Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

But people claim they prayed and had their diease cured = God cured them. There are plenty documented claims of this sort.

I have yest to come accross documented claims of somebody missing a limb praying and having the limb grow back.

Why would God pick one afliction over the other to cure?

God may not have directly said he'll cure disease or grow limbs back. But he sure did a lot of "curing" in the Bible. And continues to "cure" aflictions of believers, weather it be acceptable claims from Lourdes or less acceptable in terms of the RCC, faith healers.

And he healed an amputated ear in the Bible too.

As for what you have or have not come across, I'm not sure what your point is here? Miracles are extremely rare events - so you have a problem because these extremely rare events happen in one particular set of circumstances rather than another?

Twin-go

PDN wrote: »

And he healed an amputated ear in the Bible too.

So that was the last one then?

PDN wrote: »

As for what you have or have not come across, I'm not sure what your point is here? Miracles are extremely rare events - so you have a problem because these extremely rare events happen in one particular set of circumstances rather than another?

Yes that is my problem, all things being equal, the rareness of miracles not withstanding, Why is a cancer sufferer 100% more likely than an amputee to be graced by a miracle cure?

Robert ninja

PDN wrote: »

And he healed an amputated ear in the Bible too.

You see, things written in a book aren't enough to account for the types of claims that are being made here.

PDN wrote: »

so you have a problem because these extremely rare events happen in one particular set of circumstances rather than another?

Actually it's not the skeptics who have a problem that miracles and so on can't happen under a controlled enviornment for repeatable tests, it's the believers' problem because they can't seem to provide or demonstrate miracles outside of places where there is no real way to tell what's going on or who is inflicted with what and if it is cured afterwards or if there was even anything to be cured. There's millions of claims of people being possessed too so it's no secret people believe they're sick when they're not. Girls think they have cancer everytime lumps of hair show up on their combs.

ISAW

Robert ninja wrote: »

[
Actually it's not the skeptics who have a problem that miracles and so on can't happen under a controlled enviornment for repeatable tests,

You are joking surely?
If someone grew a limb you would have them have it removed so you could repeat the procedure to convince yourself?

the fact is qualified doctors examined the patiests and can't explain how the cure happened. Science cant explain it! If you don't have a problem with that then why njot admit admit science can't explain it?

it's the believers' problem because they can't seem to provide or demonstrate miracles outside of places where there is no real way to tell what's going on or who is inflicted

But they can! What part of "qualified doctors examined and doccumented the incurable cases in advance" are you having problems with?
And why are you adding "only true scotsman"? I fhtere was a case of a limb growing back you still would not believe it. Not because of the science but because of your belief that it cant be god because you believe there is no God. That isn't skepticism it is atheism!

with what and if it is cured afterwards or if there was even anything to be cured. There's millions of claims of people being possessed too so it's no secret people believe they're sick when they're not. Girls think they have cancer everytime lumps of hair show up on their combs.

But we are not talking about everyday cases of peoples beliefs. We are talking about well documented medical cases of what science says is incurable or progressive and terminal and the thing reversing or disappearing.

Robert ninja

ISAW wrote: »

You are joking surely?
If someone grew a limb you would have them have it removed so you could repeat the procedure to convince yourself?

It is YOU who must be joking if you think the only way to repeat tests of curing/healing something is to re-infect or re-injure the person in order to carry it out again.

ISAW wrote: »

the fact is qualified doctors examined the patiests and can't explain how the cure happened. Science cant explain it! If you don't have a problem with that then why njot admit admit science can't explain it?

ISAW wrote: »

But they can! What part of "qualified doctors examined and doccumented the incurable cases in advance" are you having problems with?
And why are you adding "only true scotsman"? I fhtere was a case of a limb growing back you still would not believe it. Not because of the science but because of your belief that it cant be god because you believe there is no God. That isn't skepticism it is atheism!

There are many cases where something turned out different than scientist or doctors expected, of whom you so belittle. None of these mysteries lend any credit to god claims unless you can repeatedly prove that the only way a specific cure (death and amputees would be most convincing) can be carried out is because god exists and someone has tapped into that power. This would require a controlled enviornment and repeated testing from different people, all over the world and the experiment could be replicated by anyone as long as they have the proper resources. That's science, not doctors not being able to explain things.

ISAW wrote: »

But we are not talking about everyday cases of peoples beliefs. We are talking about well documented medical cases of what science says is incurable or progressive and terminal and the thing reversing or disappearing.

