Require Help in this debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2015, 11:34 AM
RE: Require Help in this debate
(27-01-2015 01:53 PM)Monkeygirl96 Wrote:  So I'm a newbie here but I've read some of y'alls posts and think you can help me.

Problem:
I recently discovered my friend is a Young Earth Creationists. This is by no means her fault as she was raised and home schooled by two (very) closed minded Young Earth Creationist. I have been attempting to prove to her that evolution has provided a more satisfactory answer to life on earth and that the Earth (and by proxy the Universe) is way older than 6000-10000 yrs old. So far my evidence has included the fossil record (which she says she doesn't trust due to inconsistencies with carbon dating), light from the stars I gave her the equation (time=distance/speed(of light)) as well as the distance of some well known stars. But I don't know what else to give her. Any ideas?
You'll never get anywhere trying to out science her because they always have explain-aways to discredit your argument--the final argument being you aren't a scientist. Instead get a Strong's Concise Concordence of the Bible, a good DVD with different Bibles in it and dictionaries and have her look up such passages as Matthew 12:40 about the Sign of Jonah which pretty well discredits Jesus as being the Messiah. Try to find Messiah in the listings and see how sparse the listings are; which proves that a savior of mankind wasn't high on the Jews and Christians priorities. Also the concept that The Old Testament should at least set out priorities for man to follow for the future--where does it say in the OT that there would be a savior to do away with original sin, or that there was origianal sin to begin with? What abaout God claiming to be the Alpha Omega and Jesus claiming to be Alpha Omega in Revalations? They both can't be the one and only AlaphaOmega. No savior but God; Isiah 45:1 and Is. 44:6. Is. 43:10 etc. There all sorts of errors, misquotes, contradictions in the Bible which the theists can't explain away. Have fun.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2015, 11:44 AM
RE: Require Help in this debate
Any YEC has a huge blind spot to reality, science can simply be excused away as "evolutionary" or "secular", only the psuedo-science of creationism is not labelled as such.

There is a lot of apologism in regards to the Noahtic flood and Creation myth because it is routinely attacked, you might want to challenge her on the Tower of Babel myth, there are mountains of evidence that we had languages well before the alleged myth occurred in 2200 B.C.

Just go to Egypt, there are pyramids with written Egyptian on their walls that predate the Tower of Babel, as well as Sumerian cuneiform that have detailed records with dates that predate the Tower of Babel as well as the flood myth.

Guess what happened at the time of the alleged flood in 2340 B.C. ? Nothing! business went on as usual in the Egyptian and Sumerian empires.

Guess what happened before and after the Tower of Babel event? Nothing! Egyptians spoke Egyptian and Sumerians spoke Sumerian before and after these global events.

Such a person is in serious denial of the facts, so if you present such facts to them, you'll see their denial kick in. it can be very illuminating as to how this process works when they're cornered.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2015, 12:07 PM
RE: Require Help in this debate
(27-01-2015 01:53 PM)Monkeygirl96 Wrote:  So I'm a newbie here but I've read some of y'alls posts and think you can help me.

Problem:
I recently discovered my friend is a Young Earth Creationists. This is by no means her fault as she was raised and home schooled by two (very) closed minded Young Earth Creationist. I have been attempting to prove to her that evolution has provided a more satisfactory answer to life on earth and that the Earth (and by proxy the Universe) is way older than 6000-10000 yrs old. So far my evidence has included the fossil record (which she says she doesn't trust due to inconsistencies with carbon dating), light from the stars I gave her the equation (time=distance/speed(of light)) as well as the distance of some well known stars. But I don't know what else to give her. Any ideas?

The best place to start is with questions. What she doesn't recognize is that her distrust of science does not stem from critical inquiry and skepticism, but from a confirmation bias.



So, you could ask her things like:

How do you know the Earth is <10,000 years old?

Is this consistent with modern observations that independently undermine the credibility of the bible as a source document for an age estimate?

What would it take for you to believe that the Earth is >10,000 years? If the only thing that would convince you is if it is in the bible or consistent with your interpretation of the bible, then you have demonstrated not only a close-mindedness but one that is deeply ingrained in confirmation bias.

Why is carbon dating the only method of dating you think has flaws?

What of the other radioisotopes?

How would decay rates have all been fast enough to generate old ages, but not generate similar ages between all of the different radioisotopic systems (like U-Th-Pb, Rb-Sr, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, etc)?

If the fossil record is not sufficient to demonstrate faunal and floral succession, what do you think it represents?

Why are the plants arranged as would be expected in an evolutionary lineage, and not homogenized such that the lepidedendron forests are intermixed with angiosperms?

How do trace fossils (like footprints and burrows) become preserved in a flood (assuming she believes the rock record to be a flood deposit)?

Does it bother you that the attempts to demonstrate the invalidity of the fossil and rock record have all turned out to be hoaxes? (like the human footprints carved with dinosaur footprints in Texas)

We can estimate sedimentation rates today, and for somewhere like the Caribbean, the sedimentation rate is on the order of 0.001 mm/yr. If we assume a 100 fold increase in sedimentation rates (which is incredibly fast) such that it is closer to .1 mm/yr, how long would it take to accumulate 1 meter of sediment? (the .1 * 1,000 = 100 yrs) That means we would only have about 10 meters of sediment in 10,000 years worth of time if sedimentation rates are 100x greater than we observe. A) we have way thicker sediments than this, like the Grand Canyon and B) we know that some lithologies simply can't accumulate at rates anywhere near this high (like the carbonates or mudstones).

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
28-01-2015, 05:53 PM
RE: Require Help in this debate
(28-01-2015 12:07 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(27-01-2015 01:53 PM)Monkeygirl96 Wrote:  So I'm a newbie here but I've read some of y'alls posts and think you can help me.

Problem:
I recently discovered my friend is a Young Earth Creationists. This is by no means her fault as she was raised and home schooled by two (very) closed minded Young Earth Creationist. I have been attempting to prove to her that evolution has provided a more satisfactory answer to life on earth and that the Earth (and by proxy the Universe) is way older than 6000-10000 yrs old. So far my evidence has included the fossil record (which she says she doesn't trust due to inconsistencies with carbon dating), light from the stars I gave her the equation (time=distance/speed(of light)) as well as the distance of some well known stars. But I don't know what else to give her. Any ideas?

The best place to start is with questions. What she doesn't recognize is that her distrust of science does not stem from critical inquiry and skepticism, but from a confirmation bias.



So, you could ask her things like:

How do you know the Earth is <10,000 years old?

Is this consistent with modern observations that independently undermine the credibility of the bible as a source document for an age estimate?

What would it take for you to believe that the Earth is >10,000 years? If the only thing that would convince you is if it is in the bible or consistent with your interpretation of the bible, then you have demonstrated not only a close-mindedness but one that is deeply ingrained in confirmation bias.

Why is carbon dating the only method of dating you think has flaws?

What of the other radioisotopes?

How would decay rates have all been fast enough to generate old ages, but not generate similar ages between all of the different radioisotopic systems (like U-Th-Pb, Rb-Sr, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, etc)?

If the fossil record is not sufficient to demonstrate faunal and floral succession, what do you think it represents?

Why are the plants arranged as would be expected in an evolutionary lineage, and not homogenized such that the lepidedendron forests are intermixed with angiosperms?

How do trace fossils (like footprints and burrows) become preserved in a flood (assuming she believes the rock record to be a flood deposit)?

Does it bother you that the attempts to demonstrate the invalidity of the fossil and rock record have all turned out to be hoaxes? (like the human footprints carved with dinosaur footprints in Texas)

We can estimate sedimentation rates today, and for somewhere like the Caribbean, the sedimentation rate is on the order of 0.001 mm/yr. If we assume a 100 fold increase in sedimentation rates (which is incredibly fast) such that it is closer to .1 mm/yr, how long would it take to accumulate 1 meter of sediment? (the .1 * 1,000 = 100 yrs) That means we would only have about 10 meters of sediment in 10,000 years worth of time if sedimentation rates are 100x greater than we observe. A) we have way thicker sediments than this, like the Grand Canyon and B) we know that some lithologies simply can't accumulate at rates anywhere near this high (like the carbonates or mudstones).
For any argument you put forward the apologist will have an answer that contradicts your argument. They apologists use your own science against you such as the Carbon-14 dating argument. The apologists state that the dates are off because there was a different percentage of carbon dioxide in the air which caused the reading to be wrong. Don't the apologists realize that the scientists know all about this difference and make adjusts for it? Mammoths found in the Arctic have been dated back 10,000 years or more using Carbon-14 and it is impossible to make any headway; the apologists have a strategy not to give in even if a point is proved. Look at Science Guy Nye and his debate with a Creationist. Nye didn't make any headway with him in the argument because apologists depend on the atheist to provide proof which, under short time limits and a lack of apologist's education and rational abilities, he cannot provide adequately. The answer is to switch sides making it necessary for the apologist to whow their proof by pointing out inconsistencies, errors, misquotes, and other points of interest contained in the Bible. Only solid examples of the above points should be used--all too often nit-picking results in trivializing a debate--allowing more time to point out the errors and winning over an audience. For instance, from the very first chapter parallels can be made that links Egyptian religion with the Jewish/Christian one in Genesis where both refer to waters of chaos, fermament, emerging of land, subteranean water, separation of the subteranean water and the earth. What about that talking snake? If there was just God, Adam, and Eve in the garden why did the snake have the ability to talk? Especially one who was smart and knew about the capabilities of the fruit--did the snake possess knowledge that God didn't want Adam and Eve to know? What was the good and evil that knowledge of would make you like a god? Knowledge of which would make you free to choose your own way and not depend on a God? The snake didn't lie, but God did. Apologists have been struggling with that one for 2000 years or more and their solution is to redefine the concept of time. A day would now be defined as an age, a period of 1000 years. Later on it could mean a few hours. The apologists use this strategy quite often, if it doesn't fit, redefine it. Defining terms before hand is a necessity.
Matthew 12:38-40 is a hard one for the apologists to reconcile as it proves that Jesus was not the messiah in his own words. You can't get much more black and white than what it says. There has be a feeble attempt at countering the passage by redefining the term night/day, by saying that Jesus arose on the 3rd day. This is not the case for Jesus disappeared before the 3rd day--he was gone before daylight Sunday, which would have been the 2nd full day.
Another real inconstency is found in passages Isiah 43:10-11, Is. 44:6, Is. 48:12 and Revalations 1:17, Rev. 2:4, Rev. 22:13. When you look up the passages make sure your Bible has Jesus' quotes printed in red--that is to keep the apologists from claiming it wasn't said by Jesus.
Food laws per Leviticus 11:11-44 versus Mark 7:18-20. Then consider that God stated he does not change his mind in Malachi 3:6. God states this fact numerous times in the Bible. The Old Testament says one thing emphatically, then it is countered in the NT. There are many instances of contradictions and misquotes that apologists would find it hard to counter in a rational manner.
Ellis Enterprises puts out a DVD with various Bibles to compare to, dictionaries and commentaries, Strongs links to Literal Translation and Word Studies (just to name a few) that would enable a serious debater the ammunition necessary to debate your local apologist. Have fun.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes wadehthomson's post
28-01-2015, 06:03 PM
RE: Require Help in this debate
wadethompson,

I know you’re new and you seem like you have some good stuff to contribute BUT you have to format your posts so that they are legible! Same post as above, different formatting using paragraphs to break up the wall of text
Thumbsup


"For any argument you put forward the apologist will have an answer that contradicts your argument. They apologists use your own science against you such as the Carbon-14 dating argument.

