Jump to content


Photo

Thought-Provoking Article On The Origin Of Life


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#81 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 218 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 29 December 2017 - 01:00 AM

i keep raising this issue, but i haven't been able to get any kind of rational answer.
where, and what is the nature of, this pervading intelligence?
 
i absolutely refuse to believe that a loving, benevolent, all powerful, god would allow all of the nonsense that goes on.
we all would be living the good life, no worries, strife, grief, pain, all our needs met.
 
adam and eve sinned, so punish me for it, is this gods idea of justice?
 
don't get me wrong, i've wrangled with the question of god my entire life.
i have no answers, and all i can do is sit here shaking my head saying "something ain't quit right".


I have to agree with Calypsis4, why blame God for choices people make? From a more philosophical point of view, even if I do understand your struggle with these issues, the problem of suffering and evil has several shapes.

We have the logical problem. Most philosophers today mean that this has once and for all been solved by Alvin Plantinga. Here is a video regarding this part of the problem:

https://www.youtube....h?v=k64YJYBUFLM

We have the probability version of this argument against God, but it also fails. Which the following video tries to explain:

https://www.youtube....h?v=cxj8ag8Ntd4

And what remains is the emotional problem of evil. But then we get into objective morality discussion and that is usually one of the better arguments for God existence rather than the other way around. Or more formally:

  • If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
  • Objective moral values and duties do exist.
  • Therefore, God exists.

There is a video about this as well :-)
https://www.youtube....h?v=OxiAikEk2vU



#82 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 December 2017 - 10:27 AM

Not sure I'm reading this right: You're not for that type of abortion because it's like being on fire and being burned alive is one of the cruelest ways to die? Why should you care when it's the mother's choice? 

 

I might be recalling incorrectly, but very, very few abortions absolutely need to be performed to save the mother. That's just a scare tactic.

 

All the examples Blitz used were late term abortions when the fetus could probably perceive pain, and that's why I commented the way I did.

 

Almost all doctors in the modern world will NOT perform a late term abortion unless there is a serious medical concern for the mother's safety. You are correct that most abortions are not done for the health of the mother, but when Blitz only brings up late term abortions it seems appropriate to mention that.

 

Second issue: Do you honestly believe wife being listed second is an issue? If I list a series of Do Nots, and one is listed second, or third, or fourth, are they not all followed by DO NOT. Are you really seriously arguing that? DO NOT X, Y Z. Don't do all them. It's all bad. Doesn't matter which one you choose not to. Also, not sure if you're familiar with the concept of love and/or marriage, but that's much, much, much stronger then love over a silly house. You've been reading too much Annotated Skeptic's Bible, haven't you? 

The commandment's bottom line is DO NOT COVET. It implies to moth men and women. Have you studied Hebrew/Jewish culture? You have to look at their culture and that commandment applied to both husbands and wives.

 

Third issue: 

Many interpret that 'shut up and sit down' portion as pertaining to the certain community the letter was written to.

 

The point is not about coveting or the implicit implications of women coveting husbands, but using the text to demonstrate how women were perceived and treated. The list is obviously in order from greatest possession to least possession if you think about it, and they explicitly include both genders when talking about slaves/servants, but only mention wives and not husbands. That a man's house is considered a greater possession than his wife is not my idea or a reflection of my values, it's the Bibles idea.

 

I've heard that about the 'sit down and shut up' part too.

 

Fourth issue:

Again, the Law was made for an imperfect people. Just because an item occurs in the Law doesn't mean that God approves it. See divorce. The Bible did say that if you kill your slave (indentured servant), you should be killed. If you don't, then jokes on you because now you can't make money.' Actually, the NT did say it was morally wrong: 'turn your own cheek, not eye-for-eye.' Jesus was a servant to the poor financially and poor spiritually, and Paul called for us to be slaves (that we may one day become heirs - for we are like indentured servants now) as well to one another and God. 

 

(If you want to just copy and paste the Skeptics Annotated Bible, just go ahead and do that, might save you some typing :) )

 

The difference between slavery and divorce in the Bible is that the Bible does condemn divorce, unless under specific circumstances, but the Bible does not condemn the practice of slavery as an institution. The best you get is that the Hebrews are not supposed to enslave their own people, and that is the only restriction on slavery apart from not killing your slave or permanently injuring them to the degree of taking out their eye and so on. God even tells the Hebrews to get slaves on the slave market and take them as spoils of war from your surrounding neighbors.

