and therefore can quite easily be considered the cause. However, God, via the Bible as the inspired Word of God, at best chose not to condemn slavery and at worst endorsed it.

Additionally, he has historically allowed it to happen and continues to do so, though that of course falls into the "why does God allow suffering" bucket.

 

[JesseZao]

Humans may be the ones actually enslaving others and therefore can quite easily be considered the cause. However, God, via the Bible as the inspired Word of God, at best chose not to condemn slavery and at worst endorsed it.

Additionally, he has historically allowed it to happen and continues to do so, though that of course falls into the "why does God allow suffering" bucket.

1st line: As far as I've understood it, it's a matter of "If you are in this situation, behave this way."

2nd line: A related question: "Why does God allow humans to die?"

 

[JGS]

Slavery does still exist.

Sorry, I meant as an institution. It is not nearly as common as in earlier times, but you are certainly correct.

Humans may be the ones actually enslaving others and therefore can quite easily be considered the cause. However, God, via the Bible as the inspired Word of God, at best chose not to condemn slavery and at worst endorsed it.

Additionally, he has historically allowed it to happen and continues to do so, though that of course falls into the "why does God allow suffering" bucket.

No one is disputing the bolded part. In fact that's what I've been saying all along!

The problem lies in the assumption that slavery and morality were linked anywhere in 2 places-

1. The Bible
2. Human Civilization

The answer is no although it can be understood that we view it that way now. However, there is no point in disagreeing with history. It is certainly your right to condemn it though I guess.

Suffering or not God does not control what mankind does as a whole right now (As always, he is concerned with his followers), so why should he single out slavery amongst all the other things he would not allow under his total rule?

 

[astroturfing]

hey here's an interesting question (to me at least hah):

say we find a very large and previously unknown secluded community of humans from the Amazon who have never seen modern humans or heard of any of our religions... which religion should get first dibs on trying to convert them, and why?

should we let the Catholics in first? or the Protestants? or Sunnis? maybe Hindus? (Buddhists and Jews wouldn't give a shit of course :lol)

 

[Metaphoreus]

Part One
In order of appearance...

soul creator

what standard do you use to determine that Supernatural Claim A is "correct" and Supernatural Claim B is "incorrect".

I suppose it would depend on the claim. We have the Bible to provide us with the answers to some of those questions, and reasoning to provide the answer for many others. Scientific evidence can come into play somewhat, though it is obviously not directed at either discovering or understanding that which is supernatural. You may complain that people can come to different conclusions based on the Bible, and that's true. Regarding those issues, some people will be wrong; others might be right. If there is a true ambiguity, then perhaps the issue won't be resolved. However, those issues that are neither resolved nor capable of being resolved are not particularly important. For example, is there a Hell and, if so, is it eternal? Does it make much difference? The motivation for being saved should not be fear of Hell, but love of God. It should be fulfillment as a human being, not a fearful reaction.

In the religious world, "reality" bends to the whim of whatever the divine being feels like doing at any given time.

You have a very narrow definition of "reality." What you mean by "reality" is better termed "nature," or even "material nature." "Reality" encompasses more than just what can be seen, so when God resurrects a person, or puts a soul in humans, that's part of reality. God is not bound by the laws of nature, because He created those laws, and can alter them. Notice that Christians don't believe that God routinely alters the laws of nature; if they did, science would never have developed in the West. Instead, Christians believe that God has created an orderly universe that can be understood by observing it. This is not inconsistent with a belief that God can and sometimes does intervene in that universe in different ways.

Second, you shouldn't complain if science doesn't reveal an "unobservable" soul. If the only tool you have to observe is human vision, then you're obviously going to miss that which would be revealed by observing infrared light. In the same way, science is limited to observing and attempting to understand the natural world. If there exists something beyond nature, then science will not likely reveal it. Therefore, you can't say, "We seem just like every other animal, therefore there is no soul."

jdogmoney

he should be able to explain himself beyond "because I say so".

I never said He couldn't.

To use the "Heavenly Father" analogy

You've taken that out of context. Every analogy falls apart at some point, and it isn't surprising that it will fall apart when taken out of the context for which it was designed. The "Heavenly Father" analogy is meant to express how we relate to God and how God considers us. It was not meant to express the source of God's authority to command us on the one hand, and punish us for violating His commands on the other.

Hitler

If Hitler was a Christian, why would he have desired, as the OSS report cited on Wikipedia claims, the "complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion"? Hitler was a totalitarian, as were all fascist regimes: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato. Religion presents a potential counterweight against totalitarianism. To the religious, God's commands prevail over the contrary commands of men. (See Acts 5:29.) Thus, best to reinvent religion to better serve the state. As for your comment regarding Hitler's justifications, I expect you have a source to back up your contention that the Jews deicide was a "major part" of them.

As for bin Laden, I dismissed him because he wasn't a Christian; I guess you can lump all religions together if that's what it takes to have a sufficient basis of evidence to make the claim, but I don't have to accept your premise.

Lincoln was closer to an atheist than a Christian

I'll wait right here for you to provide some evidence for this claim. I have a feeling I'll be waiting a while.

You honestly prefer in a leader "God said I should kill these people" to "no...no, actually, I don't believe in God"?

Looking at history, it would appear that the individual who says, "There is no god, and I'm going to bring in the era of a New Man," is far, far more dangerous than the individual who says, "I believe in God." Put it another way: do you really prefer in a leader who thinks he should kill people the fear that God will judge his deeds once he dies, or the belief that there is no god and he can do whatever he can get away with?

Encouraged.

Ctrl + F + "encouraged" = "Though facing much opposition - from violence to the U.S. Postmaster General refusing to allow the mails to carry abolition pamphlets to the South - many Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian members freed their slaves and sponsored black congregations, in which many black ministers encouraged slaves to believe that freedom could be gained during their lifetime."

In other words, I'm not seeing the part that supports your claim that God ever "encouraged" slavery, nor the part that supports your claim that the Old Testament and New Testament were contradictory in their treatment of slavery.

Okay, your dismissal of my point brings something else to mind.

That was less of a "dismissal" and more of a "disproof."

From the point of view you and a lot of other people seem to have about atheist morality, wherein we only behave morally due to pragmaticism or whatever...why do believers behave morally? You can't possibly live up to the standard of God, and it doesn't matter anyway because Jesus gives you a blank slate, so why bother?

Is this double standard for the behavior of humanity just because you see yourself as better than the nonbeliever?