The apologists state that the dates are off because there was a different percentage of carbon dioxide in the air which caused the reading to be wrong. Don't the apologists realize that the scientists know all about this difference and make adjusts for it?

Mammoths found in the Arctic have been dated back 10,000 years or more using Carbon-14 and it is impossible to make any headway; the apologists have a strategy not to give in even if a point is proved.

Look at Science Guy Nye and his debate with a Creationist. Nye didn't make any headway with him in the argument because apologists depend on the atheist to provide proof which, under short time limits and a lack of apologist's education and rational abilities, he cannot provide adequately.

The answer is to switch sides making it necessary for the apologist to whow their proof by pointing out inconsistencies, errors, misquotes, and other points of interest contained in the Bible. Only solid examples of the above points should be used--all too often nit-picking results in trivializing a debate--allowing more time to point out the errors and winning over an audience.

For instance, from the very first chapter parallels can be made that links Egyptian religion with the Jewish/Christian one in Genesis where both refer to waters of chaos, fermament, emerging of land, subteranean water, separation of the subteranean water and the earth.

What about that talking snake? If there was just God, Adam, and Eve in the garden why did the snake have the ability to talk? Especially one who was smart and knew about the capabilities of the fruit--did the snake possess knowledge that God didn't want Adam and Eve to know? What was the good and evil that knowledge of would make you like a god? Knowledge of which would make you free to choose your own way and not depend on a God? The snake didn't lie, but God did.

Apologists have been struggling with that one for 2000 years or more and their solution is to redefine the concept of time. A day would now be defined as an age, a period of 1000 years. Later on it could mean a few hours. The apologists use this strategy quite often, if it doesn't fit, redefine it. Defining terms before hand is a necessity.

Matthew 12:38-40 is a hard one for the apologists to reconcile as it proves that Jesus was not the messiah in his own words. You can't get much more black and white than what it says. There has be a feeble attempt at countering the passage by redefining the term night/day, by saying that Jesus arose on the 3rd day. This is not the case for Jesus disappeared before the 3rd day--he was gone before daylight Sunday, which would have been the 2nd full day.

Another real inconstency is found in passages Isiah 43:10-11, Is. 44:6, Is. 48:12 and Revalations 1:17, Rev. 2:4, Rev. 22:13. When you look up the passages make sure your Bible has Jesus' quotes printed in red--that is to keep the apologists from claiming it wasn't said by Jesus.

Food laws per Leviticus 11:11-44 versus Mark 7:18-20. Then consider that God stated he does not change his mind in Malachi 3:6. God states this fact numerous times in the Bible. The Old Testament says one thing emphatically, then it is countered in the NT. There are many instances of contradictions and misquotes that apologists would find it hard to counter in a rational manner.

Ellis Enterprises puts out a DVD with various Bibles to compare to, dictionaries and commentaries, Strongs links to Literal Translation and Word Studies (just to name a few) that would enable a serious debater the ammunition necessary to debate your local apologist.

Have fun.”

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
29-01-2015, 11:21 AM
RE: Require Help in this debate
Got it. Will break up the flow from now as you suggest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2015, 06:52 PM
RE: Require Help in this debate
Anyone want to help me reply to a novel-length comment from a theist?

" :bulletblack: I understand that, in the Bible, God doesn’t condone the actions of everyone represented, but……

I don’t see it as a ‘cop out’ because I’m not saying “I don’t know why He does it because He is mysterious”. I gave you reasons of why He does it:
---God gives and takes life because He is the creator.
---God’s purpose is to eradicate sin.
The problem here is the concept of sin. It doesn’t make sense to you. To a non-believer sin doesn’t mean anything, therefore my reply doesn’t mean anything to you. That’s why you see it as “dismissive”.

You see it as the most trivial of infractions, but to a believer the ‘concept of sin’ is a big deal.

God created everything perfect, and with free will. God also has a law (you are probably familiar with the 10 commandments). One angel (a cherub) wanted to be like God (Isaiah 14:14), he craved the glory and worship he couldn’t have. [“Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” ~ Proverbs 16:18]
He coveted the right to rule the universe, so he rebelled against God.
He committed murder (with the angels that followed him and the humans he tempted) (John 8:44), he gave false testimony of God, he coveted God’s throne etc. He broke God’s entire law (James 2:10).

And “Sin is the transgression of the law”~ 1 John 3:4

In a gradual, well-executed plan satan convinced one third of the angels (Revelation 12:4) that God was unjust. He played with their minds, lied to them, tricked them and fooled them and convinced them to make war against God, against their creator (Revelation12:7-9). This resulted in their expulsion from heaven.
God could have kill them all right there. God knew what sin would bring to the universe, but the angels didn’t. If God killed Satan right there the lies Satan spread about God would be confirmed as truth and the angels and the rest of the universe would obey Him out of fear, not love.

When God created Adam and Eve, He created them perfect, and also gave them free will. He gave them everything they needed, He even gave them eternal life, but He gave them something very important: the ability to choose. He told them they could eat from every tree except one. They could choose to obey or disobey. Satan tricked them, told them they could be like gods if they ate from the tree and they coveted that. They chose to disobey. In that moment Satan condemned us to die an eternal death.
Through Adam sin entered the world, and so death was passed on to all men because “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23).

God didn’t want any of this. If Satan, Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned God wouldn’t have to get rid of it (in a way that you consider cruel, but it’s the only way).

Because of sin there is death, sickness, pain, fathers raping their own daughters, mutations that cause deadly diseases, pestilences, violence, murders, cruelty, hunger, abandoned children, mothers burning their babies alive. Because sin corrupted our nature, and minds, because sin separated us from God, humanity has turned into something despicable, something that brings tears to the eyes of anyone watching. We are not only destroying each other, but also destroying the earth. To me that’s nothing trivial.

Of course sin doesn’t make sense to you, that’s why I understand your point of view (even if I don’t agree). But in my eyes sin is the ‘root of all evil’ and I want it gone. Breaking God’s law is no trivial infraction to me.

:bulletblack: “You say God did these things to wipe out sin. Sin is another superstitious concept, and……..that would mean God was murdering people who did things as trivial as worked on Sundays.”

The sin is not in working a Sabbath/seventh day. The sin lies in disobedience, in transgression of God’s law.

:bulletblack: He’d presumably be murdering murderers and rapists as well…….”

You don’t understand the concept of sin, because you don’t believe in it. But because there is sin in the world, and in our natures, and because there is sinful people around us that doesn’t mean we will sin. We are perfectly capable of choosing what we want to do. But that doesn’t mean we are exempt of the consequences of sin. Have you ever gotten the flu, a headache, a fever; have you ever gotten sick or hurt (physically or emotionally)? Have you ever felt pain, sadness? Have you ever lied? If you answered yes to at least one of them you should know nothing of that existed before sin entered this world. That’s how sin has devoured everything good.

(Also I didn’t quite understand what you wanted to say about the children and animals, so I’m not going to say anything about that in case I’m misunderstanding something).

:bulletblack: And even ignoring that—God turned a woman into salt for looking over her shoulder. You really think this is a sin that would spread like a disease?.......”

Again, the sin was not ‘looking over her shoulder’. The sin is ‘disobedience/transgression of the law’ and yes I do believe that sin spreads. How many people today disobey God? (I know you don’t consider that to be a bad thing, but if you look at it from the perspective of a Christian it is)

No, I don’t think those people are ‘diseased’ for having different beliefs than me.
What I do believe is that we are all sinners (Romans 5:12). I’m a sinner just like them; we are in the same boat.

:bulletblack: Also, that number of ten righteous people was totally arbitrary, and goofy….

He wasn’t changing His mind. He was answering Abraham (in a very redundant way) that He wouldn’t destroy those cities if there were righteous people, regardless of how many.

:bulletblack:You ask how worse our world would be if God let the ‘sin’ continue?..….we can conclude that it wouldn’t be any different than it is today.”

No. God promised He wouldn’t destroy again the earth with water:
“And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth” ~Genesis 9:11

The next and final time it will be with fire:
“But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” ~2 Peter 3:7

Also sin and evil is not the same thing, at least not in the bible. “Religious” people have no right to call you evil, because they’re just like you. We are all the same: sinners.

:bulletblack: “I also hear you making excuses for slavery……..as those other quotes that I gave have shown, what is considered “just and equal” for slaves includes beating, withholding freedom through manipulation, and potential death.”

"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." (Raymond Westbrook).

When I said it wasn’t like the slavery in America or Egypt, it’s not a cop out because I was talking about ‘voluntary slavery’, people that literally went to others to be servants, to work, and make some money to pay their debts. That wasn’t a terrible action. It’s literally like for example butlers that have been employed for a family for a very long time.

Yes, slavery was something that came with sin. It’s also something that existed before Israel was formed. God gave rules to Israel to so they could treat servants in a righteous way (rules to protect slaves), and not treat them in the same way other nations treated their slaves.