What 'science says' will be different in the future than it is today. Things are 'currently' incurable but the natural immune system and the human body are amazing, complex things. There are in fact people resistant and immune to the most common strain of AIDs. People have mysteruously gotten better from apparently incurable diseases and what not many times in our history. Not being able to explain in and of its self means nothing for your god arguement but you, Bill O'Reily and many others have some trouble wrapping your heads around that.

Twin-go

ISAW wrote: »

You are joking surely?
If someone grew a limb you would have them have it removed so you could repeat the procedure to convince yourself?.

That not what Robert Ninja said. But if you would repeat the exact circumstance with a different patient you would expect the same result. Is this not a fair assumption?

ISAW wrote: »

the fact is qualified doctors examined the patiests and can't explain how the cure happened. Science cant explain it! If you don't have a problem with that then why njot admit admit science can't explain it?

Yes but Science cannot explian it, yet! They will do the reseach, look at all the vairiables to try and discover why it happened. Just because something can't be explained by science does not mean God did it.

ISAW wrote: »

But they can! What part of "qualified doctors examined and doccumented the incurable cases in advance" are you having problems with?
And why are you adding "only true scotsman"? I fhtere was a case of a limb growing back you still would not believe it. Not because of the science but because of your belief that it cant be god because you believe there is no God. That isn't skepticism it is atheism!

I would believe that the limb grew back but I would not automaticly asume that God did it. To asume it was God without any evidence that it was him would be just ignorant.

ISAW wrote: »

But we are not talking about everyday cases of peoples beliefs. We are talking about well documented medical cases of what science says is incurable or progressive and terminal and the thing reversing or disappearing.

Again, just because science cannot explain something does not mean God did it.

At least science continues to search for answers. And even when it gets an answer it will continue to look for a better answer.

If we were all to accept that God created this world we would still be dark ages with the sun revolving around a flat earth.

PDN

Twin-go wrote: »

So that was the last one then?

I doubt if it was, but I don't possess a database of all miracles that have occurred in the last 2000 years. I referred to the incident in the Bible because you yourself referred to other healings in the Bible.

Yes that is my problem, all things being equal, the rareness of miracles not withstanding, Why is a cancer sufferer 100% more likely than an amputee to be graced by a miracle cure?

I doubt if it is 100%, but I agree that healings of cancer appear to be more frequent. I already gave you a suggestion as to why this might be earlier in the thread. I don't mind that you never responded, but I don't see why you then ask the same question again.

PDN wrote:

Doubtless we find it easier to believe for some things rather than others, and this goes beyond healing. It's easier to believe for God to answer a prayer for €10 than it is for a million euro. And faith, to some degree, is linked to answered prayer.

But I, for one, don't find it hard to hold on to my faith, even when I don't see my prayers answered. My faith is not in a God who meets my every want like a heavenly sugar daddy. My faith is in a God who loved me so much that he sent His Son to die for me and made it possible for me to be saved - and that remains true whether I get healed or not.

Twin-go

I didn't respond as I thought the "your ass will be banned" line was a bit much TBH. I've never been anything else but polite on this Forum.

PDN wrote: »

I doubt if it was, but I don't possess a database of all miracles that have occurred in the last 2000 years. I referred to the incident in the Bible because you yourself referred to other healings in the Bible.

Do you think a case of spontanious limb growth would not be documented?

PDN wrote: »

I doubt if it is 100%, but I agree that healings of cancer appear to be more frequent. I already gave you a suggestion as to why this might be earlier in the thread. I don't mind that you never responded, but I don't see why you then ask the same question again.

Originally Posted by PDN
Doubtless we find it easier to believe for some things rather than others, and this goes beyond healing. It's easier to believe for God to answer a prayer for €10 than it is for a million euro. And faith, to some degree, is linked to answered prayer.

But I, for one, don't find it hard to hold on to my faith, even when I don't see my prayers answered. My faith is not in a God who meets my every want like a heavenly sugar daddy. My faith is in a God who loved me so much that he sent His Son to die for me and made it possible for me to be saved - and that remains true whether I get healed or not.

PDN I don't know and I don't need to know your personal circumstances but I know a guy (as mentioned in PMs) who is a devoute Catholic that keeps getting knockbacks (Jobs, insurance costs, taking part in activities with his friends etc) due to missing an arm from the elbow down. He has a friend who was never involved in any church, never said a prayer and mocked anyone that had beliefs. He was diagnosed with advanced stomach cancer and was given max 18 months to live. This was 4 years ago and he is in full remission.

People say God works in strange way but if he works as above it is seriously messed up. My friend is still as devoute as ever but I just can't understand how or why.