First, I never said that atheists only behave morally due to "pragmaticism." In addition, this discussion has never been about whether or why atheists act according to prevailing societal mores, but about whether an objective morality can exist without God.

Regarding the point you tried to make, I'm not even sure you're grasping for straws at this point. Just wildly waving your arms about and pretending it's logical argumentation. You do ask an interesting question, though: why do Christians behave morally if they won't be held accountable for their sins? This question is an old one, addressed by Paul in the New Testament:

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

"Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"--but God will destroy them both. . . . You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

These show that Christian liberty from sin is not a license to sin. The Christian desires to live in a way that is pleasing to God, as a response of love to God's grace. Even so, it is not true that the Christian's deeds will not still be judged:

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

This demonstrates that there is a hierarchy of believers in heaven, and it is not inconsistent to believe in the forgiveness of sins for the purposes of salvation with a weighing of the good or ill one did while alive for the purposes of placement in that hierarchy, and the potential rewards given based on such placement.

No apeman is an island.

To begin, we aren't talking about humans. (Well, we may be talking about humans, depending on when you believe morality arose. The timing makes no difference to my argument.) You say that what you describe "gradually led to the development of what we call empathy," but you introduced empathy at the outset, when you said, "Murder is bad because people don't want to be murdered themselves." Connecting the dots between, "I don't want to be murdered" to "I ought not murder that person" requires empathy. Second, who cares about ostracism? Our concern is with reproduction, not social acceptance. Someone with no conception of right and wrong with regards to murder has an evolutionary advantage over a competitor with such a conception. The moral one will not kill the amoral one; the amoral one will not think twice about killing the moral one, thereby ensuring that the amoral genes are propagated and the moral ones are not. Someone with no conception of right and wrong with regards to rape has an evolutionary advantage over a competitor with such a conception. If Male 1 impregnates 20 females against their will, then his genes will become dominant, and not those of Male 2, who only impregnated the 4 females he could convince to have sex with him. The kind of morality we should expect to see as a result of evolution alone--if any--is one in which rape is not only not immoral, but positively moral, and in which murder is only proscribed with regards to individuals of the opposite gender and offspring. Clearly, that isn't what we see.

Mgoblue201

Passing the morality question off to god’s nature does not solve the problem.

How shocking that you've discovered a circular argument after you constructed the argument in such a way as to be circular. I didn't even see it coming. A more accurate approach would look like this: Why is it good? Because it's God's nature. Why is it God's nature? I told you that isn't the pertinent question. God's nature is what it is because it is His nature. The end. (See Ex. 3:14.) God's nature is perfect, but it is not His nature because it is perfect. So then, God's nature is good--because it is His nature--and His commands are good, because they comport with His nature. Ta-da.

You next asked about justice, and say that "saying that [G]od is a just being doesn't tell us what is just in any particular instance." I would agree with that, and since I said that morality is defined by God's commands, and not His nature--though His commands are consistent with His nature--we would have to look at His commands to determine what "justice" is. Let's consider some such commands:

• Ex. 23:1 - 3, 6 - 8
• Lev. 19:13 - 15
• Deut. 16:18 - 20
• Deut. 25:1 - 3
• Ps. 82:1 - 4
• Pr. 18:5
• Pr. 24:23 - 25
• Eccl. 3:16 - 17
• Is. 1:11, 13, 16 - 17
• Jer. 7:5 - 7
• Jer. 22:3
• Amos 5:7 - 12, 14 - 15
• Micah 6:8
• Zech. 7:9 - 10
• Zech. 8:16 - 17
• John 7: 24

From the above, we can derive a number of points about justice:

• Justice is to render to others what they truly merit.
• Justice does not consider irrelevant factors, such as the wealth or poverty of the other person.
• God emphasizes the plight of society's vulnerable repeatedly when He speaks of justice.
• Humans may pervert justice, but their decisions are ultimately subject to God's review.

As for the scenario you posit, of course it is just to condemn the transgressor, but that doesn't mean that we ought to. There are other concerns than justice alone, as God Himself makes evident. In any event, the fact that the two Christians may disagree about what ought be done, or even about what would be just, does not mean that there is no objective morality, nor even that there is an objective morality but that we cannot know it. Finally, it is false to say that we "cannot possibly vet either claim," since we can compare their recommendations with those of God's commands.

Wait, what? This is the exact the same argument I’m trying to use to prove that the idea of objective morality is nonsense.

So my argument is that there exists an objective morality--a morality that exists regardless of whether anyone believes in it or not--and you are trying to prove that that isn't the case because some people don't believe in it? Or that people don't agree about morality? You can certainly make that argument, but I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish by doing so. In addition, if the idea that we're all against murder "is obvious," then why did you previously say, "it [doesn't] make sense to say that one true morality is universally understood. Murder, for instance, is an emptry phrase."? It can't be "obvious" that we're all against murder unless it makes sense to say that one true morality is universally understood (at least as it relates to murder), which you said wasn't the case. You also said that murder is "an empty phrase." But if it is an empty phrase, then how did you know what I meant when I said it, and how did you know to counter the argument with a discussion of one's value of life? What's funny is that by making that counterargument, you have implicitly conceded that there is a universal understanding of the immorality of murder, because now you are attempting to show why that universal understanding exists, in an attempt to defeat the inference that such an understanding is evidence of an objective morality.

So, does it make sense to say that the universal understanding that murder is immoral derives from the value one places on one's own life or the life of another? If by "another," you mean "all others," then that might make sense, though it wouldn't have much practical credibility. But if by "another," you mean "some others"--such as a family member or friend or lover--then that wouldn't seem to follow at all. After all, if I value my life, or even that of some others but not all others, then I may logically conclude that whatever others are not among those whose lives I value must be killed in order to secure my life and those I care for. And, of course, for the strong individual who could not be overcome by anyone he knows, there would be no reason at all to consider murder immoral. Finally, regardless of what you meant by "another," the fact that individuals value life might explain why they would view murder as unfortunate or not preferable, but why would that create a universal understanding of its immorality?

As I was trying to say, even a meerkat has some kind of values, a product of a rich interior life. To ask whether they perceive something as right or wrong is once again a question of language and words. These words simply mean the way in which one perceives an infringement upon personal values.