The general rules for servants were:
OT
---Injuring or killing slaves was punishable even by death (Exodus 21:20, Exodus 21:26-27, Exodus 21:12).
---If the master made a permanent damage to a servant, the servant was to go free immediately (Ex 21.26-27).
---They were considered part of the master’s household.
---They couldn’t make their servants work on Sabbath (Exodus 23:12)
---They participated on the feasts (Deut 12.11, Deut 12.18).
---Masters couldn’t slander their slaves (Proverbs 30:10).
--- Masters couldn’t treat them with cruelty/severity/rigor (Lev 25.43, Lev 25.49).
---They couldn’t return an escaped slave, they had to give him asylum and treat them as one of their own, and let him live wherever he wanted (Deuteronomy 23:15-16).
---Masters were encouraged to pamper their slaves (Proverbs 29:21).
---They had to remember they were oppressed in Egypt so they couldn’t treat others like they were treated in Egypt.
NT
---They had to treat them ‘just and equal’ as I mentioned above (Colossians 4:1).
---They couldn’t threaten them (Ephesians 6:9).

There are two kinds of servants (freedom was possible in both cases):

---Voluntary servants:
a) General rules mentioned above apply.
b) They made a wage to pay their debts.
c) They were like hired servants (Lev 25.53).
d) This arrangement was kept only by six years, or until the debt was paid (Deut 15:12, Lev 25.49).
e) When they were set free the masters couldn’t send them empty handed, they had to furnish them with flock, food and gifts (Deut 15:13-15).
f) Family members could pay for their freedom (Lev 25.49).
g) The servant could also buy their freedom (Lev 25.49).

---Captives of war/ foreign slaves
a) General rules mentioned above apply.
b) Debts had to be paid, not cancelled after six years (Deut 15.1-3).
c) They had to love them as if they were also from Israel (Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 10:19).
d) Females slaves could become wives. The termination of the marriage was possible by divorce and not sale. If the woman divorced the man she was a free woman and not a slave. (Deuteronomy 20:14, Deuteronomy 21:10-11).

By law the treatment to servants had to be the best, that’s why some of them came to love the family and decided to stay with them:
--- “And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:”~Exodus 21:5
--- “ And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;”~Deut 15.16
--- They could prosper under the house of their master, and even acquire servants of their own (2 Samuel 19:17)

About the texts you cited:
(Have in mind the rules for servants discussed above, because they apply here)

***Slaves as property

---The land, and the servants belonged to God, thus they weren’t property of anyone, (Lev 25:23, Lev 25:42).
---Israel's notion of 'property' in the law was severely restricted to economic output only and NOT 'ownership of a disposable good'. (Lev 25.14, Ex 21.18, Lev 25.49)

***Exodus 21:2-6: God condones slave owners essentially keeping his slave’s children and wives hostage unless the slave pledges eternal loyalty. This is beyond reprehensible

---If he was married, his wife and children would go with him when he was set free (in six years, or when the debt was paid)
---No free person could be forced to slavery. The wife the ‘master gave him’ was also a servant.
---If the master gave him a wife (also a servant), he could walk away from his wife and kids in defiance of the law of marriage. Or he could wait until his wife (also a servant) paid her debt and was set free, or he could pay her debt and set her free. “Otherwise, a woman could be deceitful by racking up debt and then selling herself into slavery to have her debts covered, only to marry someone with a short time left on his term, and then go free with him. That would be cruel to the master who was trying to help her out. So this provision is to protect those who are trying to help people out of their debt.” (Bodie Hodge)
---They could choose to stay with their master forever. They had food, a house, a family, and respect.
---They weren’t hostages; they (the adults) were working to pay their debts.

***Exodus 21:7-11 describes the practice of selling daughters, and there is an allusion to the daughters being potential sex slaves.

---A Hebrew male could sell himself into servitude for his labor (to cover his debts, and so on) and be released after six years. A Hebrew female could be sold into servitude, with permission of her father, not for labor purposes but for marriage.
---They were not sex slaves; virginity was protected in girls, and they couldn’t be raped.
---The men didn’t have the free reign to marry a woman for six years and then “trade” her in for another woman.
--- This was done when a dad wanted protection and provision for his daughter. This practice resulted from poverty and debt that threatened the survival of the household. By selling the woman they covered the debt and provided a new and stable household for her.
---The woman had the legal right of a wife, and she could be redeemed (her freedom brought).
---They couldn’t be sold to a non-Israelite

***Exodus 21:20-21, in which the Bible condones the killing of slaves, assuming it takes them three or more days to die of their wounds (this would also technically allow slave owners to starve their slaves to death since that takes a long time). The passage, at the very least, condones beating slaves.

---No, the bible doesn’t condone the killing of slaves (Exodus 20:13, Exodus 21:20, Exodus 21:26-27, Exodus 21:12).
---Flogging (to beat with as stick as punishment) was also done to free men (Deut 25.1-3; Prov 10.13; 26.3, 2 Sam 7.14; Ps 89.32).
---If the slave dies after a few days, how can you prove it was because of the master’s stick? The master was judged, but was not punished with death.

As I told you flogging was a common disciplinary action for anyone, and people didn’t die because of it.
“The direct, causal relationship between the master's conduct and the slave's death is now in doubt, for there may have been some unknown intermediate cause. The intent of the master appears less likely to have been homicidal and more likely to have been disciplinary. He is given the benefit of the doubt” (JPS Torah Commentary)

***Luke 12:47-48 and Ephesians 6:5; they aren’t allowed to express free will

---I’m really not sure why you say that about free will. Since these passages are not talking about that.
---Of course they had free will considering they could escape and take refuge with another master (Deuteronomy 23:15-16).
---These verses are talking about obedience; about doing the job the master tells them.

***Exodus 21:16: refers to the act of stealing slaves, not buying them ‘legitimately’ which is clearly condoned

---This verse does not refer to stealing slaves, it refers to stealing/kidnapping any man.

“And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”~Exodus 21:16

“If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.” ~ Deuteronomy 24:7

---In fact manstealers are listed among lawless, disobedient, and ungodly men (1 Timothy 1:10), those kind of men wont inherit the kingdom of heaven.

This is not the slavery you have in mind.

:bulletblack: Your quote regarding rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-29) is also weak because it only applies to men who have raped married women.……This is more of that morally reprehensible stuff I was talking about.

Ok, I’ll explain a bit more.

There are things you should understand:
---The civil laws in the bible were only for Israel (that culture in that period of time).
---In ancient cultures (including Israel), a woman that wasn’t a virgin wouldn’t be able to get married.
---Most ancient cultures were ‘patriarchal’ or cultures where men were considered above women, it was the men that ‘provided’ in the home.
---Unmarried and non-virgin women were unable to live properly because they had no means of support (unless their father was alive), and they were ‘social outcasts’. (This doesn’t apply to divorced women)
---Rape in the bible is considered equal to murder: Deuteronomy 22:26.
---Deuteronomy 22:25-27 is talking about rape “…the man force her, and lie with her”. Here the rapist is killed.
---Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is not talking about rape, therefore no one is killed.

***“But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her(‘chazaq’), and lie (‘shakab’) with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.” ~ Deuteronomy 22:25-27

Key-points: force (‘chazaq’) her, the damsel cried.

There is a story in the bible where a woman was raped: 2 Samuel 13:10-22, 32.
---“Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger (‘chazaq’) than she, forced her, and lay (‘shakab’) with her.” 2 Samuel 13:14

As you can see the words ‘chazaq’ + ‘shakab’ are used when talking about rape.
Becaue:
‘Chazaq’ means to force, seize, take, hold strongly, contain, use one’s strength etc.
‘Shakab’ means to lie down, sleep etc.

***“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (‘taphas’) on her, and lie (‘shakab’) with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” ~Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Key-points: it wasn’t forced, the damsel didn’t cry out

‘taphas’ means to hold. And no, the word doesn’t imply in a forced way (Jeremiah 49:16, Deuteronomy 9:17, Jer 2:8, Eze 30:21)‘Shakab’ means to lie down, sleep etc. And no, the word alone doesn’t imply a forced sexual act (Leviticus 15:18, Numbers 5:11-13).

As you can see Deuteronomy 22:25-27 is talking about rape, but Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is not.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is talking about finding two persons (a man and a virgin woman) having sex.

If a man seduced a virgin woman, and the woman willingly had sex with him she was considered his wife. He had to marry her, and pay the bridal price:

“And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.” ~ Exodus 22:16-17

The father could keep his daughter from living with the man, unless the woman liked him and wanted to be with him. And even if the woman didn’t live with the man he had to pay the ‘bridal price’, he couldn’t marry anyone else, and if he had sex with other woman he would be killed (Leviticus 20:10).

And no, husbands can’t rape their wives. It is not implied anywhere.
---Husbands have to love (‘agape’) their wives as Christ loves the church: Ephesians 5:25-26. Agape love is a pure, selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love.
---Husbands have to respect and give honor to their wives: 1 Peter 3:7
---They have to provide for them: 1 Timothy 5:8

:bulletblack: Also, more quotes: Numbers 31:7-18 describes God’s command to Moses to attack Midian and murder EVERYONE except for the virgin women, who the Israelites are supposed to “keep for themselves.” …..

--- In a world filled with sinful people (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable.
---There is a time for peace and a time for war (Ecclesiastes 3:8)
---War is not good, but it happens.
---War in ancient cultures was different from war today.
---War happened. God did not take pleasure on it (Ezekiel 18:21,23, 32), but war still happened.
---If you point at the wars won by Israel, you have to also take a look at wars they lost:
They were: smitten by their enemies, died by the sword, were slaughtered all except one tribe, were made slaves, exiled, they lost property and cities. (Num 14:39-45/ Deut 1:41-46, 1 Kings 14:24-31, 2 Chr 12:1-12, 2 Kings 10:32-33, 2 Chr 24:23-24, 2 Kings 15:29, 2 Kings 16:5-6, 2 Chr 28:5, 2 Kings 17:3-23).
---If you read history, sadly that’s how war was done in ancient times.
---The difference with Israel and other countries was that if “they kept them for themselves” it was for servant hood. It wasn’t for sinful purposes: virginity and un-married status was highly protected in Israel.
---If they married them, they had the legal rights of a wife. The men had to respect them, and provide for them as the law demanded. Rape was not allowed. They couldn’t even have sex until her mourning period passed (Deuteronomy 21:10-1)
---It is important to understand that God has never condoned any type of sexual activity outside of a lawful marriage.