ISAW

Robert ninja wrote: »

It is YOU who must be joking if you think the only way to repeat tests of curing/healing something is to re-infect or re-injure the person in order to carry it out again.

How do you do a "controlled enviornment for repeatable tests, " on someone whose limb grows back?

There are many cases where something turned out different than scientist or doctors expected, of whom you so belittle.

Wher did I belittle scientists or doctors. Saying they can't perform miracles is belittling them is it?

None of these mysteries lend any credit to god claims unless you can repeatedly prove that the only way a specific cure (death and amputees would be most convincing) can be carried out is because god exists and someone has tapped into that power.

I didn't advance anything as scientific proof of God. What I pointed out is that the claims of "all fluff" are not true! Scientists accept that they can not explain how these cures happened. If someone had a limb added back or came back for m the dead you would only ask another only true scotsman be produced that several limbs be shown to grow or another person come back from the dead. Or you would ask for something else like stars being extinguished and turned back on again "if there really were a God" . nad if that was done you would say it was a trick or ask for something else. If you don't believe something you will never accept it is true.

This would require a controlled enviornment and repeated testing from different people, all over the world and the experiment could be replicated by anyone as long as they have the proper resources. That's science, not doctors not being able to explain things.

You can't repeat limbs being cut off on people or people being continually killed and resurrected!

What 'science says' will be different in the future than it is today.

I have dealt with that argument as well - scientism! The idea that just over the next hill or round the next bend science will explain what iot can't explain now. what is the difference between that and faith n a supernatural force you don't understand?

. Not being able to explain in and of its self means nothing for your god arguement but you, Bill O'Reily and many others have some trouble wrapping your heads around that.

I didn't advance a "proof of god" argument. I pointed out your "justaround the nest bend" science argument is not scientifically sufficient or even distinguishable from faith in supernatural forces. and science can't explain some things.

ISAW

Twin-go wrote: »

Do you think a case of spontanious limb growth would not be documented?

Yes. Especially if it happened in isolation. Or it might be documented in another language.Or it might be documented and the document lost or destroyed.
Do you think if a tree falls in the wood and nobody is around to witness it that it might be documented? In fact it was I just documented it!

Twin-go

ISAW wrote: »

Yes. Especially if it happened in isolation. Or it might be documented in another language.Or it might be documented and the document lost or destroyed.
Do you think if a tree falls in the wood and nobody is around to witness it that it might be documented? In fact it was I just documented it!

Let me ask you this.

In cases like have been discoused in previously, If God is the miracle cure isn't he also the cause?

ISAW

Twin-go wrote: »

Let me ask you this.

In cases like have been discoused in previously, If God is the miracle cure isn't he also the cause?

i don't understand your question.

Robert ninja

ISAW wrote: »

How do you do a "controlled enviornment for repeatable tests, " on someone whose limb grows back?

For just a single person? Well then yeah, you'd need to test it on the same person. But if we're talking about a cure or some sort of ritual that one can do on may people to heal back limbs, it would mean putting them in a controlled environment were we can closely examine the regeneration of the limb and what forces are at work causing it. It's very basic science, I don't really need to explain more of what a controlled environment is and how to repeat tests, do I?

ISAW wrote: »

Wher did I belittle scientists or doctors. Saying they can't perform miracles is belittling them is it?

It's not what you're saying but how you're saying it and the context in which you keep referring them... it has a tone that undermines the hard work these people actually do to discover things and save people.

ISAW wrote: »

I didn't advance anything as scientific proof of God. What I pointed out is that the claims of "all fluff" are not true! Scientists accept that they can not explain how these cures happened. If someone had a limb added back or came back for m the dead you would only ask another only true scotsman be produced that several limbs be shown to grow or another person come back from the dead. Or you would ask for something else like stars being extinguished and turned back on again "if there really were a God" . nad if that was done you would say it was a trick or ask for something else. If you don't believe something you will never accept it is true.

Scientists accept they can't explain some things, I accept I can't explain some things... but you don't.. you think you can explain it. The mystery... you're pushing it as proof of miracles and don't say you're not to back peddle once again. But if you really do agree that none of these mysteries lend any credit to miracle claims or supernatural, then we're in agreement.

ISAW wrote: »

You can't repeat limbs being cut off on people or people being continually killed and resurrected!

Correct.

ISAW wrote: »

I have dealt with that argument as well - scientism! The idea that just over the next hill or round the next bend science will explain what iot can't explain now. what is the difference between that and faith n a supernatural force you don't understand?