What I was really hoping for was an explanation of what meerkat behavior leads you to think that. I'm not knowledgeable in the field of meerkatology, so I can't evaluate your claim based merely on what you have concluded. In addition, asking whether they perceive something as right or wrong is hardly nothing more than semantics. Do they comprehend that to do or refrain from doing one thing would be right, while the opposite would be wrong? The question is, do they have a moral comprehension? Look, I prefer steak to hamburgers, so I clearly have a value system about food, but I don't think to eat or not eat one or the other is right while the opposite is wrong. Similarly, I would prefer having $1,000 to having $10--so I have a value system--but I don't think having $10 is immoral. And we're discussing morality, not mere values or preferences.

if X’s choice is different in D than in C, then god by virtue of choosing C over D is simply choosing what people believe, which I thought was antithetical to your entire point anyway, that people will believe in the same thing regardless of C or D.

First, you're confusing what I said. Originally, I claimed that God could consider what a person would choose in any given circumstance and, if in no circumstance would that person choose to believe in the Gospel, place that person in a position to never hear it. I did not say--and if I did say it, I spoke imprecisely and apologize--that the person would believe the same thing regardless of where he was placed. I said, at most, that the person would not-believe in the same thing--namely, the gospel--regardless of where he was placed. Second, God does not choose what people believe. God chooses what universe to actualize, in the process choosing what circumstances He will create and what people He will create. The people still make all of their choices freely. God isn't merely concerned with what X will do in any given circumstance; He is deciding whether to create a universe in which X exists in C, or one in which X exists in D, or A, or B, or one in which X does not exist at all. In making that choice, he must also consider what persons W, Y, Z, and whatever others He creates alongside or instead of X will do under those circumstances.

You mistook my point when I said that god should judge us right now. I did not literally mean right now. I meant he should have judged us from the beginning.

I must not have made my own point very well if this is your response to it. If God judged everyone at the beginning, there would be no one to judge. But let's say He judged everyone at the Fall--then He would have judged Adam and Eve. Because Christ had not yet died for their sins, Adam and Eve would have been condemned. In other words, if God had judged everyone at the very first sin, then no one would have been saved. God does not judge those who have never existed, because

Foreknowledge is not the same as predestination.

No, I get what you’re trying to do. It’s simply that if we assume god’s existence, then this discussion is pointless, because it would be impossible to argue against god.

You obviously don't understand the context of this discussion. The assumption of God's existence is a tentative assumption, to determine whether His existence is necessarily inconsistent with the existence of those who will never hear the gospel. If we were to discover that it is, indeed, necessarily inconsistent, then the fact that there exist persons who never hear the gospel would be some strong evidence against God's existence.

But my point is that, if we just look at this one issue, is it proof for or against god?

This seems like a good way to focus this discussion, but we've discussed a few different issues by this point. Which, in particular, are you referring to?

You haven’t proven at all that any of those things are not contingent on material necessity. That you can imagine something to be true doesn’t make it possible. And the second point has nothing to do with what I said. We’re assuming existence, obviously, because I am talking about the difference between one existing being and another.

You asked for a definition of "being" that was not contingent on material existence. The implication was that an immaterial being was not possible. Not one of the definitions I provided is contingent on material existence. Ergo, immaterial beings are possible under accepted definitions of the term "being." As to the second point, fine, we'll assume existence. If everything about you changed, could you still be the same being? That depends, I suppose, on whether what I have called your "spirit" also changes, or if it remains the same. If you consider the "spirit" as a template, or a canvas, then you could obviously change everything else and it would still remain the same underlying medium. Obviously, if you were a different spirit, then you would be a different being, in a narrow sense. (Though still being a human spirit, you would still be the same being in a broader sense.)

Furthermore, by saying , “If there is no one who would ever not sin, then I blame God, because it can't be a choice if everyone does the exact same thing,” I clearly meant the fact that people sin, not the way in which they choose to sin. With that out of the way, the entire idea of “choice” is kind of a loaded phrase that is probably impossible to define.

I understand what you meant to say, but my answer to it remains the same. People don't all do "the exact same thing." All that people need to do is decide to do the wrong thing in any of virtually infinite circumstances. Probability alone would seem to mandate that everyone sin at least once, given the sheer number of choices with a moral dimension that every person makes throughout life. As for "choice," do you really need me to link to a dictionary again? Do all of your arguments resolve themselves into questions of semantics? Must I define what "is" is?

I said that the verse is about violence, and I would say that it’s true. It inspired division. You can say that this kind of division could be just, but I say that it does lead to violence, as people turn against their own families for archaic reasons. And one can easily argue that the command to flee is itself temporal.

To begin, violence and division are not the same things. In any event, the people turning against family members in Christ's statement are the non-Christian family members, so those "archaic reasons" are the anti-Christian reasons that motivate people today as much as they did 1,900 years ago. Finally, of course the command to flee is temporal. Eventually, there will be no more persecution, and so no need to flee. Believe me, when that time comes, you, and I, and everyone else in the world will know it, and it's not here yet, so the command stands.

Is this like the “no true Scotsman” argument?

You and jdogmoney both need to brush up on the No True Scotsman fallacy so you'll know when not to invoke it.

Now, you say that "perversion of religion" is an "inevitable outcome of Christianity." But how can the perversion of a thing be the inevitable outcome of that thing? If perversion of religion is an inevitable outcome, it is not because of Christianity itself, but because of humanity. And if Christianity, based as it is on a written document against which individuals' behavior can be measured, can be perverted, how much moreso the amorphous atheism which you espouse? I also disagree that Christianity can be used to justify "anything," and if you are going to make that claim, I hope you have some basis for doing so.

As for Hitler's "creationism," how do you know that's the case, and what is your point?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Part Two

some were also the result of sheer political ineptness and communist economics.

The Soviets and the Chinese believed that they were making a better humanity. This hubris was the result of their atheism, and the cause of their political ineptitude. Man, to them, was not a fallen creature in need of a savior, but a perfectable creature who could be his own savior. If a few people died along the way, well, isn't the result worth it?

[People like me want to] satisfy our hearts to the full and in doing so we automatically have the most valuable moral codes. Of course there are people and objects in the world, but they are all there only for me. . . . I have my desire and act on it. I am responsible to no one.

most religious wars came at a time when the population was much smaller

This is an interesting concession. If most religious wars occurred when the population was much smaller, then they occurred long ago. If they occurred long ago, but not today, yet people are still religious today, then how can religion per se be blamed for them? It seems, given your admission, that religion has progressed to the point of being positively humane, whereas the atheist mass murders of the 20th century show that it remains in a barbarous, inhumane stage of development.

Would things have changed if Stalin had attempted to use religion to control people? Would he have not still tried to justify his actions?