***Deuteronomy 22:23-24, where, although rape isn’t condoned in this case since the rapist is murdered, the victim is to be murdered as well just because she didn’t call for help? You know, a lot of rape happens with weapons or blackmail or drugs, all of which prevent a person from calling out.

This was not rape. It was a consensual act. The words ‘chazaq’ + ‘shakab’ are not used.

The words used are ‘matsa’ and ‘shakab’.
‘Matsa’ means to find/meet. There is nothing ‘forced’ implied in the word. They met on the field to have adulterous sex, and that was punished by death (Leviticus 20:10).

***Deuteronomy 21:10-14 also describe women captives as property that the man can have sex with regardless of what the woman wants (rape).

---She was not his property
---He couldn’t have sex with her unless they were married.
---If they got married, he couldn’t have sex with her until the mourning period had passed.
---He couldn’t rape her (married or unmarried)
---If they got married, they could get a divorce (after the mourning period and before or after having sex) and she was to go as a free woman not a slave.

:bulletblack: Yes, these meat-eating rules are arbitrary.… You’re basically saying that, though health is important to God, he knows next to nothing about it.

They wouldn’t be able to understand bacteria, or other things you mention here. We have lots of technology now; we can even see viruses and bacteria yet there is much we don’t understand. Besides the bible is not a microbiology textbook nor was God purpose to give them a class in microbiology. I’m not saying God knows nothing about health. That’s what you are saying.

“"Clean" land animals are ruminants—grazing animals such as cattle, sheep, deer and elk—whose digestive tracts are designed to turn grass that human beings cannot digest into meat that we can digest. Most unclean animals are carnivores or scavengers that can transmit dangerous diseases to human beings. Pigs eat roots and grains, rather than grass, and thus are ecological competitors to human beings. Clean fish have fins and scales. Unclean aquatic organisms like clams and oysters are filter feeders that purify water, and that concentrate poisonous chemicals and pathologic bacteria and viruses in their tissues. Eating an oyster is like eating your vacuum cleaner bag—yet modern connoisseurs do not like to think about this! Crabs and lobsters are scavengers that eat dead things on the bottom of bodies of water. Most unclean birds are carnivores or scavengers. God in His wisdom inspired laws that protect humans from contracting dangerous diseases, but also protect "nature's clean up crew" by making them "off limits" as food for mankind. These biological principles still operate today. As a point of illustration: the SARS outbreak was traced to an area in southern China where civet cats (an unclean animal) are eaten as a delicacy!” (Douglas S. Winnail)

There are people who eat raw food and blood and food safety is a known topic today.
God maybe didn’t entered on the details of the risks of eating raw meat, or about cholesterol and heart diseases, but Israel couldn’t eat raw meat, fat, or blood (Exodus 12:7-10, Leviticus 17:10, Leviticus 3:17).

:bulletblack: Okay, it’s one thing to say that the Sabbath is a ‘gift,’ but to force people to relax on penalty of death or disallow them from doing things that they may want to do?”

This is a really complex topic. And for you it will probably like the concept of sin: It won’t make sense to you, so I’ll try to be brief.

---In the bible there is only one Sabbath day, and you’ll notice this if you read the bible. The Sabbath day is the seventh day (Exodus 20:11). The observance of the Sabbath is part of God’s unchanging law. It will be kept in heaven also (Isaiah 66:22-23).
---The Sabbath was first introduced to humans at the seventh day of creation (Genesis 2:2-3).
--- God designated the seventh day, the Sabbath, a pure day, and declared it sacred. God set it apart to make it holy (Genesis 2:2-3).
---People have six days for themselves, God only asks for one.

The Sabbath is like a holiday on steroids haha, because it’s more that a day, it implies a lot:

***The Meaning of the Sabbath.

---A perpetual memorial of Creation:

It "brings to view both the name and title of the Lawgiver. It declares Him to be the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and thus shows His claim to reverence and worship above all others. Aside from this precept, there is nothing in the Decalogue to show by whose authority the law is given."
It’s a memorial of the creative power of God. Those who observed it as a memorial of Creation would be doing so as a grateful acknowledgment "that God was their Creator and their rightful Sovereign; that they were the works of His hands, and the subjects of His authority.”

---The Seventh-day Sabbath Establishes God’s Sovereignty:

The Sabbath has significance as a perpetual sign of the everlasting covenant between God and His people in order that they might know who it is that created them (Ex 31-17) and sanctifies them (Ex 31:13; Ezek 20:12), and that they might recognize Him as the Lord their God (Ezek 20:20).

--- A symbol of redemption:

When God delivered Israel from bondage in Egypt, the Sabbath, which was already the memorial of Creation, became a memorial of deliverance as well (Deut. 5:15). This is linked with Christ sacrifice on the cross and deliverance from sin.

--- A sign of sanctification:

The Sabbath is a sign of God's transforming power, a sign of holiness or sanctification.
God as the Sanctifier. As people are sanctified by Christ's blood (Heb. 13:12), the Sabbath is also a sign of the believer's acceptance of His blood for the forgiveness of sins.

---A sign of loyalty:

As Adam and Eve's loyalty was tested by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil placed in the midst of the garden of Eden, so every human being's loyalty to God will be tested by the Sabbath command placed in the midst of the Decalogue.

---A time of fellowship:

God gave humanity a gift offering the highest form of companionship: companionship with Him.

---A sign of righteousness by faith:

Those who keep the seventh day, then, do so out of faith and implicit trust in Christ, who has enjoined its observance.

---A symbol of resting in Christ:

In a similar way the Sabbath is a sign of the deliverance from sin to God's rest. A spiritual and physical rest.

---It establishes “time”:

A year is the earth revolving around the sun one time, a month is the moon revolving around the earth, a day is the rotating on its axis, a week: God established it (Genesis 2: 2-3).

:bulletblack: With defending animal sacrifice you just brought up another issue I have with religion: ……

There are two options:
1) All this chaos, death, diseases, cruelty, and violence in humanity and this world are accepted as natural. There is nothing wrong with all this.
2) All this chaos, death, diseases, cruelty, and violence in humanity and this world are not accepted as natural. There is something wrong with all this.

Christians take the option two. What’s wrong, in our points of view? Sin.

Accepting the fact that there is something wrong with us is not manipulation, it’s not hard to have that conclusion if we take a look around us. Eg. Mothers killing their children shouldn’t be natural.

You think rape, murder, and cruel slavery are morally wrong, yet you don’t think there has to be something wrong for people to commit those cruel acts?

:bulletblack: And speaking of Jesus, who you claim is God as opposed to a prophet or messenger that God is speaking through, you’re basically saying that God sacrificed himself to himself ….

The moment Adam and Eve sinned, they were separated from God. They broke God’s law and were condemned to die an eternal death, considering eternal life only comes from God.
When there is a law, there is a penalty to pay. If we break God’s law the penalty is death, because breaking is law separate us from the source of life.

Jesus sacrifice was for us, not for God. We were the ones in need of salvation, not Him.
He was sinless when He died, therefore death couldn’t prevail on him, and He came to life again. Apart from restituting us as His children, and paying the penalty for us He triumphed over death. And because of that now we can do the same.

His law has always existed; it already existed when we were created, because God’s law is a reflection of His character.
Eg. The law is: eternal (psalms 111:7-8, luke 16:17), liberty (james 1:25, psalms 119:45), holy (romans 7:12), unchanging (matthew 5:18, psalms 111:7-8) etc.
God character is: eternal (Romans 16:26, Deuteronomy 33:27), liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17), holy (1 peter 1:15, psalms 99:9), unchanging (malachi 3:6, hebrews 13:8) etc.

His law is unchanging. And it already existed, if it didn’t Satan wouldn’t be guilty of breaking anything.

:bulletblack: Also, presuming people are filthy because they aren’t part of religion serves to make them seem inferior to believers…

We are all sinners (Romans 3:23). We are all the same. Believers are not better than non-believers. The only difference is that believers recognize there is something wrong in us.

:bulletblack: Yes, right now we and our current society have laws, but you know what? People also have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of protest….”

So you don’t think there is freedom of speech with God?
Satan rebelled and took with him one third of the angels
Adam and Eve disobeyed
There are Atheists, Skeptics, Agnostics, Satanists, Wiccans, Muslims, Buddhists, and countless of other religions and belief-systems that speak against the God of the bible. If that’s not freedom to protest then I don’t know what it is.

:bulletblack: The fact that picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week was disobeying God does not negate the fact that the law is stupid and the punishment is extreme.

God didn’t brought Israel to Egypt. He knew they were going to end up there, but He didn’t take them there. It’s funny how people that doesn’t believe in God say everything bad in the bible it’s His fault, and people apparently are not to be held responsible for any action they take…

The actions people did early in history had consequences, every action has a reaction. Israel ended up in Egypt not because they were being punished, but because it was a reaction to the actions taken by Abraham, Joseph’ brothers and others. God knew this would happen, but He promised Abraham deliverance for his descendants (Genesis 15:13-14). And that first deliverance would come with Moses.

You see it as favoritism, and I see it as God sharing a deep and personal relationship with Moses, in such way that He would consider Moses opinions, prayers, and intersessions.
I also see it as God examining Moses character and faith (Just like He tested Abraham Genesis 22). Since He couldn’t kill Israel because they were descendants of Abraham, and God promised Abraham that Israel would survive and He would be their God (Genesis 17:1-8, 15-16), He also promised Abraham that Jesus would be born from His descendants (Genesis 22:17-18, Gal 3:16), God doesn’t go back on His promises.

:bulletblack: You then justify hell by saying it isn’t eternal….

I’m not saying you or anyone deserves to be thrown into a lake of fire. Believers don’t get an automatic ticket to heaven, and non-believers don’t automatically get a ticket to the lake of fire. Only God knows our hearts/minds, only He knows who will be saved.

About getting rid of sin with fire.
What would you suggest? Creating another world for sinful people so they can keep on killing each other, dying by natural disasters or by cancer and other sicknesses? Or put an end to it all?

You see the destruction by the lake of fire as an unjust punishment and a cruel death. Well, leaving people to suffer in a degrading earth for all eternity without intervening even if He has the power to do so…that’s what I see as torture and as an unjust punishment and cruel death.