Scientism? Oh please ISAW ,your ignorance and constant need to end everything with '!' is tacky and damn annoying as are you as a poster overall. I don't think we can explain EVERYTHING, but we can explain a lot and it takes hard work... all the information we have about the earth and its formation, biology and so on and just about everything that we call 'common knowledge' was done from hard work using science. Modern science is relatively new invention though, given how old our species is... and it has done a lot in such short time.

Don't you dare say that my trust in science to perhaps solve some things in the future is even close to your asinine faith. I TRUST the sun to rise in the morning because I have REASON to believe this. There is evidence which I can verify with my own senses, with tools and from other people that the sun will shine on this side of the planet tomorrow morning too and that it has done so many times. I have reason to believe that science, a tool used so far to find and create many things, may someday explain biological phenomena within humans as it has done so in all our history. Just look at how far we've come from germs and disease being demons to now understanding their form and complexity and making antidotes and cures for them.

I have damn good reason to expect science to continue doing what it does. I have NO reason to think a god has done anything, with anything, with anyone, ever. Once again people like you try to say I have faith just like you to try and bring me down to your level, it's annoying as feck.

ISAW wrote: »

I pointed out your "justaround the nest bend" science argument is not scientifically sufficient or even distinguishable from faith in supernatural forces.

It is completely distinguishable from faith in supernatural forces. Why? I can use science myself to come to conclusions and then share the process with others to see if they come to the same conclusions to verify my own findings, whatever they may be. I can look through history and see that things that were once thought to be unexplainable or explained via supernatural claims are now scientifically explained and understood even by small children.

Your faith in supernatural things is very different than my expectations of science in that it's based on no real evidence, delusion, fear, superstition and ignorance which have been prevalent throughout human history. You faith is not unique, it is not beautiful, it's not by default worthy of respect or credit from anyone - it is fruitless, well known, well documented, obvious superstition that not I nor anyone need take seriously. It can be destroyed by questioning it while science gets more accurate by questioning it. It is weak, easy to shake and tear down.

My trust and expectations of science are fruitful and verifiable everywhere. It is strong, useful and valuable to society and is the kind of force that pushes ingenuity that has created all of which you take for granted. Build a bridge and get over it.

PS. Any modern miracle claim looks laughably pathetic in comparison to the extraordinary scientific advances we're currently making.

Aidan1985

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No problem.

But unless you are talking about something like mathematics and logic I have no idea why you are talking about proofs whether it be in relation to God's existence, your mother's love or your bank manager's honesty. Perhaps you should also familiarise yourself with what a scientific theory is.

I understand what scientific theories are. I did studies on astronomy and am familiar with a lot of the terminology. It something seems to lead towards fact, fair enough. But I'll always be open to change my mind instead of saying ''no, I heard this first so I'm sticking to my guns.'' Maths is logic. No question. I'm just making a general statement that facts is where it's at. To be honest, I was just posting an opinion. I didn't mean to rattle anyone's cage or bother people. It's just my opinion and it means nothing really. Just giving my experience on how I see things up to this point.

ISAW

Robert ninja wrote: »

For just a single person? Well then yeah, you'd need to test it on the same person.

So ythen your "why don't we hear of a case of a limb growing back. That would be a real miracle" isn't actually sufficient and you move the goalposts all the way over to Scotland?

But if we're talking about... I don't really need to explain more of what a controlled environment is and how to repeat tests, do I?

But we are not talking about miracels which people promise to do in advance and agree to protocols in advance. And I submit even then if such a "miracle" did happen even though science can't explain it you would still say "it must be a trick" because you do not believe in God or the supernatural.

It's not what you're saying but how you're saying it and the context in which you keep referring them... it has a tone that undermines the hard work these people actually do to discover things and save people.

In your opinion. Have you any examples? I have not insulted any doctors or scientists or undermined the very detailed work they put into examining these cases which they admit science can not explain.

Scientists accept they can't explain some things, I accept I can't explain some things... but you don't.. you think you can explain it. The mystery... you're pushing it as proof of miracles and don't say you're not to back peddle once again.

No Im not pushing anything! i am presenting a counter argument to the one of "when examined all science finds is fluff" . Yes in the case of fakers they find no evidence of supernatural forces but in the case of "miracles" they freely admit they can't explain what they have analysed in detail. they admit something has happened and not niothing has happened and they can't explain how. It isn't offered as a proof of God it is offered as a disproof of "all they find is fluff"

But if you really do agree that none of these mysteries lend any credit to miracle claims or supernatural, then we're in agreement.

Why I personally believe is not at issue. Mind you, your personal beliefs would prevent you from accepting a miracle wouldn't they? Your mind is closed to this option because you don't believe it. The point however is that science admits they they can't explain these miracles. That is not proof of god but nor is it proof of "all we get is fulff" as claimed

Scientism? Oh please ISAW ,your ignorance and constant need to end everything with '!' is tacky and damn annoying as are you as a poster overall.