Your question assumes that Stalin's rejection of God's existence had nothing to do with his arrogation of God's place in society. Stalin's acts cannot be separated from his atheism, even if he did not commit them "in the name of atheism," because they are a (and note I am only saying that they are a, not the) logical consequence of his atheism. So, yes, things would have changed if Stalin had been a Christian (and, presumably, if he had been of another religion)--the fact that there are no Christian equivalents to Stalin, but multiple atheist Stalins, attests to that fact.

a more realistic take on what went wrong with those states than attempts to lay the fault at the feet of atheism.

I understand that correlation alone does not prove causation, but some correlations are sufficiently startling to give pause. I also note that my point is directed at whether one should more fear a national leader who is religious and believes he has been instructed to kill, or an atheist leader who believes he should kill (or is indifferent to the deaths of his countrymen). And with that note:

There has only been one officially atheist country in history, the Albanian dictatorship of Enver Hoxha, which declared itself to be the world’s first atheist state in September, 1967. However, there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm, beginning with the First French Republic and ending with the four atheist regimes currently extant: the People’s Republic of China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao and are known to have murdered at least 20,000 of their own citizens.

The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.

JGS

Well, God is not Jesus & both God & Jesus said so

Would you care to elaborate on this? I believe that Jesus is God, though it's clear that He isn't God the Father. Here are a few verses to consider:

• John 1:1, 14
• John 8:58 - 59
• John 10:30 - 33
• Philippians 2:5 - 11
• Colossians 1:15 - 17

A Challenger Approaches: Slavery

Their treatment was the basis of whether or not slavery was immoral or not which is why there were laws dictating how they should be treated when few other civilizations cared about their treatment.

It seems most people have missed this point. Slavery at the time of the exodus (i.e., when the Old Testament law was handed down) was a completely different set of institutions than slavery in 19th-century America. Referring to both as "slavery" really just confuses the issue, since to say "slavery" evokes images of ownership of persons, abuse without recourse, dissolution of families, and similar horrible practices from the recent West. But the "slavery" referred to in the Bible was utterly different, as anyone who bothered to read the article I linked to a couple of weeks ago would have understood.

As a preliminary note, Mgoblue201 will no doubt appreciate the semantic difficulties involved in a consideration of ANE slavery:

Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge.

And with that said, here is a synopsis of the comparison from the article linked to above:

1. Motive: In the West, slavery was motivated by the economic advantage of the elite. In the Old Testament, slavery was designed to serve the poor. (See Lev. 25:35 - 43.)
2. Entry: In the West, slavery was overwhelmingly involuntary; humans were captured by force and sold via slave-traders. In the OT, the relationship was overwhelmingly voluntary, and forced, non-negotiated enslavement was a capital offense. (See Ex. 21:16, Deut. 24:7. See also I Tim. 1:10, where slave traders are listed among things "contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God.")
3. Treatment: In the West, slaves were frequently mistreated by modern standards, and punishments were extreme. The OT Law forbade harsh treatment, set stipulations for positive treatment, and set tight boundaries around punishment and abuse of servants. (See Lev. 25:43, 25:46, 25.53; Deut. 15:18; Ex. 21:20, 26 - 27.)
4. Living Arrangements: In the West, slaves lived in radical separation from their owners and did not participate in many of the benefits of the owners' fortunes. In the ANE, slaves often lived under the same roof as the family. In the OT, slaves were to be given rest--like everyone else--on the Sabbath (Ex. 20:9, 23:12; Deut. 5:13); they were to celebrate the festivals of YHWH along with the family (Deut. 12:11, 18); slaves in a priest's home could eat the sacred offering, usually reserved only for the priest and his family (Lev. 22:10).
5. Legal Status: In the West, slaves were considered property in exclusion to their humanity; there were no legal or ethical demands upon owners as to how to treat their slaves. In the OT, slaves are referred to as their owner's property in Exodus 21:21. The literal translation of the word translated as "property" in that verse is "silver." This is consistent with Israel's notion of property as relating to economic output only (See Lev. 25:14 - 16, 23, 39, 49 - 53.) (In other words, the slaveowner did not own the slave, but his services.)
6. Property: In the West, slaves could not have their own property; all they had belonged to their owner. In the OT, slaves could own their own property--such as the purchase price for their servanthood; they could also buy their own freedom if they prospered during the period of slavery. (Lev. 25:49.)
7. Exit: In the West, slavery was forever. There were never any means of obtaining freedom stipulated in the arrangement. In the cases of an owner granting freedom, no property went with the freedman. In the OT, freedom could be bought by relatives or by the slave himself (Lev. 25:49). Every seventh year, Hebrew slaves were to be freed automatically (Ex. 21:2, Deut. 15:12; Deut. 15:13 - 14 dictates that "when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you."). Minor injuries were to be compensated for with freedom (Ex. 21:26).
   
   Perhaps the most impressive thing to note about exit from OT slavery is this verse: "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him." (Deut. 23:15 - 16.) While the OT typically distinguishes between Hebrew and foreign slaves, there is no indication of such a distinction here. It would seem that, should a slave run away, he could thereby gain his freedom.

What this illustrates is that whatever it was that God regulated or "condoned" in the OT law as "slavery" was not slavery as we understand it today. Since OT slavery did not relate to ownership of persons so much as their labor, it would be disingenuous to try to argue that God supports slavery as ownership of the person on that basis. This difference in conception is key: if I own your person, I can kill you with impunity; if I only own your labor, then you still have rights that can be asserted against me.

Now, all that is just an introduction to the article, which contains plenty more information regarding ancient Israelite society and ANE social institutions. I don't feel like going over everything there, though, since you all are obviously capable of navigating to different webpages on your own. Instead, I'm going to move on to consider a series of posts made by

Dani
Concerning the post where you quote some verses and provide a... creative exegesis, I'm going to be repeating some of the things that JGS said, but I also have more to add. I'll take it verse by verse.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

So all foreigners, native and not, are game for the slave trade, children too.

First of all, nowhere does it speak of a "slave trade." It says that the Israelites may purchase slaves from among the foreigners--this makes sense in light of what I discussed above, that most of the time, slavery was entered voluntarily. The foreigner, desiring security, would sell himself, and the Israelite would purchase him. There is no indication that these people were bought and sold at a market, for instance, or sold after purchase to a stranger to that transaction.

Second, it says that you may "treat them as your property, passing them on to your children." In other words, the slaves are like property insofar as the rights to their labor can be devised.

Finally, it bears noting that the Israelites are directly commanded to "love those who are aliens." (Deut. 10:19.)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.