:bulletblack: I’ve been pointing out contradictions this whole time, so that names a few.

I’m sorry but I didn’t see any contradiction.

:bulletblack: About the Joseph/Egypt thingy, you’re saying that, since some Israelites were sinners, they and their descendants deserve slavery for 400+ years……

That’s not what I’m saying. That’s what you wanted to understand. It wasn’t a punishment. I already explained this, but you’ll understand it as you want.

He didn’t interfere with their free will. Israel was perfectly capable of choosing if they wanted to remain on Egypt or follow Moses to become God’s people.

It seems to me that you have a wrong idea of free will. Free will has nothing to do about “action and reaction”. Free will is just having an independent choice and making a voluntary decision. But there are consequences to any decision we make; our freedom to choose doesn’t exempt us from the consequences we have to face. I have the free will to jump from the roof of a really tall building, but I’m not exempt of the consequence of dying by hitting the ground.

So… you think bad things happen to people that doesn’t love God? And Good things happen to people that love God?

What Romans 8:28 is saying is that for those that love and obey God even if they are having hardships and bad times, at the end everything will work for their good, they will come out of their hardships with a blessing.

Nowhere in the bible says that believers will have it easy for believing in God, on the contrary (Mathew 10:22, John 15:18, Ephesians 6:12)…so I can’t really see where is the contradiction.

:bulletblack: I admittedly don’t want to linger on the “Jesus can’t be the messiah even in Biblical context” thing, because there’s zero evidence that the man existed at all to begin with.….

God is a title. The bible presents a Triune God. Three co-equal and co-eternal distinct persons in the Godhead, with hierarchy: God, the father; God, the son; and God, the Holy Spirit (Mathew 3:16-17).

It’s like the concept of marriage. Two people become one flesh (Mark 10:8, Genesis 2:24), Three persons are one God.

For example:
Hundreds of people = one company
Four people = one family
Three persons = one God (one mind, one purpose, different functions)

There is no “zero evidence” for Jesus existence; you can look up records from historians making reference to Him.

For example:
--- Cornelius Tacitus (Roman historian):
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and amost mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular". (Tacitus, Annals, vol. 15, The Complete Works of Tacitus, ed. Moses Hadas (New York: Random House, 1942), 44.)

--- Suetonius (Roman historian):
During the reign of Emperor Claudius: “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city.” (Suetonius, Claudius, 25, quoted in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 191.)
This historical fact fits with Luke’s statement in Acts 18:2

:bulletblack: The council of Nicea’s main objective was clearing up the muddle of Biblical confusion, such as which books of the Bible should be kept, or whether Jesus was actually an avatar of God or a human mouthpiece like Moses was…

The council of Nicea took place in 325AD under the roman emperor Constantine.
---They wanted to put an end to the controversy raised by Arius that said Jesus was not God. The council affirmed the deity and eternity of Jesus.

None of these things were unclear in scripture. Jesus was God, the Old Testament (that is not contradicted by the new) is very clear about that, and the Old Testament wasn’t changed. For example the Dead Sea scrolls can back this up.
---Over two hundred scrolls were portions of the Bible itself, dated 250 BC–AD 68.
---Every Old Testament book except Esther was represented.
---Many of these ancient scrolls closely match the Masoretic Text tradition, which modern Hebrew and English Bibles are based upon, confirming the Old Testament text has been faithfully preserved for all these centuries.

OT: by A.D. 250 it was already organized.
NT: The first “canon” was the Moratoria Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170

The councils related to the organization of the canon of NT scripture were:
---The Council of Laodicea
---The Council of Hippo
---The Council of Carthage

:bulletblack: Proof and evidence are objective things. You are entitled to your own opinions—you are not entitled to your own facts. For there to be evidence of something it must be perfectly demonstrable without fail and needs to be backed up with logic and consistency.….

I made a stamp about this, but it was directed to encourage Christian to do more research about ‘proving the truth of scripture’. I normally don’t talk about these ‘proofs’ with non-believers because there is nothing I can do to change their minds. That is neither my purpose nor my duty.

But since you asked I’m going to name a few by copy pasting from that stamp I made:

The Tel Dan Stele (900–850 BC)
---Carved on its stone face is the expression, “House of David.”

The Meesha Stele (846 BC)
---Popularly known as the Moabite Stone, it records the revolt of Meesha, King of Moab, against Israel (2 Kings 3:5).
---This incredible stele mentions Omri (1 Kings 16:23-28), King of Israel, and David of the United Monarchy. It even refers to Yahweh, the unique name of the God of Israel.

History records
---Campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26), recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.
---Fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:3-6, 24; 18:9-11) to Sargon II, King of Assyria, as recorded on his palace walls.
---Defeat of Ashdod by Sargon II (Isaiah 20:1), as recorded on his palace walls.

Places and people found:
--The tombs of Cyrus and Darius I among others were found.
--The city of Jericho
--The Temple of Baal/El-Berith in Shechem, where funds were obtained to finance Abimelech's Kingship, and where the citizens of Shechem took refuge when Abimelech attacked the city (Judges 9:4, 46-49).
-- The royal palace in Susa where Esther was queen of the Persian king Xerxes (Esther 1:2; 2:3, 5, 9, 16).

All of these records or items have been proven to be authentic, and real.

You know why I don’t normally mention this? Because for example critics used to say that the house of David, the city of Jericho, Shishak, Darius I etc. didn’t exist. When proof for their existence was found and verified to be authentic then they changed their critics to say that they existed but the bible was just mixing real places and happenings with fake ones, just like you say with spiderman. It doesn’t matter if all these things were recorded in video (ignoring the fact that video didn’t exist in those times) people will always find an excuse to dismiss them as unimportant or fake.
Sorry for this long reply o.o"


Generally speaking I can reply pretty easily to this whole thing except for the council of Nicea bits since I'm not a pro when it comes to that. I do understand why the evidence this person presents in no way counts as evidence since the historians he mentions only ever mention 'followers' and nothing more. I just wanted to drop this long comment here to see what kind of responses I'll get. You can respond in part or in full. Thanks in advance Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2015, 09:13 AM
RE: Require Help in this debate
(04-02-2015 06:52 PM)Geknebelt Wrote:  Anyone want to help me reply to a novel-length comment from a theist?

" :bulletblack: I understand that, in the Bible, God doesn’t condone the actions of everyone represented, but……

I don’t see it as a ‘cop out’ because I’m not saying “I don’t know why He does it because He is mysterious”. I gave you reasons of why He does it:
---God gives and takes life because He is the creator.
---God’s purpose is to eradicate sin.
The problem here is the concept of sin. It doesn’t make sense to you. To a non-believer sin doesn’t mean anything, therefore my reply doesn’t mean anything to you. That’s why you see it as “dismissive”.

You see it as the most trivial of infractions, but to a believer the ‘concept of sin’ is a big deal.

God created everything perfect, and with free will. God also has a law (you are probably familiar with the 10 commandments). One angel (a cherub) wanted to be like God (Isaiah 14:14), he craved the glory and worship he couldn’t have. [“Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” ~ Proverbs 16:18]
He coveted the right to rule the universe, so he rebelled against God.
He committed murder (with the angels that followed him and the humans he tempted) (John 8:44), he gave false testimony of God, he coveted God’s throne etc. He broke God’s entire law (James 2:10).

And “Sin is the transgression of the law”~ 1 John 3:4

In a gradual, well-executed plan satan convinced one third of the angels (Revelation 12:4) that God was unjust. He played with their minds, lied to them, tricked them and fooled them and convinced them to make war against God, against their creator (Revelation12:7-9). This resulted in their expulsion from heaven.
God could have kill them all right there. God knew what sin would bring to the universe, but the angels didn’t. If God killed Satan right there the lies Satan spread about God would be confirmed as truth and the angels and the rest of the universe would obey Him out of fear, not love.

When God created Adam and Eve, He created them perfect, and also gave them free will. He gave them everything they needed, He even gave them eternal life, but He gave them something very important: the ability to choose. He told them they could eat from every tree except one. They could choose to obey or disobey. Satan tricked them, told them they could be like gods if they ate from the tree and they coveted that. They chose to disobey. In that moment Satan condemned us to die an eternal death.
Through Adam sin entered the world, and so death was passed on to all men because “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23).

God didn’t want any of this. If Satan, Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned God wouldn’t have to get rid of it (in a way that you consider cruel, but it’s the only way).

Because of sin there is death, sickness, pain, fathers raping their own daughters, mutations that cause deadly diseases, pestilences, violence, murders, cruelty, hunger, abandoned children, mothers burning their babies alive. Because sin corrupted our nature, and minds, because sin separated us from God, humanity has turned into something despicable, something that brings tears to the eyes of anyone watching. We are not only destroying each other, but also destroying the earth. To me that’s nothing trivial.

Of course sin doesn’t make sense to you, that’s why I understand your point of view (even if I don’t agree). But in my eyes sin is the ‘root of all evil’ and I want it gone. Breaking God’s law is no trivial infraction to me.

:bulletblack: “You say God did these things to wipe out sin. Sin is another superstitious concept, and……..that would mean God was murdering people who did things as trivial as worked on Sundays.”

The sin is not in working a Sabbath/seventh day. The sin lies in disobedience, in transgression of God’s law.

:bulletblack: He’d presumably be murdering murderers and rapists as well…….”

You don’t understand the concept of sin, because you don’t believe in it. But because there is sin in the world, and in our natures, and because there is sinful people around us that doesn’t mean we will sin. We are perfectly capable of choosing what we want to do. But that doesn’t mean we are exempt of the consequences of sin. Have you ever gotten the flu, a headache, a fever; have you ever gotten sick or hurt (physically or emotionally)? Have you ever felt pain, sadness? Have you ever lied? If you answered yes to at least one of them you should know nothing of that existed before sin entered this world. That’s how sin has devoured everything good.

(Also I didn’t quite understand what you wanted to say about the children and animals, so I’m not going to say anything about that in case I’m misunderstanding something).

:bulletblack: And even ignoring that—God turned a woman into salt for looking over her shoulder. You really think this is a sin that would spread like a disease?.......”

Again, the sin was not ‘looking over her shoulder’. The sin is ‘disobedience/transgression of the law’ and yes I do believe that sin spreads. How many people today disobey God? (I know you don’t consider that to be a bad thing, but if you look at it from the perspective of a Christian it is)

No, I don’t think those people are ‘diseased’ for having different beliefs than me.
What I do believe is that we are all sinners (Romans 5:12). I’m a sinner just like them; we are in the same boat.