Spelling flames aside I know what scientism is and I suggest you look up the word. How do you claim it does not apply if you acknowledge science admits it can't explain a phenomenon but you believe it one day will explain it?

I don't think we can explain EVERYTHING, but we can explain a lot and it takes hard
work...

So what? the point is about if science can't explain it and having faith that science will some day explain it.

all the information we have about the earth and its formation, biology and so on and just about everything that we call 'common knowledge' was done from hard work using science.

"All knowledge" is not just "scientific knowledge"
Can science prove any human value?
Science itself is not sufficient.
A scientocracy would not be a a utopia.

Modern science is relatively new invention though, given how old our species is... and it has done a lot in such short time.

Lol "modern" science ? What is so "modern" about it?
You really have such faith that in the last 100 years or so science is somehow different or "modern" and because of it society is "progressed"? LOL!

Don't you dare say that my trust in science to perhaps solve some things in the future is even close to your asinine faith.

I never brought my faith or lack of it into the issue. I am dealing with objective truth/reality and not personal belief. You however rely on scientism which is philosophically indistinguishable from religious belief.

I TRUST the sun to rise in the morning because I have REASON to believe this.

That is called inductive reasoning. One day the sun will not rise. That is called deduction based on what we know about physics.

There is evidence which I can verify with my own senses, with tools and from other people that the sun will shine on this side of the planet tomorrow morning too and that it has done so many times. I have reason to believe that science, a tool used so far to find and create many things, may someday explain biological phenomena within humans as it has done so in all our history.

Yep scientific evidence and metascientific philosophical evidence. But in the second sentance you make a big leap of faith and rely on scientism and inductive reasoning that "science always finds an answer" there are some problems e.g. fossil fuels to which science can not find an answer. Science gives us WMD and we can destroy ourselves. We can create our own destruction using science.

Just look at how far we've come from germs and disease being demons to now understanding their form and complexity and making antidotes and cures for them.

Just how far have we come from the cave man who cared for his own family ?

It is completely distinguishable from faith in supernatural forces. Why?

Science inst scientism is!

PS. Any modern miracle claim looks laughably pathetic in comparison to the extraordinary scientific advances we're currently making.

Ps another definition of scientism is any advanced technology we dont know about is indistinguishable from witchcraft.

smokingman

So without having to go through the entire thread, can someone point me at the post that proves a god exists?

Nice one, cheers!

ISAW

smokingman wrote: »

So without having to go through the entire thread, can someone point me at the post that proves a god exists?

Nice one, cheers!

Scientific Skepticism is rooted in the falsification principle and not verification.
As sucyh what I am doing is subjecting the pro atheism "proof god does not exist/such beliefs are unreasonable" lobby to their own standards of scrutiny.

PDN

smokingman wrote: »

So without having to go through the entire thread, can someone point me at the post that proves a god exists?

Nice one, cheers!

It's right beside the post that proves He doesn't exist.

Sláinte!

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Scientific Skepticism is rooted in the falsification principle and not verification.
As sucyh what I am doing is subjecting the pro atheism "proof god does not exist/such beliefs are unreasonable" lobby to their own standards of scrutiny.

So you have come up with a way to test, in a falisibable manner, the god theory?

Didn't think so

philologos

I guess invoking a deity is less problematic than invoking multiple universes (and even in doing that it doesn't solve your problem)?

On the basis of Ockham's Razor it seems more reasonable to think that there was a designer than there is to think that there are an infinite amount of universes or that the universe created itself.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

So you have come up with a way to test, in a falisibable manner, the god theory?

Didn't think so

Then why did you ask the question.

I have by the way come to the conclusion that science is not sufficient for society. Science and logic can't derive the values necessary for society. One can then try to argue as you did "Ther is no god. There are no such values. There never were" . To that I say any society built on that philosophy not only contributed nothing to civilization but caused vast ruin and piles of corpses. Such a philosophy accepts that the abuse of children or races for example can't ultimately be classified as "wrong".

Zombrex

Newsite wrote: »

Emmm yes, I do accept that The difference, though, is that God is Sovereign. Man is not.

That isn't the issue though. The issue is do we in modern terms understand correctly the nature of God and his views of these matters (or from my point of view do we understand how the men who wrote the Bible considered God to view these things).

The modern idea is that violence and aggression etc are against the nature of God. This is based on applying modern pre-Enlightenment notions of morality back onto the Bible, rather than the other way around.