So, marrying off your slaves and ensuring they have children is a good way to ensure your slaves will never gain freedom and become your slave under God. I like how it recommends holding the wife and children hostage.

As the article I've linked to makes obvious, there's more here than a superficial reading will reveal. First, it was typical for the time period that a groom would pay a bride-price to either the bride or her father (or, in this case, the owner, which could be considered a surrogate father--and this raises another point: if the Israelite had a wife before entering the slavery arrangement, she and their children left when he left. If he married a free woman during the time of slavery, she would obviously not be bound to remain.). Rarely would a person who sold himself into slavery have the means to pay such a price. However, if he desired to stay with his wife and children, he had some options: he could negotiate a way to pay the bride-price, whether by payment (perhaps with some of the property that his master was required to send away with him), or by services; or he could stay with the master, reasoning that, since he loves his master, wife, and children, he would rather not go free.

Second, it is possible that he was joined with the woman by means of a non-emotional or matrimonial bond. He may have slept with her only to provide children for the master's service, and so no emotional bonds would have been created. In other words, this wasn't marriage, but a siring arrangement, so he would have no problem leaving at the end of the period.

Third, you'll notice that there are procedural safeguards in place. The master must take the slave before God, or before the judges. He couldn't just claim that that is what the slave wanted, but he would have to prove it in public.

Finally, nowhere does it recommend "holding the wife and children hostage." It merely dictates who has what rights in the given scenario. And, as I pointed out, this is not the only possible outcome from that scenario.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Sex slavery? Interesting endorsement for a holy book. And men can have as many sex slaves as he wants as long he continues to please his wife and each of the slaves and provide for them?

Sex slavery? That's what you got out of all of that?

As JGS pointed out, this refers to an arrangement more like marriage. Specifically, the woman in this case would be a concubine, something like a second-class wife: she has all the rights of a wife, but her children are not in the line of succession. This is an institution that obviously doesn't exist in modern Western society, so it's no surprise you missed it, but at this point you really should have started wondering whether your definition of slavery and the word as used in the Bible were somehow inconsistent with each other. After all, in what sense would a sex slave have to be freed if certain conditions weren't met? No, this isn't sex slavery, but an arrangement entered into for the well-being of the woman; if that well-being was not being furthered by the arrangement, then the arrangement ended.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Sexual equality for beating slaves? So not only does it clearly state you can beat up a female slave as equally as a male slave but if you kill them while beating them, it's absolutely fine fine if they don't die straight away.

Additionally, it states that slaves are property first and foremost. I assume this would mean they are human beings second then.

First, your interpretation is once again severely lacking. In what sense does a law punishing harm done to slaves constitute permission to beat slaves? Does the modern criminal law permit murder, since it provides a punishment for it? What barbarians we must be!

Second, you really need to put these two verses into context. Ex. 21:20 - 21 follow a parallel provision for harm to freemen in Ex. 21:18 - 19: "If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed." Now, there is something curious about this parallel. Your translation renders v. 21, "If . . . the slave survives for a day or two." However, the word translated "survive" there can also be translated as "arise" (and the NIV translates it as "gets up") or "continues" (as the KJV translates it). Naturally, these latter translations further the obvious parallel structure of 20 - 21 with 18 - 19 more than does rendering it "survives"--which appears to imply that the slave thereafter died. I checked some commentators, and a few of them relied on the "survives" language, accepting that the slave died after a day or two, rather than that he arose after a day or two. They explain that, at the time, if the slave didn't die until a day or two later, that would demonstrate that the master did not intend to kill the slave when he struck him, and would also render the causal connection between the blow and the death more tenuous.

A broader context would also provide more enlightenment in a couple of other ways. First, what is the punishment for directly killing your slave? The word "punished" can also be translated "avenged," so that the death of the slave must be "avenged." This is consistent with the general rule stated in v. 12: "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death." In addition, consider v. 32: "If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned." Two interesting points to note: (1) the ox is stoned, not slaughtered--the same punishment as in v. 28 for when "a bull gores a man or a woman to death;" (2) 30 shekels of silver is the amount that Hammurabi fixed for when a bull gores a member of the aristocracy, but here it is the appropriate compensation for a slave. These two show the continuing human value of the slave during his or her enslavement.

Finally, of course, the selection nowhere states that the slaves are "property first and foremost." Indeed, as everything I've said above should make clear, that was far from the truth in the OT generally, and far from true here. "Property," in this verse, is translated from the word ksph, which means "silver." The KJV translates it as "money." Considering the compensatory framework of these two verses and their parallel in v. 18 - 19, it's clear that the master does not need to compensate anyone for the lost services of the slave, since the loss is his own. He has lost the value that the slave provided--either as a result of the injury or as a result of the death, depending on how you think the verse should be rendered--and that should be enough disincentive to prevent harm to the slaves (besides, you know, the commands not to brutalize them.)

As an additional disincentive to harm one's slaves, slaves were to be freed if they were injured even in relatively minor ways, such as losing a tooth as a result of a blow from their master. (v. 27.)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

The biblical treatment of slaves continues with Christ. Also, slaves should have a healthy dose of both respect AND fear for their masters.

First, you'll note that this isn't Christ speaking. It's Paul.

Second, you missed the context of this statement, and I think JGS made the point brilliantly, so I'll just repeat it here:

Christian slaves are to act as Christians. . . . The primary goal of a Christian was to be an example to be followed. So Masters were to act like Jesus & slaves were to act like Jesus.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."

Jesus speaking about how slaves should be punished for refusing their masters. And also endorses punishing slaves that didn't even realise they were disobeying their masters.

This part of your post is amazing. It's like every logical component of your brain shut down right before you typed this response. This is a parable. As such, it has nothing to do with human relationships. Instead, it has to do with each individual's relationship with God and how well that individual does as God's servant. The fact that Christ spoke in terms of future certainty--i.e., prophecy--should have given you some hint that this was not a prescriptive statement (Christ did not say, "Masters should do this.") It is truly mind-boggling that you interpreted these two verses as you did. But far less so when I consider your later post: (See Part Three, below).

 

[Metaphoreus]

Part Three: In Conclusion

A simple thought experiment that "proves" God doesn't exist. Well, it doesn't prove it for certain but does make a solid logical argument.

At the outset, let's consider what it would mean if everything is as you say it is. Logic is necessary for God to create the universe, and therefore, God is subordinate to logic; logic pre-exists God in some sense. OK. I've assumed that that is true for the sake of argument.

Now what?

The superiority of logic over God does not disprove God's existence, any more than the superiority of logic over the universe disproves the universe's existence. You'll have much difficulty getting to this point, however, as I'll demonstrate.