:bulletblack: Also, that number of ten righteous people was totally arbitrary, and goofy….

He wasn’t changing His mind. He was answering Abraham (in a very redundant way) that He wouldn’t destroy those cities if there were righteous people, regardless of how many.

:bulletblack:You ask how worse our world would be if God let the ‘sin’ continue?..….we can conclude that it wouldn’t be any different than it is today.”

No. God promised He wouldn’t destroy again the earth with water:
“And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth” ~Genesis 9:11

The next and final time it will be with fire:
“But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” ~2 Peter 3:7

Also sin and evil is not the same thing, at least not in the bible. “Religious” people have no right to call you evil, because they’re just like you. We are all the same: sinners.

:bulletblack: “I also hear you making excuses for slavery……..as those other quotes that I gave have shown, what is considered “just and equal” for slaves includes beating, withholding freedom through manipulation, and potential death.”

"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." (Raymond Westbrook).

When I said it wasn’t like the slavery in America or Egypt, it’s not a cop out because I was talking about ‘voluntary slavery’, people that literally went to others to be servants, to work, and make some money to pay their debts. That wasn’t a terrible action. It’s literally like for example butlers that have been employed for a family for a very long time.

Yes, slavery was something that came with sin. It’s also something that existed before Israel was formed. God gave rules to Israel to so they could treat servants in a righteous way (rules to protect slaves), and not treat them in the same way other nations treated their slaves.

The general rules for servants were:
OT
---Injuring or killing slaves was punishable even by death (Exodus 21:20, Exodus 21:26-27, Exodus 21:12).
---If the master made a permanent damage to a servant, the servant was to go free immediately (Ex 21.26-27).
---They were considered part of the master’s household.
---They couldn’t make their servants work on Sabbath (Exodus 23:12)
---They participated on the feasts (Deut 12.11, Deut 12.18).
---Masters couldn’t slander their slaves (Proverbs 30:10).
--- Masters couldn’t treat them with cruelty/severity/rigor (Lev 25.43, Lev 25.49).
---They couldn’t return an escaped slave, they had to give him asylum and treat them as one of their own, and let him live wherever he wanted (Deuteronomy 23:15-16).
---Masters were encouraged to pamper their slaves (Proverbs 29:21).
---They had to remember they were oppressed in Egypt so they couldn’t treat others like they were treated in Egypt.
NT
---They had to treat them ‘just and equal’ as I mentioned above (Colossians 4:1).
---They couldn’t threaten them (Ephesians 6:9).

There are two kinds of servants (freedom was possible in both cases):

---Voluntary servants:
a) General rules mentioned above apply.
b) They made a wage to pay their debts.
c) They were like hired servants (Lev 25.53).
d) This arrangement was kept only by six years, or until the debt was paid (Deut 15:12, Lev 25.49).
e) When they were set free the masters couldn’t send them empty handed, they had to furnish them with flock, food and gifts (Deut 15:13-15).
f) Family members could pay for their freedom (Lev 25.49).
g) The servant could also buy their freedom (Lev 25.49).

---Captives of war/ foreign slaves
a) General rules mentioned above apply.
b) Debts had to be paid, not cancelled after six years (Deut 15.1-3).
c) They had to love them as if they were also from Israel (Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 10:19).
d) Females slaves could become wives. The termination of the marriage was possible by divorce and not sale. If the woman divorced the man she was a free woman and not a slave. (Deuteronomy 20:14, Deuteronomy 21:10-11).

By law the treatment to servants had to be the best, that’s why some of them came to love the family and decided to stay with them:
--- “And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:”~Exodus 21:5
--- “ And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;”~Deut 15.16
--- They could prosper under the house of their master, and even acquire servants of their own (2 Samuel 19:17)

About the texts you cited:
(Have in mind the rules for servants discussed above, because they apply here)

***Slaves as property

---The land, and the servants belonged to God, thus they weren’t property of anyone, (Lev 25:23, Lev 25:42).
---Israel's notion of 'property' in the law was severely restricted to economic output only and NOT 'ownership of a disposable good'. (Lev 25.14, Ex 21.18, Lev 25.49)

***Exodus 21:2-6: God condones slave owners essentially keeping his slave’s children and wives hostage unless the slave pledges eternal loyalty. This is beyond reprehensible

---If he was married, his wife and children would go with him when he was set free (in six years, or when the debt was paid)
---No free person could be forced to slavery. The wife the ‘master gave him’ was also a servant.
---If the master gave him a wife (also a servant), he could walk away from his wife and kids in defiance of the law of marriage. Or he could wait until his wife (also a servant) paid her debt and was set free, or he could pay her debt and set her free. “Otherwise, a woman could be deceitful by racking up debt and then selling herself into slavery to have her debts covered, only to marry someone with a short time left on his term, and then go free with him. That would be cruel to the master who was trying to help her out. So this provision is to protect those who are trying to help people out of their debt.” (Bodie Hodge)
---They could choose to stay with their master forever. They had food, a house, a family, and respect.
---They weren’t hostages; they (the adults) were working to pay their debts.

***Exodus 21:7-11 describes the practice of selling daughters, and there is an allusion to the daughters being potential sex slaves.

---A Hebrew male could sell himself into servitude for his labor (to cover his debts, and so on) and be released after six years. A Hebrew female could be sold into servitude, with permission of her father, not for labor purposes but for marriage.
---They were not sex slaves; virginity was protected in girls, and they couldn’t be raped.
---The men didn’t have the free reign to marry a woman for six years and then “trade” her in for another woman.
--- This was done when a dad wanted protection and provision for his daughter. This practice resulted from poverty and debt that threatened the survival of the household. By selling the woman they covered the debt and provided a new and stable household for her.
---The woman had the legal right of a wife, and she could be redeemed (her freedom brought).
---They couldn’t be sold to a non-Israelite

***Exodus 21:20-21, in which the Bible condones the killing of slaves, assuming it takes them three or more days to die of their wounds (this would also technically allow slave owners to starve their slaves to death since that takes a long time). The passage, at the very least, condones beating slaves.

---No, the bible doesn’t condone the killing of slaves (Exodus 20:13, Exodus 21:20, Exodus 21:26-27, Exodus 21:12).
---Flogging (to beat with as stick as punishment) was also done to free men (Deut 25.1-3; Prov 10.13; 26.3, 2 Sam 7.14; Ps 89.32).
---If the slave dies after a few days, how can you prove it was because of the master’s stick? The master was judged, but was not punished with death.

As I told you flogging was a common disciplinary action for anyone, and people didn’t die because of it.
“The direct, causal relationship between the master's conduct and the slave's death is now in doubt, for there may have been some unknown intermediate cause. The intent of the master appears less likely to have been homicidal and more likely to have been disciplinary. He is given the benefit of the doubt” (JPS Torah Commentary)

***Luke 12:47-48 and Ephesians 6:5; they aren’t allowed to express free will

---I’m really not sure why you say that about free will. Since these passages are not talking about that.
---Of course they had free will considering they could escape and take refuge with another master (Deuteronomy 23:15-16).
---These verses are talking about obedience; about doing the job the master tells them.

***Exodus 21:16: refers to the act of stealing slaves, not buying them ‘legitimately’ which is clearly condoned

---This verse does not refer to stealing slaves, it refers to stealing/kidnapping any man.

“And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”~Exodus 21:16

“If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.” ~ Deuteronomy 24:7

---In fact manstealers are listed among lawless, disobedient, and ungodly men (1 Timothy 1:10), those kind of men wont inherit the kingdom of heaven.

This is not the slavery you have in mind.

:bulletblack: Your quote regarding rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-29) is also weak because it only applies to men who have raped married women.……This is more of that morally reprehensible stuff I was talking about.

Ok, I’ll explain a bit more.

There are things you should understand:
---The civil laws in the bible were only for Israel (that culture in that period of time).
---In ancient cultures (including Israel), a woman that wasn’t a virgin wouldn’t be able to get married.
---Most ancient cultures were ‘patriarchal’ or cultures where men were considered above women, it was the men that ‘provided’ in the home.
---Unmarried and non-virgin women were unable to live properly because they had no means of support (unless their father was alive), and they were ‘social outcasts’. (This doesn’t apply to divorced women)
---Rape in the bible is considered equal to murder: Deuteronomy 22:26.
---Deuteronomy 22:25-27 is talking about rape “…the man force her, and lie with her”. Here the rapist is killed.
---Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is not talking about rape, therefore no one is killed.

***“But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her(‘chazaq’), and lie (‘shakab’) with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.” ~ Deuteronomy 22:25-27

Key-points: force (‘chazaq’) her, the damsel cried.

There is a story in the bible where a woman was raped: 2 Samuel 13:10-22, 32.
---“Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger (‘chazaq’) than she, forced her, and lay (‘shakab’) with her.” 2 Samuel 13:14

As you can see the words ‘chazaq’ + ‘shakab’ are used when talking about rape.
Becaue:
‘Chazaq’ means to force, seize, take, hold strongly, contain, use one’s strength etc.
‘Shakab’ means to lie down, sleep etc.

***“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (‘taphas’) on her, and lie (‘shakab’) with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” ~Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Key-points: it wasn’t forced, the damsel didn’t cry out

‘taphas’ means to hold. And no, the word doesn’t imply in a forced way (Jeremiah 49:16, Deuteronomy 9:17, Jer 2:8, Eze 30:21)‘Shakab’ means to lie down, sleep etc. And no, the word alone doesn’t imply a forced sexual act (Leviticus 15:18, Numbers 5:11-13).

As you can see Deuteronomy 22:25-27 is talking about rape, but Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is not.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is talking about finding two persons (a man and a virgin woman) having sex.

If a man seduced a virgin woman, and the woman willingly had sex with him she was considered his wife. He had to marry her, and pay the bridal price:

“And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.” ~ Exodus 22:16-17

The father could keep his daughter from living with the man, unless the woman liked him and wanted to be with him. And even if the woman didn’t live with the man he had to pay the ‘bridal price’, he couldn’t marry anyone else, and if he had sex with other woman he would be killed (Leviticus 20:10).