 

They are not indentured servants, but slaves. There are two practices of "slavery", one can be likened to indentured servitude, and this was restricted to fellow Hebrews, for fellow Hebrews were not allowed to be enslaved. The other was for non-Hebrews and this was slavery in full regard: harsh physical labor, kept for life, any offspring kept for life, viewed as property, and could be beaten so long as you don't kill them or take out their eye and so forth.

 

The NT never condemns slavery despite talking about slavery, and even tells slaves to obey their masters and be good slaves no matter how harsh their slave master is. You are equivocating human slavery with the metaphor of being slaves to sin or God.

 

This doesn't come from the Skeptic's Bible; I almost never use it and any passage that comes from there I check it out with more neutral sources. The interesting insight on the 10 commandments and women came from a retired minister from the progressive wing of Christendom. As for slavery the Bible itself is a good starting point.

 

Anyways, this is a lot. We are jumping from topic to topic to topic to topic all in one post. Many of these could have their own 5 page threads. I'll be honest: this does make it hard to discuss because it can be so overwhelming.

I am used to jumping around topics so it doesn't bother me. If it is easier you can only respond to topics you want to; I won't get offended or view silence as meaning you don't have a good response. We all have lives outside the forum, and sometimes we don't have the time or it is just too taxing to answer everything. I've been busy myself over the holidays.



#83 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 December 2017 - 03:32 PM

Concerning Goku's response;

 

Quote: The difference between slavery and divorce in the Bible is that the Bible does condemn divorce, unless under specific circumstances, but the Bible does not condemn the practice of slavery as an institution. The best you get is that the Hebrews are not supposed to enslave their own people, and that is the only restriction on slavery apart from not killing your slave or permanently injuring them to the degree of taking out their eye and so on. God even tells the Hebrews to get slaves on the slave market and take them as spoils of war from your surrounding neighbors.

 

They are not indentured servants, but slaves. There are two practices of "slavery", one can be likened to indentured servitude, and this was restricted to fellow Hebrews, for fellow Hebrews were not allowed to be enslaved. The other was for non-Hebrews and this was slavery in full regard: harsh physical labor, kept for life, any offspring kept for life, viewed as property, and could be beaten so long as you don't kill them or take out their eye and so forth.

 

Quite truthfully, he is lying. Notice that he did not quote the scriptures on this. That's because he cannot prove his point from the Bible. He thinks his rules and sense of good vs evil is greater than God's and God must bown to Guko in order to be acceptable to him. What incredible arrogance. These things have been answered more than once on this website but proud Goku doesn't care. 

 

Here is the law of God for the Hebrew servants, taken in for only six years by the master, as often as not because they could not take care of themselves. It was meant as a kindness by the Lord and they were not to be treated harshly:

 

If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing(Gasp! Oh, how horrible!)

If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

 

Why is this horrible? Just because Goku & those of the same persuasion say so? I don't buy it. Yet, human slavery was an invention of man and not by God. God did not compel men to put other men into chains and He did not do so for Hebrew slavery. On a higher level of thinking, the Lord allowed human slavery (of the pagans especially) as a type of the slavery of sinners to sin. There are many kinds of slavery in our world today: drugs, booze, prostitution, gambling addiction, debt, etc. But modern man loves those addictions and most will go to the grave with those unconquered problems. Jesus came to saved sinners from their sins(addictions) and if they come to put their trust in him He will be saved  and given the power to become children of God. Free men. In the end of the world God will eliminate slavery of all kinds. 

Going further:

 

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

 

This care and concern for such people is the love of God for those who cannot care for themselves. But the Goku's of the world see nothing but evil in it. I say that the ancient Hebrew servants had it better than modern homeless people who live without a roof over their heads & in the cold every night and are addicted to many of the same addictions I named above. Since our city streets are now governed by modern 'progressive' evolutionary thought then our society is reaping the consquences of such neo-Darwinian thinking. It is a seemingly unsolvable problem for any society that has been infected by that 'progressive' ideology. Downright evil and uncaring. In none of this do I believe in slavery. I wish it all come to an end in our world soon. 

 

Concerning foreign 'slaves':  

 

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.(Exodus 21:20)

And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth: he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. (Ex. 21:26-27).

 

Cruelty for slaves was forbidden. Goku lied about these things. The slaves were not to be beaten, chained, whipped, or starved. They could bring lawsuit against their masters for freedom if these things happened to them. 