Newsite wrote: »

Not quite as neatly packaged as you would like it to be to fit in with your agenda (no offense). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone who knows well that 'thou shalt not kill' applies to all scenarios, and that war in the name of religion is still war, and is no exception.

The commandment isn't actually thou shalt not kill. It is thou shalt not murder, ie thou shall not commit unlawful immoral killing.

There are many places in the Old Testament that God instructs the Jews to kill, from instructing them to carry out genocidal war against their neighbors, to instructing them to kill "criminals" for such horrific crime of not being a virgin on your wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).

The idea that simply kill, the taking of another's life, was against God's wishes for humans is frankly ridiculous given the breath of instances where God commands that the result of some action should be death to those who committed it.

Newsite wrote: »

I've already explained about the slavery aspect, and the other thread will give more info too.

And I've already explained how your explanation is a good example of modern Christian apologetics changing the Bible in order to make it more palatable to modern audiences and modern notions of morality.

You didn't come up with the it was just a labour arrangement between Jews explanation yourself, it is found throughout the Christian blog-o-sphere and is designed as far as I can tell to reassure Christians who face this question from non-Christians that they have an explanation for all this stuff.

It takes a proper reading of the Old Testament to see that the explanation is nonsense, but then I think what is being counted upon is that most modern Christians won't give the Old Testament a proper reading, or if they do they have already decide that all of it is the world of a loving God already by the time they go near the Old Testament.

Newsite wrote: »

But if you're saying that someone who says that the Bible says that homosexual marriage is fine would be way off track, and that would be obvious to anyone looking at the Scripture objectively.

It should be obvious to anyone who looks at Scripture objectively that God has no issue with slavery and considers death a fitting punishment for a whole host of trivial crimes.

The problem with that is that it conflicts with modern notions of morality, and thus things like slavery and punishment of re-interpreted using modern sensibilities.

This is why it is so amusing to watch modern Christians proclaim that homosexuals and liberals are attempting to distort the message of the Bible in order to make it seem like being gay isn't in fact against God's wishes. Christians have been doing that for hundreds of years for crying out loud.

Newsite wrote: »

I don't know how you've arrived at that assertion. You seem to be missing the entire reason for the coming of Christ.

Christ came to prepare his followers for the soon to be upon them (Matthew 24:34) apocalypse and judgement. It is unsurprising that he is silent on issues such as slavery.

Newsite wrote: »

The position on fornication and homosexuality is crystal clear through both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The rules on slavery were for a particular point in time, instruction on how slaves should be treated in light of how they fitted in to the circumstances at the time.

There is nothing in the Bible that says the rules of slavery were for a particular point in time, any more than there is anything that says the rules for homosexuality are for a particular point in time.

Again you are changing the Bible to suit modern notions of morality.

Newsite wrote: »

'You may take her as your wife', 'you may take these as plunder for yourselves' = 'rape'? Ah come on now, even you agenda-driven atheists should know better

No, the bit that means rape is

then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

that sentence means you may have sex with her. You should be aware that words like "sex" and "intercourse" are never found in the Old Testament. For example the commandment against homosexuality is a man should not "lie" with another man as he would a woman.

If you want to play the game of saying oh well the exact word "rape" is never used you can just as easily say the exact word "homosexual", or even "sex" is never used.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't the issue though. The issue is do we in modern terms understand correctly the nature of God and his views of these matters (or from my point of view do we understand how the men who wrote the Bible considered God to view these things).

The modern idea is that violence and aggression etc are against the nature of God. This is based on applying modern pre-Enlightenment notions of morality back onto the Bible, rather than the other way around.

No, that is wrong. The modern idea (at least the Christian one, which is what this Forum is here to discuss) is that violence and aggression are not valid behaviour since the coming of Jesus Christ. That is based on applying the words of Jesus Christ onto the Bible, not the Enlightenment.

You didn't come up with the it was just a labour arrangement between Jews explanation yourself, it is found throughout the Christian blog-o-sphere and is designed as far as I can tell to reassure Christians who face this question from non-Christians that they have an explanation for all this stuff.

And what's wrong with Newsite not coming up with something by itself?

I realise that you think there is some kind of virtue in spouting off your opinions about how the Bible should be interpreted without bothering to learn something about the subject first, and then expecting others to accord the same validity as to those who spend a lifetime learning the biblical languages and immersing themselves in the historical and cultural context of the day.

Newsite took the time to find out what others have said who have studied the subject in more detail. Most reasonable people would think that was a sensible course of action to take, not a reason to deride him.