And no, husbands can’t rape their wives. It is not implied anywhere.
---Husbands have to love (‘agape’) their wives as Christ loves the church: Ephesians 5:25-26. Agape love is a pure, selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love.
---Husbands have to respect and give honor to their wives: 1 Peter 3:7
---They have to provide for them: 1 Timothy 5:8

:bulletblack: Also, more quotes: Numbers 31:7-18 describes God’s command to Moses to attack Midian and murder EVERYONE except for the virgin women, who the Israelites are supposed to “keep for themselves.” …..

--- In a world filled with sinful people (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable.
---There is a time for peace and a time for war (Ecclesiastes 3:8)
---War is not good, but it happens.
---War in ancient cultures was different from war today.
---War happened. God did not take pleasure on it (Ezekiel 18:21,23, 32), but war still happened.
---If you point at the wars won by Israel, you have to also take a look at wars they lost:
They were: smitten by their enemies, died by the sword, were slaughtered all except one tribe, were made slaves, exiled, they lost property and cities. (Num 14:39-45/ Deut 1:41-46, 1 Kings 14:24-31, 2 Chr 12:1-12, 2 Kings 10:32-33, 2 Chr 24:23-24, 2 Kings 15:29, 2 Kings 16:5-6, 2 Chr 28:5, 2 Kings 17:3-23).
---If you read history, sadly that’s how war was done in ancient times.
---The difference with Israel and other countries was that if “they kept them for themselves” it was for servant hood. It wasn’t for sinful purposes: virginity and un-married status was highly protected in Israel.
---If they married them, they had the legal rights of a wife. The men had to respect them, and provide for them as the law demanded. Rape was not allowed. They couldn’t even have sex until her mourning period passed (Deuteronomy 21:10-1)
---It is important to understand that God has never condoned any type of sexual activity outside of a lawful marriage.

***Deuteronomy 22:23-24, where, although rape isn’t condoned in this case since the rapist is murdered, the victim is to be murdered as well just because she didn’t call for help? You know, a lot of rape happens with weapons or blackmail or drugs, all of which prevent a person from calling out.

This was not rape. It was a consensual act. The words ‘chazaq’ + ‘shakab’ are not used.

The words used are ‘matsa’ and ‘shakab’.
‘Matsa’ means to find/meet. There is nothing ‘forced’ implied in the word. They met on the field to have adulterous sex, and that was punished by death (Leviticus 20:10).

***Deuteronomy 21:10-14 also describe women captives as property that the man can have sex with regardless of what the woman wants (rape).

---She was not his property
---He couldn’t have sex with her unless they were married.
---If they got married, he couldn’t have sex with her until the mourning period had passed.
---He couldn’t rape her (married or unmarried)
---If they got married, they could get a divorce (after the mourning period and before or after having sex) and she was to go as a free woman not a slave.

:bulletblack: Yes, these meat-eating rules are arbitrary.… You’re basically saying that, though health is important to God, he knows next to nothing about it.

They wouldn’t be able to understand bacteria, or other things you mention here. We have lots of technology now; we can even see viruses and bacteria yet there is much we don’t understand. Besides the bible is not a microbiology textbook nor was God purpose to give them a class in microbiology. I’m not saying God knows nothing about health. That’s what you are saying.

“"Clean" land animals are ruminants—grazing animals such as cattle, sheep, deer and elk—whose digestive tracts are designed to turn grass that human beings cannot digest into meat that we can digest. Most unclean animals are carnivores or scavengers that can transmit dangerous diseases to human beings. Pigs eat roots and grains, rather than grass, and thus are ecological competitors to human beings. Clean fish have fins and scales. Unclean aquatic organisms like clams and oysters are filter feeders that purify water, and that concentrate poisonous chemicals and pathologic bacteria and viruses in their tissues. Eating an oyster is like eating your vacuum cleaner bag—yet modern connoisseurs do not like to think about this! Crabs and lobsters are scavengers that eat dead things on the bottom of bodies of water. Most unclean birds are carnivores or scavengers. God in His wisdom inspired laws that protect humans from contracting dangerous diseases, but also protect "nature's clean up crew" by making them "off limits" as food for mankind. These biological principles still operate today. As a point of illustration: the SARS outbreak was traced to an area in southern China where civet cats (an unclean animal) are eaten as a delicacy!” (Douglas S. Winnail)

There are people who eat raw food and blood and food safety is a known topic today.
God maybe didn’t entered on the details of the risks of eating raw meat, or about cholesterol and heart diseases, but Israel couldn’t eat raw meat, fat, or blood (Exodus 12:7-10, Leviticus 17:10, Leviticus 3:17).

:bulletblack: Okay, it’s one thing to say that the Sabbath is a ‘gift,’ but to force people to relax on penalty of death or disallow them from doing things that they may want to do?”

This is a really complex topic. And for you it will probably like the concept of sin: It won’t make sense to you, so I’ll try to be brief.

---In the bible there is only one Sabbath day, and you’ll notice this if you read the bible. The Sabbath day is the seventh day (Exodus 20:11). The observance of the Sabbath is part of God’s unchanging law. It will be kept in heaven also (Isaiah 66:22-23).
---The Sabbath was first introduced to humans at the seventh day of creation (Genesis 2:2-3).
--- God designated the seventh day, the Sabbath, a pure day, and declared it sacred. God set it apart to make it holy (Genesis 2:2-3).
---People have six days for themselves, God only asks for one.

The Sabbath is like a holiday on steroids haha, because it’s more that a day, it implies a lot:

***The Meaning of the Sabbath.

---A perpetual memorial of Creation:

It "brings to view both the name and title of the Lawgiver. It declares Him to be the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and thus shows His claim to reverence and worship above all others. Aside from this precept, there is nothing in the Decalogue to show by whose authority the law is given."
It’s a memorial of the creative power of God. Those who observed it as a memorial of Creation would be doing so as a grateful acknowledgment "that God was their Creator and their rightful Sovereign; that they were the works of His hands, and the subjects of His authority.”

---The Seventh-day Sabbath Establishes God’s Sovereignty:

The Sabbath has significance as a perpetual sign of the everlasting covenant between God and His people in order that they might know who it is that created them (Ex 31-17) and sanctifies them (Ex 31:13; Ezek 20:12), and that they might recognize Him as the Lord their God (Ezek 20:20).

--- A symbol of redemption:

When God delivered Israel from bondage in Egypt, the Sabbath, which was already the memorial of Creation, became a memorial of deliverance as well (Deut. 5:15). This is linked with Christ sacrifice on the cross and deliverance from sin.

--- A sign of sanctification:

The Sabbath is a sign of God's transforming power, a sign of holiness or sanctification.
God as the Sanctifier. As people are sanctified by Christ's blood (Heb. 13:12), the Sabbath is also a sign of the believer's acceptance of His blood for the forgiveness of sins.

---A sign of loyalty:

As Adam and Eve's loyalty was tested by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil placed in the midst of the garden of Eden, so every human being's loyalty to God will be tested by the Sabbath command placed in the midst of the Decalogue.

---A time of fellowship:

God gave humanity a gift offering the highest form of companionship: companionship with Him.

---A sign of righteousness by faith:

Those who keep the seventh day, then, do so out of faith and implicit trust in Christ, who has enjoined its observance.

---A symbol of resting in Christ:

In a similar way the Sabbath is a sign of the deliverance from sin to God's rest. A spiritual and physical rest.

---It establishes “time”:

A year is the earth revolving around the sun one time, a month is the moon revolving around the earth, a day is the rotating on its axis, a week: God established it (Genesis 2: 2-3).

:bulletblack: With defending animal sacrifice you just brought up another issue I have with religion: ……

There are two options:
1) All this chaos, death, diseases, cruelty, and violence in humanity and this world are accepted as natural. There is nothing wrong with all this.
2) All this chaos, death, diseases, cruelty, and violence in humanity and this world are not accepted as natural. There is something wrong with all this.

Christians take the option two. What’s wrong, in our points of view? Sin.

Accepting the fact that there is something wrong with us is not manipulation, it’s not hard to have that conclusion if we take a look around us. Eg. Mothers killing their children shouldn’t be natural.

You think rape, murder, and cruel slavery are morally wrong, yet you don’t think there has to be something wrong for people to commit those cruel acts?

:bulletblack: And speaking of Jesus, who you claim is God as opposed to a prophet or messenger that God is speaking through, you’re basically saying that God sacrificed himself to himself ….

The moment Adam and Eve sinned, they were separated from God. They broke God’s law and were condemned to die an eternal death, considering eternal life only comes from God.
When there is a law, there is a penalty to pay. If we break God’s law the penalty is death, because breaking is law separate us from the source of life.

Jesus sacrifice was for us, not for God. We were the ones in need of salvation, not Him.
He was sinless when He died, therefore death couldn’t prevail on him, and He came to life again. Apart from restituting us as His children, and paying the penalty for us He triumphed over death. And because of that now we can do the same.

His law has always existed; it already existed when we were created, because God’s law is a reflection of His character.
Eg. The law is: eternal (psalms 111:7-8, luke 16:17), liberty (james 1:25, psalms 119:45), holy (romans 7:12), unchanging (matthew 5:18, psalms 111:7-8) etc.
God character is: eternal (Romans 16:26, Deuteronomy 33:27), liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17), holy (1 peter 1:15, psalms 99:9), unchanging (malachi 3:6, hebrews 13:8) etc.

His law is unchanging. And it already existed, if it didn’t Satan wouldn’t be guilty of breaking anything.

:bulletblack: Also, presuming people are filthy because they aren’t part of religion serves to make them seem inferior to believers…

We are all sinners (Romans 3:23). We are all the same. Believers are not better than non-believers. The only difference is that believers recognize there is something wrong in us.

:bulletblack: Yes, right now we and our current society have laws, but you know what? People also have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of protest….”

So you don’t think there is freedom of speech with God?
Satan rebelled and took with him one third of the angels
Adam and Eve disobeyed
There are Atheists, Skeptics, Agnostics, Satanists, Wiccans, Muslims, Buddhists, and countless of other religions and belief-systems that speak against the God of the bible. If that’s not freedom to protest then I don’t know what it is.

:bulletblack: The fact that picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week was disobeying God does not negate the fact that the law is stupid and the punishment is extreme.