 

One more:

 

 Deuteronomy 23:15-16

15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

 

That last statement exposes Goku's lie.He attacks God's Word because he is trying to justify his rebellion against the Lord. There will, however, be no justification for impenitent sinners.



#84 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 December 2017 - 04:42 PM

 

Exodus 21: 

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

 

Calypsis, to be honest I think the highlighted parts of those verses above are the problems people have. 

 

My question would be (just playing the advocate) since in all honesty I struggle to understand these verses...

 

All I know is that I would hate to be owned, or to be beaten to a pulp but because I recover the master over me gets to go free to do it again.

 

Now I myself am not magnifying my opinion but what I don't understand is where it says the slave is freed for the sake of the tooth or the sake of the eye. I know that means the sake of the master's tooth or eye. IOW, it's saying if he doesn't let the slave go free he should lose what the slave lost, but a just measure then would be that if the slave's life was lost the master's would be lost, but it just vaguely says that the master must, "be punished" if the slave dies.

 

One thought that comes to mind is that the logic seems clear, if the master causes an eye to be lost, and loses his own eye, or a tooth and loses his own tooth, is he only to be punished if he beats someone to death? The correct justice if it is an eye for an eye, is that it would be a life for a life, but it's as though they just wrote "be punished" because they didn't want that to happen to the ones in charge. (in other words, it sounds more like something sinful men would create as a rule)

 

 It just seems the writer is favouring the master, as though the writer of Exodus wants the master to be a more important human being with better rights. You can almost see where he stopped short and just placed in there, "surely will be punished" if he murders the slave instead of, "he will be stoned to death", as though he wouldn't be put to death because a salve is just his property, to the writer's (primitive) mind?

 

Punished for beating someone to death? What was that then? The correct punishment is death. It is very dis-satisfying to the conscience, I searched for the correct justice but it seems the masters are treated differently, and can't be put to death if they murder their slave.

 

All I really have to say Lord, is that I am glad, very, very glad, I was born in 1981 where some arrogant, aggressive, violent thug doesn't get to murder me because some rules say he is worth more than me. Just imagine if someone could buy your humble narrator because he had more cash in his wallet than I do, my lad! What a crazy time to live in! Perhaps God just let them get on with it and make do so they could have some sort of primitive system in the wilderness. I guess we'll never know for sure, this side of things. It's very confusing. I wish I did have a black-and-white nuggin, but my mikey brain can't accept fallacy catastrophes on steroids. ;)


  • Calypsis4 likes this

#85 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 December 2017 - 06:39 PM

 

 

Exodus 21: 

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

 

Calypsis, to be honest I think the highlighted parts of those verses above are the problems people have. 

 

My question would be (just playing the advocate) since in all honesty I struggle to understand these verses...

 

All I know is that I would hate to be owned, or to be beaten to a pulp but because I recover the master over me gets to go free to do it again.

 

Now I myself am not magnifying my opinion but what I don't understand is where it says the slave is freed for the sake of the tooth or the sake of the eye. I know that means the sake of the master's tooth or eye. IOW, it's saying if he doesn't let the slave go free he should lose what the slave lost, but a just measure then would be that if the slave's life was lost the master's would be lost, but it just vaguely says that the master must, "be punished" if the slave dies.

 

One thought that comes to mind is that the logic seems clear, if the master causes an eye to be lost, and loses his own eye, or a tooth and loses his own tooth, is he only to be punished if he beats someone to death? The correct justice if it is an eye for an eye, is that it would be a life for a life, but it's as though they just wrote "be punished" because they didn't want that to happen to the ones in charge. (in other words, it sounds more like something sinful men would create as a rule)

 

 It just seems the writer is favouring the master, as though the writer of Exodus wants the master to be a more important human being with better rights. You can almost see where he stopped short and just placed in there, "surely will be punished" if he murders the slave instead of, "he will be stoned to death", as though he wouldn't be put to death because a salve is just his property, to the writer's (primitive) mind?

 

Punished for beating someone to death? What was that then? The correct punishment is death. It is very dis-satisfying to the conscience, I searched for the correct justice but it seems the masters are treated differently, and can't be put to death if they murder their slave.