It takes a proper reading of the Old Testament to see that the explanation is nonsense,

Oh the irony! A proper reading being defined as "a reading that ignores what others that actually spend years studying the OT might have to contribute, but rather one that agrees with Zombrex".

then I think what is being counted upon is that most modern Christians won't give the Old Testament a proper reading, or if they do they have already decide that all of it is the world of a loving God already by the time they go near the Old Testament.

Christians do approach the Old Testament having already decided that God is love. That's a basic principle of Christianity (the clue is in the first syllable of the name) - that the Old testament should be read and understood in the light of the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

We get that you're an atheist and don't like it - but if you're going to attack that position then you're going to have to come up with a coherent argument for doing so rather than just soapboxing.

It should be obvious to anyone who looks at Scripture objectively that God has no issue with slavery and considers death a fitting punishment for a whole host of trivial crimes.

No. It is obvious that God permitted slavery in the past, and that the death penalty was a fitting punishment for a whole host of offences in particular historical situations, ones which by definition cannot be repeated, and which occurred thousands of years ago.

There is nothing in the Bible that says the rules of slavery were for a particular point in time, any more than there is anything that says the rules for homosexuality are for a particular point in time.

That is incorrect. The New Testament states that in Christ there is neither slave nor free. From the earliest days of Christianity this has been understood by many Christian thinkers as meaning that slavery is an unChristian institution.

The history of Christianity and slavery is a fascinating one - and well worth reading if anyone is genuinely interested in the subject rather than just seeking an axe to grind. There have always been Christians who have fought against the prevailing view of society that deemed slavery to be acceptable. The story of how they finally won out is inspiring, but also frustrating in that it took so long.

Of course it would redundant for me to point out that nowhere in the New Testament will you find a similar declaration that "In Christ there is neither homosexual or heterosexual".

No, the bit that means rape is

then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

that sentence means you may have sex with her.

Yes, a husband can have sex with his wife after he has married her. Thanks for pointing that out. :rolleyes:

However, most of us, when we have sex with our wives or husbands, see that as being slightly different from rape.

You should be aware that words like "sex" and "intercourse" are never found in the Old Testament. For example the commandment against homosexuality is a man should not "lie" with another man as he would a woman.

Oh dear, now who's getting stuff from the blogosphere instead of reading the Old Testament objectively?

Biblical Hebrew has plenty of words and phrases that are clearly meant to denote sexual intercourse. The idea that "you may be her husband and she may be your life" really means "You can rape her" - or even "you can have sex with her without being her husband and without her becoming your wife" is just too funny for words.

tommy2bad

That is incorrect. The New Testament states that in Christ there is neither slave nor free. From the earliest days of Christianity this has been understood by many Christian thinkers as meaning that slavery is an unChristian institution.

The history of Christianity and slavery is a fascinating one - and well worth reading if anyone is genuinely interested in the subject rather than just seeking an axe to grind. There have always been Christians who have fought against the prevailing view of society that deemed slavery to be acceptable. The story of how they finally won out is inspiring, but also frustrating in that it took so long.

And now were in 'no true scotsman' teritory.
Admit the truth, that Christians not only couldn't see anything wrong with slavery from reading the bible but saw justification for it.
Why is it such a big deal to admit the bible is a story of Gods relationship with people, the good bits and the bad bits? What is the need to pretend it's something that it isn't.

Soul Winner

tommy2bad wrote: »

Admit the truth, that Christians not only couldn't see anything wrong with slavery from reading the bible but saw justification for it.

It was so called Christian people who enslaved and advocated slavery, that much is granted. But those actions were not in accord with Christian values and ideals. There is nothing in the New Testament which advocates slavery as a way to live or to get a free labour work force. Granted the Teaching that was taught was taught to both free and bond. It wasn't up to Paul to forcibly free these bound people from what was the law of the land at that time. Take that up with the secular authorities of the time. But Paul never discriminated against them receiving Christian Teaching because they were slaves, that much is clear from his writings.

Had it been in the Old Testament times it might have been in accordance with the value systems that were around at that time i.e. to buy and sell slaves, but it was not in accordance with Christian doctrine. Just because something is done in the name of something else does not mean that that something else advocates those actions. How people think that this logically follows the other way around is beyond me. Actually no its not beyond me, they say things like this because they're too ignorant to know any better and too lazy to check their facts.

It was Christians who (according to their moral consciences - which said conscience had its root and nourishment in Christian ideals) set about to have slavery abolished. And the actual people who were kept in slavery also claimed to be Christian. If they had thought that it was because of Christianity that they were kept in bondage to men do you think they'd remain Christians? Some of the most devout and God loving people were kept in slavery to men and by men, and they praised God when their emancipation was decreed.