God didn’t brought Israel to Egypt. He knew they were going to end up there, but He didn’t take them there. It’s funny how people that doesn’t believe in God say everything bad in the bible it’s His fault, and people apparently are not to be held responsible for any action they take…

The actions people did early in history had consequences, every action has a reaction. Israel ended up in Egypt not because they were being punished, but because it was a reaction to the actions taken by Abraham, Joseph’ brothers and others. God knew this would happen, but He promised Abraham deliverance for his descendants (Genesis 15:13-14). And that first deliverance would come with Moses.

You see it as favoritism, and I see it as God sharing a deep and personal relationship with Moses, in such way that He would consider Moses opinions, prayers, and intersessions.
I also see it as God examining Moses character and faith (Just like He tested Abraham Genesis 22). Since He couldn’t kill Israel because they were descendants of Abraham, and God promised Abraham that Israel would survive and He would be their God (Genesis 17:1-8, 15-16), He also promised Abraham that Jesus would be born from His descendants (Genesis 22:17-18, Gal 3:16), God doesn’t go back on His promises.

:bulletblack: You then justify hell by saying it isn’t eternal….

I’m not saying you or anyone deserves to be thrown into a lake of fire. Believers don’t get an automatic ticket to heaven, and non-believers don’t automatically get a ticket to the lake of fire. Only God knows our hearts/minds, only He knows who will be saved.

About getting rid of sin with fire.
What would you suggest? Creating another world for sinful people so they can keep on killing each other, dying by natural disasters or by cancer and other sicknesses? Or put an end to it all?

You see the destruction by the lake of fire as an unjust punishment and a cruel death. Well, leaving people to suffer in a degrading earth for all eternity without intervening even if He has the power to do so…that’s what I see as torture and as an unjust punishment and cruel death.

:bulletblack: I’ve been pointing out contradictions this whole time, so that names a few.

I’m sorry but I didn’t see any contradiction.

:bulletblack: About the Joseph/Egypt thingy, you’re saying that, since some Israelites were sinners, they and their descendants deserve slavery for 400+ years……

That’s not what I’m saying. That’s what you wanted to understand. It wasn’t a punishment. I already explained this, but you’ll understand it as you want.

He didn’t interfere with their free will. Israel was perfectly capable of choosing if they wanted to remain on Egypt or follow Moses to become God’s people.

It seems to me that you have a wrong idea of free will. Free will has nothing to do about “action and reaction”. Free will is just having an independent choice and making a voluntary decision. But there are consequences to any decision we make; our freedom to choose doesn’t exempt us from the consequences we have to face. I have the free will to jump from the roof of a really tall building, but I’m not exempt of the consequence of dying by hitting the ground.

So… you think bad things happen to people that doesn’t love God? And Good things happen to people that love God?

What Romans 8:28 is saying is that for those that love and obey God even if they are having hardships and bad times, at the end everything will work for their good, they will come out of their hardships with a blessing.

Nowhere in the bible says that believers will have it easy for believing in God, on the contrary (Mathew 10:22, John 15:18, Ephesians 6:12)…so I can’t really see where is the contradiction.

:bulletblack: I admittedly don’t want to linger on the “Jesus can’t be the messiah even in Biblical context” thing, because there’s zero evidence that the man existed at all to begin with.….

God is a title. The bible presents a Triune God. Three co-equal and co-eternal distinct persons in the Godhead, with hierarchy: God, the father; God, the son; and God, the Holy Spirit (Mathew 3:16-17).

It’s like the concept of marriage. Two people become one flesh (Mark 10:8, Genesis 2:24), Three persons are one God.

For example:
Hundreds of people = one company
Four people = one family
Three persons = one God (one mind, one purpose, different functions)

There is no “zero evidence” for Jesus existence; you can look up records from historians making reference to Him.

For example:
--- Cornelius Tacitus (Roman historian):
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and amost mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular". (Tacitus, Annals, vol. 15, The Complete Works of Tacitus, ed. Moses Hadas (New York: Random House, 1942), 44.)

--- Suetonius (Roman historian):
During the reign of Emperor Claudius: “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city.” (Suetonius, Claudius, 25, quoted in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 191.)
This historical fact fits with Luke’s statement in Acts 18:2

:bulletblack: The council of Nicea’s main objective was clearing up the muddle of Biblical confusion, such as which books of the Bible should be kept, or whether Jesus was actually an avatar of God or a human mouthpiece like Moses was…

The council of Nicea took place in 325AD under the roman emperor Constantine.
---They wanted to put an end to the controversy raised by Arius that said Jesus was not God. The council affirmed the deity and eternity of Jesus.

None of these things were unclear in scripture. Jesus was God, the Old Testament (that is not contradicted by the new) is very clear about that, and the Old Testament wasn’t changed. For example the Dead Sea scrolls can back this up.
---Over two hundred scrolls were portions of the Bible itself, dated 250 BC–AD 68.
---Every Old Testament book except Esther was represented.
---Many of these ancient scrolls closely match the Masoretic Text tradition, which modern Hebrew and English Bibles are based upon, confirming the Old Testament text has been faithfully preserved for all these centuries.

OT: by A.D. 250 it was already organized.
NT: The first “canon” was the Moratoria Canon, which was compiled in A.D. 170

The councils related to the organization of the canon of NT scripture were:
---The Council of Laodicea
---The Council of Hippo
---The Council of Carthage

:bulletblack: Proof and evidence are objective things. You are entitled to your own opinions—you are not entitled to your own facts. For there to be evidence of something it must be perfectly demonstrable without fail and needs to be backed up with logic and consistency.….

I made a stamp about this, but it was directed to encourage Christian to do more research about ‘proving the truth of scripture’. I normally don’t talk about these ‘proofs’ with non-believers because there is nothing I can do to change their minds. That is neither my purpose nor my duty.

But since you asked I’m going to name a few by copy pasting from that stamp I made:

The Tel Dan Stele (900–850 BC)
---Carved on its stone face is the expression, “House of David.”

The Meesha Stele (846 BC)
---Popularly known as the Moabite Stone, it records the revolt of Meesha, King of Moab, against Israel (2 Kings 3:5).
---This incredible stele mentions Omri (1 Kings 16:23-28), King of Israel, and David of the United Monarchy. It even refers to Yahweh, the unique name of the God of Israel.

History records
---Campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26), recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.
---Fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:3-6, 24; 18:9-11) to Sargon II, King of Assyria, as recorded on his palace walls.
---Defeat of Ashdod by Sargon II (Isaiah 20:1), as recorded on his palace walls.

Places and people found:
--The tombs of Cyrus and Darius I among others were found.
--The city of Jericho
--The Temple of Baal/El-Berith in Shechem, where funds were obtained to finance Abimelech's Kingship, and where the citizens of Shechem took refuge when Abimelech attacked the city (Judges 9:4, 46-49).
-- The royal palace in Susa where Esther was queen of the Persian king Xerxes (Esther 1:2; 2:3, 5, 9, 16).

All of these records or items have been proven to be authentic, and real.

You know why I don’t normally mention this? Because for example critics used to say that the house of David, the city of Jericho, Shishak, Darius I etc. didn’t exist. When proof for their existence was found and verified to be authentic then they changed their critics to say that they existed but the bible was just mixing real places and happenings with fake ones, just like you say with spiderman. It doesn’t matter if all these things were recorded in video (ignoring the fact that video didn’t exist in those times) people will always find an excuse to dismiss them as unimportant or fake.
Sorry for this long reply o.o"


Generally speaking I can reply pretty easily to this whole thing except for the council of Nicea bits since I'm not a pro when it comes to that. I do understand why the evidence this person presents in no way counts as evidence since the historians he mentions only ever mention 'followers' and nothing more. I just wanted to drop this long comment here to see what kind of responses I'll get. You can respond in part or in full. Thanks in advance Big Grin

You got a real ringer there, I noticed all of the archeological evidence they cite are simply affirmation of the existence of cities, etc. They don't give evidence that the events spoken of in the bible actually occurred. It would simply be best to be dismissive with this person. Something like -get back to me when they find a serpent I can have an intelligent conversation with.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 08:30 AM
RE: Require Help in this debate
(05-02-2015 09:13 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  You got a real ringer there, I noticed all of the archeological evidence they cite are simply affirmation of the existence of cities, etc. They don't give evidence that the events spoken of in the bible actually occurred. It would simply be best to be dismissive with this person. Something like -get back to me when they find a serpent I can have an intelligent conversation with.

Wow, thanks for your quick reply to this! Yeah, it's bizarre they keep citing cities as proof even after I likened it to saying Spiderman must exist due to the reality of New York City. Yet he keeps persisting. I also notice he acts as if there was some inexplicable period where nobody knew where Jericho was, despite there being historical writings talking about Jericho consistently during the time people lived there. I suppose I'll respond to him soon, and I think I may do a full reply and simply leave it at 'well, I'm done justifying myself to you' or something. Thanks again! Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Geknebelt's post
09-02-2015, 08:53 AM
RE: Require Help in this debate
(09-02-2015 08:30 AM)Geknebelt Wrote:  
(05-02-2015 09:13 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  You got a real ringer there, I noticed all of the archeological evidence they cite are simply affirmation of the existence of cities, etc. They don't give evidence that the events spoken of in the bible actually occurred. It would simply be best to be dismissive with this person. Something like -get back to me when they find a serpent I can have an intelligent conversation with.

Wow, thanks for your quick reply to this! Yeah, it's bizarre they keep citing cities as proof even after I likened it to saying Spiderman must exist due to the reality of New York City. Yet he keeps persisting. I also notice he acts as if there was some inexplicable period where nobody knew where Jericho was, despite there being historical writings talking about Jericho consistently during the time people lived there. I suppose I'll respond to him soon, and I think I may do a full reply and simply leave it at 'well, I'm done justifying myself to you' or something. Thanks again! Smile

I've been reading up on Enki, the Sumerian god lately, it would be interesting to derail them with a discussion of this myth.
Even with the brief reading I have done, it is jaw-dropping the similarities this god has with the one in Genesis. Here are some of Enki's notable deeds:

1. He created man from clay.
2. He confused the languages of men.
3. He warned Ziusudra and in a later retelling, Atra-Hasis of a world-wide flood and to build a boat for him and his family to survive it.

Basically, every myth in Genesis was plagiarized from the Sumerian myths.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: