Johnny Skeptic

That is not a reply to my question. When you said "the creator of the universe," you meant the God of the Bible. Since you are not infallible, you might be wrong, and the creator or the universe might be some other God. If that is the case, in your opinion, does he have to be good?

How were the Bible writers in a position to be reasonably certain that the God of the Bible exists, and that he is good?

I already did. I said:

Are you an inerrantist or not according to the definition that I stated?

Many fundamentalist Christians, including inerrantists, accuse skeptics of wanting God to act like they want him to act, and of wanting God to act like they would act if they were God. Well, inerrantists have done the same thing. Since if they were God, they would provide Christians with inerrant texts, they dreamed up inerrancy.

Inerrantists can easily imagine a God who injures and kills humans and animals with hurricanes, and forces innocent animals to kill each other, and refuses to protect women from rapists, but for some odd reason, they cannot imagine a God who would not provide Christians with inerrant texts.

If, as many Christians claim, God is not obligated to save anyone, then he certainly is not obligated to provide Christians with inerrant texts, which invites the question "Why do inerrantists believe that the Bible is inerrant?"

It is interesting to note that early American Indians got along just fine not only without inerrant Biblical texts, but without any Biblical texts at all. At the Evolution/Creation Forum, I said:

You replied:

On January 9, I started a new thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259943 the General Religious Discussions Forum and quoted what you said, and I also quoted some other invalid arguments that you made at the Evolution/Creation Forum.

Regarding "Much further back, science had us believing that the universe was eternal and only Christians believed it to have a starting point," on January 10, I started a new thread at the Evolution/Creation Forum and quoted you. You have not made any posts in that thread. It appears that skeptics have refuted your claim. Where in the world did you ever come up with an absurd claim like that? Whatever your answer in, please post it in the thread at the Evolution/Creation Forum.

If written texts are so useful, why didn't God teach Adam and Eve how to read and write, not to mention early American Indians?

Why should that make a difference? How could Palestinian Jews have properly determined what was and was not New Testament Scripture? Historically, most Jews have rejected Christianity. Such being the case, why did you mention Palestinian Jews?

But there is not sufficient historical evidence that Jesus said anywhere near everything that the New Testament says that he said.

Obviously since you were not a Christian at that time.

There is according to the Bible. In the NASB, Romans 10:17 says "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." According to that Scripture, the word of Christ is certainly evidence.

Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23

“Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.”

John 3:2

“The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.”

John 10:37-38

“If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”

John 11:43-45

"And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him."

John 20:30-31

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

Those texts show that some people would not accept Jesus based upon his words alone, and that he provided them with tangible, firsthand evidence that convinced them to accept his words. Even after the Holy Spirit supposedly came to the church, in the NIV, Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.” Considering that Jesus had performed many miracles in front of thousands of people, including many miracles that were not recorded, and had appeared to hundreds of people after he rose from the dead, and had criticized his disciples for their unbelief, and that there were thousands of surviving eyewitnesses who were still around, and that the Holy Spirit had come to the church, I find it to be quite odd that God provided even more tangible, firsthand evidence. In my opinion, this brings into question the truthfulness of the claims.

There is no reason for us to have a game of semantics over the word "convinced." Something specific attracted you to Christianity. What was it, reading the Bible, a sermon, a miracle healing, testimony from your parents, Biblical archaeology, or something else? My question is fair and reasonable. There is no reason for you to be evasive. If you asked me why I gave up fundamentalist Christianity and became an agnostic, I would not be evasive.

If a sixth grade boy asked you why you became a Christian, what would you tell him?

Do you believe that common sense, logic, and reason can be used to examine Bible claims? If so, consider the following claims:

1 - The God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth.

2 - Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

3 - Jesus was born of a virgin.

4 - Jesus never sinned.

5 - Jesus' shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind.

Obviously those claims are among the most important claims in the Bible. In your opinion, can common sense, logic, and reason be used to examine the claims, or must they be accepted entirely by faith, or rejected? As far as I know, at least most supernatural claims that Bible makes must be accepted entirely by faith, or rejected, and do not have any credible historical basis, which means that common sense, logic, and reason cannot be used to examine most supernatural claims that the Bible makes.

I am not aware of any firsthand eyewitness claims in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Are you? The book of John was probably written too late to be of value to Christians. Some Bible scholars date it between 80 A.D. - 100 A.D., and some Bible scholars date it early in the 2nd century.