 

All I really have to say Lord, is that I am glad, very, very glad, I was born in 1981 where some arrogant, aggressive, violent thug doesn't get to murder me because some rules say he is worth more than me. Just imagine if someone could buy your humble narrator because he had more cash in his wallet than I do, my lad! What a crazy time to live in! Perhaps God just let them get on with it and make do so they could have some sort of primitive system in the wilderness. I guess we'll never know for sure, this side of things. It's very confusing. I wish I did have a black-and-white nuggin, but my mikey brain can't accept fallacy catastrophes on steroids. ;)

 

 

Hi, old friend. Can't stay long for I have a meeting shortly. 

 

I think you missed the point of the matter. But perhaps I can answer you tomorrow. 

 

Until then, God bless you brother.



#86 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 December 2017 - 08:49 PM

Concerning Goku's response;

 

Quote: The difference between slavery and divorce in the Bible is that the Bible does condemn divorce, unless under specific circumstances, but the Bible does not condemn the practice of slavery as an institution. The best you get is that the Hebrews are not supposed to enslave their own people, and that is the only restriction on slavery apart from not killing your slave or permanently injuring them to the degree of taking out their eye and so on. God even tells the Hebrews to get slaves on the slave market and take them as spoils of war from your surrounding neighbors.

 

They are not indentured servants, but slaves. There are two practices of "slavery", one can be likened to indentured servitude, and this was restricted to fellow Hebrews, for fellow Hebrews were not allowed to be enslaved. The other was for non-Hebrews and this was slavery in full regard: harsh physical labor, kept for life, any offspring kept for life, viewed as property, and could be beaten so long as you don't kill them or take out their eye and so forth.

 

Quite truthfully, he is lying. Notice that he did not quote the scriptures on this. That's because he cannot prove his point from the Bible. He thinks his rules and sense of good vs evil is greater than God's and God must bown to Guko in order to be acceptable to him. What incredible arrogance. These things have been answered more than once on this website but proud Goku doesn't care. 

 

Here is the law of God for the Hebrew servants, taken in for only six years by the master, as often as not because they could not take care of themselves. It was meant as a kindness by the Lord and they were not to be treated harshly:

 

If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing(Gasp! Oh, how horrible!)

If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

 

Why is this horrible? Just because Goku & those of the same persuasion say so? I don't buy it. Yet, human slavery was an invention of man and not by God. God did not compel men to put other men into chains and He did not do so for Hebrew slavery. On a higher level of thinking, the Lord allowed human slavery (of the pagans especially) as a type of the slavery of sinners to sin. There are many kinds of slavery in our world today: drugs, booze, prostitution, gambling addiction, debt, etc. But modern man loves those addictions and most will go to the grave with those unconquered problems. Jesus came to saved sinners from their sins(addictions) and if they come to put their trust in him He will be saved  and given the power to become children of God. Free men. In the end of the world God will eliminate slavery of all kinds. 

Going further:

 

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

 

This care and concern for such people is the love of God for those who cannot care for themselves. But the Goku's of the world see nothing but evil in it. I say that the ancient Hebrew servants had it better than modern homeless people who live without a roof over their heads & in the cold every night and are addicted to many of the same addictions I named above. Since our city streets are now governed by modern 'progressive' evolutionary thought then our society is reaping the consquences of such neo-Darwinian thinking. It is a seemingly unsolvable problem for any society that has been infected by that 'progressive' ideology. Downright evil and uncaring. In none of this do I believe in slavery. I wish it all come to an end in our world soon.

 

 

 

As I said in the very passage you quoted of me, there are two types of slaveries, and the one type for fellow Hebrews can be likened to indentured servitude. The passages you quoted affirm what I said. I didn't go into all the details for brevity's sake.

 

I'm not sure if I mentioned it in this thread, but I know I mentioned it previously on this forum: I don't have a problem with the basic concept of indentured servitude for fellow Hebrews as it was practiced. It was, in essence, a social safety net for the poor or those who had fallen on hard times. If something happened and you had no home or food you could 'sell' yourself to another Hebrew family and become their servant for seven years. During your 'employment' you were to be treated as a member of the family, and were not supposed to be given harsh physical labor. After seven years you were to be released, and IIRC you were also given a little 'cash' to help jump-start your new life.

 

This is a perfectly justified system for the ancient world and I don't have a problem with it. When I condemn the slavery in the Bible I am condemning the other type of slavery that was done on foreigners, and that is aptly called slavery.

 

 

 

Concerning foreign 'slaves':  

 

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.(Exodus 21:20)

And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth: he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. (Ex. 21:26-27).