Logic is necessary for this universe. This universe appears, to our logical minds, to operate logically. Therefore, we would be correct in saying that this universe is subject to the laws of logic. What we cannot say based on observation, however, is that God is subject to the laws of logic prevalent in this universe. Perhaps He had a choice not only of various universes within this logical order, but of various logics, each with various universes structured thereon. If so, then logic is something created, and--though fixed--arbitrary.

Moreover, perhaps God did behave randomly, and this universe is but one of countless others randomly created. Why couldn't logic have arisen by naked chance? After all, that is the necessary consequence of your "self-created in the atheistic sense" universe.

But let's say that logic is necessary, and therefore uncreated. Does it follow that no monotheistic god exists? Of course not. It only means that he created subject to laws already existing. But the existence of supernatural laws binding a god who created a natural world subject to other laws does not mean that he does not exist, any more than the existence of natural laws binding the computer programmer who creates a virtual world subject to other laws means that the programmer doesn't exist.

Additionally, it is not at all the same to say that a god created randomly and the universe spontaneously began existing randomly. In the first case, there is still a cause, which the existence of the universe apparently requires; in the second case, there is no cause, contrary to the best logical reasoning.

Now that I've demolished whatever semblance of coherence attached to your post, here are my thoughts: God thinks logically; He creates according to a logical, rational plan. Logic is not, however, superior to God. Instead, logic is an attribute of God, just like goodness is an attribute of God.

Well... that's about all I feel like replying to right now. So... Submit Reply... x3

Yikes.

EDIT: One final question:

if a vast majority of people decided to reintroduce slavery and it became, once again, the status quo, then, as JGS proves, there are folks out there that would argue it's morally acceptable or neutral.

I'd like to know, first of all, what would give you the right to tell that vast majority they were wrong? How could you know? If humans create our own morality, then surely a vast majority should be able to make that which once was right, wrong, and that which once was wrong, right. Right? I can tell you for a fact that Mgoblue201 doesn't believe that slavery is objectively wrong (because that would require the existence of an incoherent objective morality), and in that he is at least consistent. What about you?

 

[jdogmoney]

And Metaphoreus returns with a three-post combo! Welcome back, buddy.


I shall dive in to your posts tomorrow; for now, let me just say, what you're doing with Hitler is pretty much the definition of No True Scotsman.

Me: "Hitler was a Christian."

You: "No he wasn't!"

Me: "He said, at several points in his life, things about how 'Christianity is the foundation of the national morality' and Mein Kampf had a bunch of references to a 'Creator' and..."

You: "...yeah, but...he didn't mean it."

I'm not saying Hitler was a good Christian, or that he had any scriptural basis for anything he did, but he was a Christian*. At least sometimes.

*Christian here means, "one who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God".


Also, as for Lincoln, he was private about his religious views in the middle of the nineteenth century. Plenty of people claimed he converted to Christianity, but no one seems to agree on when. Mary Todd Lincoln was...unreliable.

This is a pretty good source, I think, although I've not read all of it:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_5.html

Yeah. Lincoln wasn't a Christian. Not exactly.


By the by, how do you define "Christian"?

 

[Meesh]

I really do like the idea of this thread, will book mark.

 

[Metaphoreus]

By the by, how do you define "Christian"?

Your definition of Christian seems fair, though I would add that a Christian also believes that Christ died for the world's sins and rose again. I still disagree that I'm engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy. Even if your characterization of this discussion is true, that isn't the No True Scotsman fallacy. I'm attacking the sufficiency of your evidence--after all, does saying that Christianity is the foundation of national morality require that one believe Jesus is the Son of God? Couldn't you say such a thing, despite not being a Christian? Nor do I think that the mere fact of membership in the Catholic Church necessarily indicates Christianity. A person can be a member of the Catholic Church, or any church, and not believe that Christ was the Son of God who died for the world's sins and rose again. Moreover, the fact that not even Richard Dawkins is able to pin Christianity on Hitler is telling--if anyone would gain anything by doing so, Dawkins would. In addition, the above-mentioned plot to eradicate Christianity from Germany is still more evidence that Hitler was not a Christian. Finally, Hitler's political shrewdness provides an alternative to the hypothesis that he was a Christian, and has the added benefit of accounting for all of the discrepancies mentioned above.

Regarding Lincoln, I thought I was mean by linking to that slavery article. And now you've gone and linked to what appears to be an entire book! In any event, showing that Lincoln wasn't a Christian is not at all the same as showing that he was an atheist. In reviewing some of those old quotes collected by the author of the book you linked to, it would be prudent to keep in mind that "atheist" has historically carried a broader meaning than the modern sense. For instance, Socrates was accused of atheism, even though he believed that a god spoke to him. Likewise, one of the places where "atheist" is cited on the page you linked to was this: "At one moment of his life I know that he was an Atheist. I was preparing a speech on Kansas, and in it, like nearly all reformers, I invoked God, he made me wipe out that word and substitute the word Maker, affirming that said Maker was a principle of the universe." The distinction between a theist and an atheist is not that one believes in God and the other in a Maker. Anyhow, as the preface of that link states:

The cause that requires the indorsement of the great to sustain it is not worthy to survive.

So even if Lincoln was an atheist, so what?

I look forward to your detailed response, and apologize for having had to post so much at once.

 

[soul creator]

I thought this was a funny quote, since it relates to the whole "Dawkins is an asshole!" viewpoint

For a presentation that seemed to generate much audience approval, not all were satisfied with the style of presentation.

“I appreciated his discussion, but I wish he was a little more angry about it, like he is in his writing. When he speaks in public, he’s a lot mellower and he doesn’t try to start fights. When he’s writing, he’ll piss off whoever he wants to, which is nice,” said attendee Grant Wright.

 

[Calantus]

Sorry, I meant as an institution. It is not nearly as common as in earlier times, but you are certainly correct.

Actually, it's cheaper to 'buy' a human being today than three hundred years ago. It's not as uncommon as you think.

 

[Dude Abides]

No, this isn't sex slavery, but an arrangement entered into for the well-being of the woman; if that well-being was not being furthered by the arrangement, then the arrangement ended.

What a sweet deal! But where's the part where the woman gets to decide whether her well-being is being furthered?

It seems most people have missed this point. Slavery at the time of the exodus (i.e., when the Old Testament law was handed down) was a completely different set of institutions than slavery in 19th-century America. Referring to both as "slavery" really just confuses the issue, since to say "slavery" evokes images of ownership of persons, abuse without recourse, dissolution of families, and similar horrible practices from the recent West.