Sheshbazzar

"Ammending the attrocities of modern day slavery" ???? Oh well.
First, these "latter born Gibeonites" would be unlikely to even know that they ever were Gibeonites, or decendants of Gibeonites in the first place, after suffering under five or six generations of their Hebrew slave-masters forced cattle breeding programs.
Secondly, and this is the point, "these latter born Gibeonites" were BORN into slavery, and thus never had a life before, without, or apart from that under slavery;
it being their estate from birth until death, so no such comparision of "these latter born Gibeonites" can be made.

However, in as much as the nation of Israel arose out of the indigenous Semitic population, and the scriptures make it clear that Israelites quite commonly practiced the same things as the nations that they were surrounded by, it is not much of a stretch, or much imagination, to understand that the EARLIER Gibeonites lived lives that were very similar to that of Israel, and that the people of Israel lived their lives in ways very similar to the Gibeonites, and the other peoples of the area.
(much to the chagrin of the Bible writers, their imaginary Moses figure didn't prove to be all that persuasive)
Nah Steve, I don't think you are avoiding my question, I KNOW that you are avoiding my question.
Again, the question is not at all whether these innocent children, five or more generations latter were still being made subservient slaves to Israel, by "the god of the universe", the text itself makes that fact quite clear. So yes, there indeed is and was "No question" on that subject.
But the question that I DID pose to you was;
How do you defend the rightness or the morality of the god/laws/priests that were responsible for maintaining these innocents in their condition of permanent (cradle to grave) slavery?
This question is what you have not even began to adequately address.
"Gawd commanded it, so it just -HAS to be- be moral and good"? is that the sum of your answer?

sschlichter

maybe you should do some research on the outcome of the Gibeonites.

The advancement of their life was limited until they decided to leave. They chopped wood for a living probably much the way most of them did before except now they were covered under a just law and their children would never be sacrificed to a false God, and their women would not be forced to prostitute themselves to a false God. they would rest every sabbath, and enjoy every feast, which resulted in basically a job similar in hours to 9 to 5 with weekends off.

The problem with judging whether God is just is that you just do not have all the information.

Johnny Skeptic

But there is not any historical evidence that ancient Hebrews observed the provisions.

There is nothing about the book of Leviticus that indicates that a God inspired it. May I ask why you believe that God inspired the book of Leviticus?

Johnny Skeptic

But the same goes for you too.

Consider the following from the Evolution/Creation Forum:

As I have told you before, on January 9, I started a new thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259943 at the General Religious Discussions Forum and quoted you. I replied to your arguments, and I replied to some other blunders that you made. You have shown that you are very evasive. You make statements, and then when skeptics reply to your statements with arguments that you know you will have difficulty refuting, you simply refuse to continue the discussion. You remind me of arnoldo and sugarhitman. They are evasive too, and they try to exclusively determine whose arguments get discussed. They are happy to participate in a discussion, but only until it becomes difficult for them to refutes arguments that skeptics make. I have made over 13,000 posts at the forums over the last several years, and I have come across lots of evasive fundamentalist Christians. Whenever they become evasive, I always know that I have won the debate.

The Bible is not a trustworthy source of information, and most of the supernatural claims that it makes must be accepted entirely by faith, or rejected, and most of the supernatural claims that the Bible makes cannot be reasonably verified by using history, science, common sense, logic, and reason.

You made an incredible claim that abortionists sacrifice lots of children every year. I doubt that you would be willing to discuss that issue at the General Religious Discussions Forum. If you did, you would embarrass yourself. Your claim is preposterous.

Sheshbazzar

I was aware that the Gibeonites "vassal" subjects were never actually enslaved in the sense that is laid out in Exodus 21:4 and Lev 25:45-46, yet for the sake of the argument I -allowed- for -your- introduction of them of them as -your- exemplar in post # 887. Yes, obviously I made a mistake in cutting you any slack.
Concerning "vassals" as being "slaves" in the conventional sense, quoting from Glen Miller (see post #22)
It is obvious that David was not a "slave" to King Achish in the conventional sense of the word, and most certainly was not in the sense that is indicated within Lev 25:45-46, and neither were these Gibeonites.

So, setting aside now -your- chosen exemplar, I base my question around the fate of those slaves indeed that were taken in battle and through conquest from the nations of;
Or most specifically -whomever- the wife and children of Ex 21:4 might be.
They are deemed as being permanent slaves, and as inheritable property with NO rights of liberty at all.
They had no access to "advancement of their life" and no rights to just "decide(d) to leave",
You are inventing, and making up things that are contrary to the sense of the texts.