Slaves in the Old Testament who were disowned by their masters for whatever reason would eventually die because they had no means by which to live, unless they were taken in by someone else, usually as a slave. BTW a slave doesn't necessarily mean that they were treated badly or beaten every day or given lashes every time they got out of line. It was a mercy for really poor people to be taken as slaves back then, allowed to live in relative luxury compared to their alternative circumstances,given food and shelter. That's why parents would sell their kids, not only to get money for themselves but better that the kid live as a slave with someone else than to die in the inadequate care of their parents. Unfortunately we see this even today in certain parts of the world, so if you're so against slavery then prove it and adopt a child from Africa or wherever, give him/her your family name and include them in your inheritance.

But I agree that the kind of slavery employed by people in our recent past against the black people of Africa for the most part was a very grave evil form of slavery because it was totally motivated by greed and nothing of the welfare of the people brought into that slavery was ever a consideration. As a Christian I totally condemn the actions of the people (Christian or otherwise) who engaged in this activity and so would Jesus.

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

And now were in 'no true scotsman' teritory.
Admit the truth, that Christians not only couldn't see anything wrong with slavery from reading the bible but saw justification for it.

Some Christians did - just as some Christians saw the Bible as justifying holy wars, the union between Church and State, and the execution of heretics.

But sufficient numbers of Christians saw it differently. They saw the Bible as teaching a Gospel of love, creating a new equality that gave dignity to previously oppressed groups such as women and slaves. And, thankfully, those are the ones whose views won out in the end. And those are the views held (with one or two shocking exceptions) by the majority of Christians today and by the majority of posters in this Forum.

Why is it such a big deal to admit the bible is a story of Gods relationship with people, the good bits and the bad bits? What is the need to pretend it's something that it isn't.

I've no idea. You would need to ask that of somebody who is pretending the Bible is something it isn't.

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

Some Christians did - just as some Christians saw the Bible as justifying holy wars, the union between Church and State, and the execution of heretics.

But sufficient numbers of Christians saw it differently. They saw the Bible as teaching a Gospel of love, creating a new equality that gave dignity to previously oppressed groups such as women and slaves. And, thankfully, those are the ones whose views won out in the end. And those are the views held (with one or two shocking exceptions) by the majority of Christians today and by the majority of posters in this Forum.

I've no idea. You would need to ask that of somebody who is pretending the Bible is something it isn't.

Now your taking the you know what!
That would be you
Joking, but everyone has problems with bible teaching on a multitude of things. What no one will admit is 'I think we should do this and see how it works out' they all say 'the bible says we should do this' Now if we admit that the bible is a record of 'things that worked out' and 'things that seemed like a good idea at the time, quick change the subject' we could move on but insisting that bad things were good then but bad now is relativism and we claim to not like that kind of thing. See where I'm coming from?

Simtech

PDN wrote: »

Some Christians did - just as some Christians saw the Bible as justifying holy wars, the union between Church and State, and the execution of heretics.

But sufficient numbers of Christians saw it differently. They saw the Bible as teaching a Gospel of love, creating a new equality that gave dignity to previously oppressed groups such as women and slaves. And, thankfully, those are the ones whose views won out in the end. And those are the views held (with one or two shocking exceptions) by the majority of Christians today and by the majority of posters in this Forum.

I've no idea. You would need to ask that of somebody who is pretending the Bible is something it isn't.

Like someone speaking and acting so as to make it appear that the Bible is proof of the existence of their particular God. It isn't.
I have a book here that I read to my daughters however I don't hold it to prove the factual existence of Snow White.

Simtech

PDN wrote: »

I realise that you think there is some kind of virtue in spouting off your opinions about how the Bible should be interpreted without bothering to learn something about the subject first, and then expecting others to accord the same validity as to those who spend a lifetime learning the biblical languages and immersing themselves in the historical and cultural context of the day.

I'm sure Fred Phelps could say the same thing.

Simtech

philologos wrote: »

I guess invoking a deity is less problematic than invoking multiple universes (and even in doing that it doesn't solve your problem)?

On the basis of Ockham's Razor it seems more reasonable to think that there was a designer than there is to think that there are an infinite amount of universes or that the universe created itself.

Using Ockhams' Razor, it is more likely that the Universe sprang from nothing than that it sprang from a creator who sprang from nothing. I'd like to believe there is a God, the creator, (it would give me hope that I don't have) but it doesn't make rational sense in my mind. There are fewer steps to it if the Universe sprang from nothing.