It seems you missed the point. Most people think slavery - the ownership of one human being by another - is inherently wrong, even if one form of ownership is crueler than than another.

 

[Nocebo]

Why do people believe God is good as opposed to bad? Perhaps he has been lying all along.

 

[Earthstrike]

Why do people believe God is good as opposed to bad? Perhaps he has been lying all along.

Despite being one of the shortest posts on this thread, this is actually one of the most brilliant.

 

[Arthrus]

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

First of all, nowhere does it speak of a "slave trade." It says that the Israelites may purchase slaves from among the foreigners--this makes sense in light of what I discussed above, that most of the time, slavery was entered voluntarily. The foreigner, desiring security, would sell himself, and the Israelite would purchase him. There is no indication that these people were bought and sold at a market, for instance, or sold after purchase to a stranger to that transaction.

Unfortunately, due to midterm exams I can't commit to any proper discussion for a week or so (nor am I sure if this is a thread I want to spend a lot of time in), but reading your response here I couldn't help raise the questions:

If the system was as you described, why doesn't God want the people of Israel treated that way? What if an Israeli person wanted to be purchased, as you suggest foreigners could choose?

In my opinion, Christianity (belief in God/Jesus, afterlife, treat others how you'd like to be treated, etc) can do a lot of people a lot of good, but the Bible is an awful book that should never be used as reference material for anything.

 

[JGS]

Unfortunately, due to midterm exams I can't commit to any proper discussion for a week or so (nor am I sure if this is a thread I want to spend a lot of time in), but reading your response here I couldn't help raise the questions:

If the system was as you described, why doesn't God want the people of Israel treated that way? What if an Israeli person wanted to be purchased, as you suggest foreigners could choose?

In my opinion, Christianity (belief in God/Jesus, afterlife, treat others how you'd like to be treated, etc) can do a lot of people a lot of good, but the Bible is an awful book that should never be used as reference material for anything.

Not necessarily answering for Metaphoreus, but...

Israellites could voluntarily become slaves. In fact, it was the primary way (Only way?) Israellites became slaves under God's protection. They would be for a fixed time, 7 years or around the time of one of the festivals. However, they had the option of giving up their inheritance and becomng a slave indefintely.

God did not allow foreigners to purchase Israellite slaves though because it took them away from worshipping him and worshipping other gods. God did not concern himself with the religious rights of others since from his perspective they were all wrong anyway.

He did allow them to become slaves when they voluntarily left from worshipping him as a country.

If you don't use the Bible as a reference for anything than you miss a humongous chunk of history from those times. Whether you believe that the Scriptures are largely mythical and dangerous is irrlelvant as they still show what life was like back then. Without it, even more ridiculous conjecture would be stirred up about what life was like back then.

If you believe it to be entirely mythical, then you still miss a large chunk of creative influence it has on any number of works- even the stuff written by atheists.

 

[JGS]

Despite being one of the shortest posts on this thread, this is actually one of the most brilliant.

Only if you think God can lie and that he's worried about what we think of him.

There's no reason to think that a person who created us and the standard he wants us to follow would have reason to lie to us. What exactly would he be scared of?

 

[JGS]

Actually, it's cheaper to 'buy' a human being today than three hundred years ago. It's not as uncommon as you think.

I know it's common but it's not universally accepted. In fact, it is practically universally condemned.

Most slave trading is underground as opposed to 300 hundred years ago and earlier when it was a normal part of business. instead of having a world where only a handful of countries (at best) did not take part in slavery, we now live in one where only a handful (at best) would be consideredbeing pro-slavery.

 

[JGS]

Not necessarily answering for Metaphoreus again, but...

What a sweet deal! But where's the part where the woman gets to decide whether her well-being is being furthered?

Come on, women back then (& even now) are defined and often define themselves based on marriage and the ability to have children. It's true that God was not a feminist, but that's a far cry from sex slavery promoter. Considering that a large part of the world still practices arranged marriages and polygamy, this should be the least of your outrages unless you carry those outrages out today.

It seems you missed the point. Most people think slavery - the ownership of one human being by another - is inherently wrong, even if one form of ownership is crueler than than another.

Most people in this day and age do think slavery is inherently wrong regardless of their treatment. This argument keeps coming up because there is at this point nothing else to cling to.

The point has been and will always remain that you cannot take 21st century thinking and retroactively condemn an entire world for thinking differently about it. There is no evidence at all that humans back then thought that slavery was inherently wrong so there's no point in bringing up the argument.

That has been the whole point from the beginning. But please feel free to say ancient times = modern times.

 

[Nocebo]

Only if you think God can lie and that he's worried about what we think of him.

There's no reason to think that a person who created us and the standard he wants us to follow would have reason to lie to us. What exactly would he be scared of?

First: God has lied in the bible. Second: what if he lied about creating us so you would worship him? Who says the standards are good?
What made you assume he wouldn't tell a lie?

 

[soul creator]

I think JGS is the first Christian moral relativist I've conversed with!

 

[Dude Abides]

Come on, women back then (& even now) are defined and often define themselves based on marriage and the ability to have children. It's true that God was not a feminist, but that's a far cry from sex slavery promoter. Considering that a large part of the world still practices arranged marriages and polygamy, this should be the least of your outrages unless you carry those outrages out today.

Again beside the point. Either that form of subservient ownership is morally acceptable or it's not.

Most people in this day and age do think slavery is inherently wrong regardless of their treatment. This argument keeps coming up because there is at this point nothing else to cling to.

People cling to it because it shows that God's "morality" as set forth in the Bible, is not worthy of aspiring to.

The point has been and will always remain that you cannot take 21st century thinking and retroactively condemn an entire world for thinking differently about it. There is no evidence at all that humans back then thought that slavery was inherently wrong so there's no point in bringing up the argument.

Why does it matter what human beings back then thought? This argument is about God's "morality," not human beings'.

That has been the whole point from the beginning.

It's not a point that's in dispute. It's just not relevant.

 

[JGS]

First: God has lied in the bible. Second: what if he lied about creating us so you would worship him? Who says the standards are good?
What made you assume he wouldn't tell a lie?

1. When? Context is probably in order but I'm open minded.

But please, please, please, do not bring up Adam & Eve in your argument!:lol

2. That's a little too big of thinking imo. Since there's no way to prove he lied about this at all & there are no consequences to disbelieve it, of what concern is it to us if something bigger is out there then what was told to us?