 

Cruelty for slaves was forbidden. Goku lied about these things. The slaves were not to be beaten, chained, whipped, or starved. They could bring lawsuit against their masters for freedom if these things happened to them. 

 

One more:

 

 Deuteronomy 23:15-16

15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

 

That last statement exposes Goku's lie.He attacks God's Word because he is trying to justify his rebellion against the Lord. There will, however, be no justification for impenitent sinners.

 

 

I also explicitly said they were not allowed to kill, harm them to where they cannot get up after a day or two (Bible quote given to us by Mike), or to the point of knocking out their eye or something like it. On the contrary your passages explicitly support what I said, not contradicted what I said.

 

As for owning foreign slaves for life, here is Leviticus 25:44-46

 

“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

As for Deuteronomy 23:15-16, that passage is about slaves from foreign lands that have escaped to Israel; they were never slaves owned by Hebrews nor were ever slaves in the land of Israel. The "thou shalt not oppress him" has nothing to do with slavery in ancient Israel.

 

The point I was making on the slavery issue is that I find it immoral to own another person for life as property where you can physically harm them to the point where they cannot get up until a few days later. And that is the type of slavery found in the Bible for non-Hebrews. I have other issues with Biblical morality, but slavery is a big one.



#87 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 December 2017 - 04:00 AM

Cal, don't worry too much about the ramblings of an individualist hobbit. ;) When it boils down to it, my choice is to trust God, despite my misgivings, mostly I just put these issues in the, "I don't understand" box in my head.

 

So don't worry about it friend, my mind is like a leaky tap. :D



#88 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 30 December 2017 - 08:59 AM

 

 

 

I am not going to debate you on this issue or any other issue but I won't hesitate to point out to my comrades deliberate lies like you displayed in your little diatribe against God in Moses law. 

 

Your statement: "The other was for non-Hebrews and this was slavery in full regard: harsh physical labor, kept for life, any offspring kept for life, viewed as property, and could be beaten so long as you don't kill them or take out their eye and so forth" was the biggest lie you told. That 'harsh labor' was really nothing different than what the average free Hebrew did themselves daily in a largely agrarian society. Actually the 'slaves' had it better than the gleaners who were forced by circumstances (not masters) to go into the fields and glean wheat and barley from the corners of the fields (left over by God's command...you see He cared for the widows also). If the 'slaves' were beaten the masters were punished. The 'slaves' could sue their masters for freedom or if they loved their master or wished to stay with him for the rest of their lives they could do so.

 

When I condemn the slavery in the Bible I am condemning the other type of slavery that was done on foreigners, 

 

It doesn't matter to me what you think. You are not the arbiter of truth and you are not God. And...you can never rightfully condemn God for giving His law to Israel for the regulation & control of men who were defeated as enemies in war. Those are the 'slaves' you are referring to whether you believe it or not. Israel never sent ships across the Mediterranean like America and England did in bringing slaves into captivity. The Hebrews didn't go slave hunting but they weren't about to let those enemies who had been defeated in battle get the upper hand on their society by giving them citizen status...a status which would endanger the nation   a la, in like manner how Europe is now being overrun by radical Islamics who demand sharia law. Europe is in utter chaos over this matter.

 

I am not at all surprised at your attitude in this matter, however. In light of the way you treated my expose' on the supernatural and provided both public and privately observed supernatural phenomena a few years ago it is not unexpected from you. I couldn't have done better in my documentation and in personal experience in seeing both God and devils do things that are naturally impossible without gimmicks or even a viable, rational explanation as to how those things were done without supernatural cause. You've shut down your mind deliberately to the truth and quite honestly, you just don't care. But you will care a lot when you stand before God and answer for your sins.

 

I am glad to see that none of my brother creationists believe you. How much time have you (& like you piasan) wasted telling lies and furthermore, actually believing those lies which fly directly against God's Word & in the laws of science also. You will answer to the Lord for it in the end of things...unless you repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ before you die.

 

Don't bother with a reply because I am stepping back out of EFF for now. Perhaps you can find other ways to waste your time.


  • Blitzking likes this

#89 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,283 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 30 December 2017 - 01:26 PM

 
Exodus 21: [/size]
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

 
Calypsis, to be honest I think the highlighted parts of those verses above are the problems people have. 
 
My question would be (just playing the advocate) since in all honesty I struggle to understand these verses...
 