The rest of your defense for holding them in a state perpetual slavery is contrived, and based only upon your imagination of what their lives --might- have been like had they been allowed their freedom to depart, and live lives -of their own choosing- under the laws of their own nations, worshiping their own gods, and observing their own religious holidays and festivals and customs.
Their lives may well have been immeasurably better if freed from Israelite slavery, and you have no evidence proving otherwise.
Your attempting to foist off the unsupportable idea that Israel's religious practices were in all senses superior and preferable to the practices of all other nations.
The accounts of other nations show that they likewise considered Israel's god to be the false god (nothing new, many still do)
Claiming- that your god is "the only one true god" does not constitute any evidence that the claim is true, and in this case the record, the history, and the conduct of both the Jews and the Christians give lie to the veracity of any such claim.

These other nations and religions also provided their peoples with weekly rest days and religious festivals, as they had for many thousands of years before the Bible writers plagiarised their writings and customs to fabricate the mythological Israeli/Jewish national history, with its load of blatant lies.
Liars, thieves, bandits, and brigands, they never were in Egyptian slavery, all evidence points to them arising out of the native Canaanite populations, the Bible's "history" of them is nothing but distortions, fabrications, and plagiarisms.

I have NO problem with judging whether the "god" of these reprobates is just, or moral, the record shows his injustice, partiality, deviousness, and bloodthirsty unsavory character; Just like that of the men who fabricated him -in their own image and after their own likeness.

There may well be an Eternal, a just, and loving God, but if there is, the one thing that is absolutely certain, is that He (or She) is most definately NOT that fabricated abomination that is laid out within the Hebrew/Christian books.
If that -thing- is the only "god", one might well be better off worshipping rocks, fire, an idol of Moloch, or even a dog; all of which would prove less harmful to mankind that that fraudulent Jew god and religion that you and your ilk have long labored to foist off upon us through institutionalised deceit and murder.

Now, again, how about addressing the rightness and the morality of your god making laws that legalized the holding of totally innocent children in captivity to life-long cradle to grave slavery? that is, the ones that he didn't have his special Israeli "buddies" slaughter, run through with swords, or bash against the rocks.

sschlichter

[QUOTE=Johnny Skeptic;5744887]Are you an inerrantist or not according to the definition that I stated?

Your definition does not define inerrancy?

I beleive the Bible to be inerrant, yes. Your friends in the flood thread things that means there is a gate in the sky that when opened causes rain. If you are defining inerrancy incorrectly, then I am not an inerrantist.

I am also in a thread about slavery.


Can you please define got along fine. As far as I know most American Indians have either died or are in the process of dying along with the rest of us. How is this fine?


You are confused on the Apocyphal books included in the Catholic bible. They are not from the New Testament time at all.


ok, good.

Do you beleive I exist? just answer me and we will talk about the role of faith and reason.

sschlichter

I can't answer your question because you are incapable of asking it without loading it with misconceptions. it is interesting that you see death as relevant from God's perspective. If someone is going to worship other God's all his life and God lets him have 50 years to do so, what is more moral about that.

You said there may be a loving God? Why would you say that if you think death is something that is immoral for God. People including children die all the time. How could you say that it is not immoral for God to allow the death of children as long as he is not the God of the Bible. Tell me the difference between God allowing a death (though he is capable of stopping it) and God causing a death.

You also said there may be a just God, yet injustice occurs all the time. How can that be?

sschlichter

This is exactly the issue. he was a slave in the sense of the word that it matters. It is your conventional sense that is incorrect. It is only your inability to understand that slavery was a very different institution from what you seem to be able to conceive. David was subservient. That is the meaning. There are few laws on abuses of slaves because the notion of abusing slaves is foreign. You were a slave to a King becuase you were sworn to do whatever the King told you to do.

Johnny Skeptic

Yes.

I just answered you. Would you like to discuss faith and reason in a new thread that I could start at the General Religious Discussions Forum? I assume that you wouldn't because you are not confident enough of your arguments. If that is the case, that is fine since there are always some Christians who are confident enough about their beliefs to discuss them. If you do want to discuss faith and reason at the General Religious Discussions Forum, I would like to discuss inerrancy and some other issues with you as well.

You will never get anywhere in this thread because you are not able to provide reasonable proof that ancient Hebrews treated slaves well. At best, all that you will be able to accomplish in this thread is to reasonably defend the texts, which of course does not reasonably prove how ancient Hebrews actually acted.