 

[JGS]

Again beside the point. Either that form of subservient ownership is morally acceptable or it's not.

Not beside the point. Has there ever been a dispute about the Bible saying that a man is head of the woman in a family?

People cling to it because it shows that God's "morality" as set forth in the Bible, is not worthy of aspiring to.

It's still silly as the your argument simply does not coincide with historical reality - one of which is that the vast majority of people did not even worship the God from the Bible, yet he is to take blame for all of it? OK.

On top of that, your very argument makes the stunning revelation that all humankind inherently thinks slavery is wrongbut fail to back that up with any evidence. Hmmm. Once, again, if that's all you got, that's all you got.

Why does it matter what human beings back then thought? This argument is about God's "morality," not human beings'.

That argument has already been fried and laid to the side. Slavery was not a moral issue to God. That's the 100th time I said it and your outrage over it only verifies that what I say is true.

It is completely your right as a free thinker to condemn God for not handling it as a moral issue since it doesn't matter anyway, but you do not have the right to include slavery as a moral issue for God or ancient civilization- anymore than you have the right to make the Star Spangled Banner Canada's national anthem.

In short, your (& mine for that matter) opinion is totally irrelevant to what actually is written/happened.

It's not a point that's in dispute. It's just not relevant.

You truly are a god among men since you have the ability to warp arguments to your beck and call. You keep this up and many will bow to you.

 

[Nocebo]

1. When? Context is probably in order but I'm open minded.

Couple of things he said he would do and or would happen that didn't.

2. That's a little too big of thinking imo. Since there's no way to prove he lied about this at all & there are no consequences to disbelieve it, of what concern is it to us if something bigger is out there then what was told to us?

Little too big of thinking? What's that supposed to mean? Something like it's bad to think too deeply about it?

The implications that he lied about the creation of us / our universe are huge actually. The point you're forgetting is that that's just one thing he could have lied about.

What if he lied about original sin? Maybe we're not sinful creatures who need to seek forgiveness from God at all! Perhaps all the pain and suffering in the world is because God is malicious and the good things that happen are just coincidental. There are many more possible lies with huge implications.

If you are being deceived wouldn't you want to know? Wouldn't you want to wrestle yourself free from such a being?

What if the greatest trick the devil played isn't that he doesn't exist but that God exists. He could be laughing in his fists at us all.

 

[JGS]

Couple of things he said he would do and or would happen that didn't.

OK?

Little too big of thinking? What's that supposed to mean? Something like it's bad to think to deeply about it?

The implications that he lied about the creation of us / our universe are huge actually. The point you're forgetting is that that's just one thing he could have lied about.

What if he lied about original sin? Maybe we're not sinful creatures who need to seek forgiveness from God at all! Perhaps all the pain and suffering in the world is because God is malicious and the good things that happen are just coincidental. There are many more possible lies with huge implications.

If you are being deceived wouldn't you want to know? Wouldn't you want to wrestle yourself free from such a being?

No one said the implication aren't huge if there are consequences. I'm not aware of the consequences. Pain and suffering in the world isn't cause by God to begin with so why would him lying to us affect that? Right now you are just throwing out a what if scenario that has no basis in belief.

If you can prove deceit, then by all means do so, but I don't know why I would contemplate it so much if I can't prove it or stop it. It's like worrying about an asteroid hitting the Earth your whole life. I'm far less trusting of people that routinely show their sinfulness by thinking nothing is wrong with lying.

 

[Dude Abides]

You still don't understand the basic argument.

Claims:

(1) God does not approve that which is not moral.

(2) God's morality is not contingent upon human conceptions of morality.

Rebuttal:

(1) Slavery is not moral.

(2) God approved of slavery.

On top of that, your very argument makes the stunning revelation that all humankind inherently thinks slavery is wrongbut fail to back that up with any evidence. Hmmm. Once, again, if that's all you got, that's all you got

.

No it doesn't. The conclusion is simple: God, and you, do not think there is anything inherently immoral about one human being owning another. That's not a moral standard to be taken seriously.

You truly are a god among men since you have the ability to warp arguments to your beck and call. You keep this up and many will bow to you.

I don't have to warp anything. The case is straightforward. Condescension is a poor substitute for an argument.

 

[Nocebo]

OK?


No one said the implication aren't huge if there are consequences. I'm not aware of the consequences. Pain and suffering in the world isn't cause by God to begin with so why would him lying to us affect that? Right now you are just throwing out a what if scenario that has no basis in belief.

Yes. But what if pain and suffering WAS caused by God? That's exactly what I'm wondering! How do you know it isn't?

If you can prove deceit, then by all means do so, but I don't know why I would contemplate it so much if I can't prove it or stop it. It's like worrying about an asteroid hitting the Earth your whole life. I'm far less trusting of people that routinely show their sinfulness by thinking nothing is wrong with lying.

Can you prove he isn't lying? Also who says you can't prove or stop it?

Edit:
Reading this I see I have my answer already. You can't prove he isn't lying, then what makes you say he's telling the truth about anything?

 

[JGS]

You still don't understand the basic argument.

Claims:

(1) God does not approve that which is not moral.

(2) God's morality is not contingent upon human conceptions of morality.

Rebuttal:

(1) Slavery is not moral.

(2) God approved of slavery.

.

Again the claims don't match the rebuttal...at all which is why this gets nowhere. :lol

One of the claims doesn't match what I say but yu could be speaking about someone else.
I answered at least on both the claims and the rebuttal.

You apparently have the easy job of simply saying based on you modern day opinion slavery has alway been immoral to the point of it being ingrained in our psyche (inherantly wrong) and then stopping there. Sounds fair to me...

No it doesn't. The conclusion is simple: God, and you, do not think there is anything inherently immoral about one human being owning another. That's not a moral standard to be taken seriously.

Didn't say that (At least not without context). Further, you are completely wrong about me to the point where it's clear you don't read beyond your own writing.

At the times the Bible was written, the morality of slavery was based on treatment and not on ownership. This was the case over thousands of years and verified by partially quoted, out of context scripture by Dani.

In this day and age, slavery, regardless of treatment is immoral because there is no sound reason to go back to it.

I will never ever condone slavery and there is no Christian requirement saying that I must- just like there has never been a scriputural requirement even in those times that a person must champion slavery.

I don't have to warp anything. The case is straightforward. Condescension is a poor substitute for an argument.

I'm not being condescending.

I don't view you as inferior at all. Just wrong and being arrogant about it. So if anything, I'm simply trying to talk you down to my lowly level.