All I know is that I would hate to be owned, or to be beaten to a pulp but because I recover the master over me gets to go free to do it again.
 
Now I myself am not magnifying my opinion but what I don't understand is where it says the slave is freed for the sake of the tooth or the sake of the eye. I know that means the sake of the master's tooth or eye. IOW, it's saying if he doesn't let the slave go free he should lose what the slave lost, but a just measure then would be that if the slave's life was lost the master's would be lost, but it just vaguely says that the master must, "be punished" if the slave dies.
 
One thought that comes to mind is that the logic seems clear, if the master causes an eye to be lost, and loses his own eye, or a tooth and loses his own tooth, is he only to be punished if he beats someone to death? The correct justice if it is an eye for an eye, is that it would be a life for a life, but it's as though they just wrote "be punished" because they didn't want that to happen to the ones in charge. (in other words, it sounds more like something sinful men would create as a rule)
 
 It just seems the writer is favouring the master, as though the writer of Exodus wants the master to be a more important human being with better rights. You can almost see where he stopped short and just placed in there, "surely will be punished" if he murders the slave instead of, "he will be stoned to death", as though he wouldn't be put to death because a salve is just his property, to the writer's (primitive) mind?
 
Punished for beating someone to death? What was that then? The correct punishment is death. It is very dis-satisfying to the conscience, I searched for the correct justice but it seems the masters are treated differently, and can't be put to death if they murder their slave.
 
All I really have to say Lord, is that I am glad, very, very glad, I was born in 1981 where some arrogant, aggressive, violent thug doesn't get to murder me because some rules say he is worth more than me. Just imagine if someone could buy your humble narrator because he had more cash in his wallet than I do, my lad! What a crazy time to live in! Perhaps God just let them get on with it and make do so they could have some sort of primitive system in the wilderness. I guess we'll never know for sure, this side of things. It's very confusing. I wish I did have a black-and-white nuggin, but my mikey brain can't accept fallacy catastrophes on steroids. ;)


"All I really have to say Lord, is that I am glad, very, very glad, I was born in 1981 where some arrogant, aggressive, violent thug doesn't get to murder me because some rules say he is worth more than me."

Yes, you and I were lucky to be born into Judeo Christian societies AFTER Jesus came and bestowed his authority and influence on the world.. The New Covenant with the Beatitudes and Mandates of Christ makes slavery a sin and every slave owner since the year 30 will be held accountable for his wickedness as God says we sow what we reap..

Thankfully Christians who followed Jesus in spirit and in truth and not just their own carnal greed like William Wilberforce and many others extinguished the plague of Slavery from the Western World... How long will it take until the Abomination of Abortion is extinguished as well.. ??
  • Calypsis4 and mike the wiz like this

#90 nmp9463

nmp9463

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Grand Rapids, MI

Posted 30 December 2017 - 10:52 PM

I appreciate the help y'all are giving me. Whenever I try posting this stuff on other boards, it's only me against 50 and I get so overwhelmed! 

 

 

Not sure I'm reading this right: You're not for that type of abortion because it's like being on fire and being burned alive is one of the cruelest ways to die? Why should you care when it's the mother's choice? 

 

I might be recalling incorrectly, but very, very few abortions absolutely need to be performed to save the mother. That's just a scare tactic.

 

All the examples Blitz used were late term abortions when the fetus could probably perceive pain, and that's why I commented the way I did.

 

Almost all doctors in the modern world will NOT perform a late term abortion unless there is a serious medical concern for the mother's safety. You are correct that most abortions are not done for the health of the mother, but when Blitz only brings up late term abortions it seems appropriate to mention that.

 

Second issue: Do you honestly believe wife being listed second is an issue? If I list a series of Do Nots, and one is listed second, or third, or fourth, are they not all followed by DO NOT. Are you really seriously arguing that? DO NOT X, Y Z. Don't do all them. It's all bad. Doesn't matter which one you choose not to. Also, not sure if you're familiar with the concept of love and/or marriage, but that's much, much, much stronger then love over a silly house. You've been reading too much Annotated Skeptic's Bible, haven't you? 

The commandment's bottom line is DO NOT COVET. It implies to moth men and women. Have you studied Hebrew/Jewish culture? You have to look at their culture and that commandment applied to both husbands and wives.

 

Third issue: 

Many interpret that 'shut up and sit down' portion as pertaining to the certain community the letter was written to.

 

The point is not about coveting or the implicit implications of women coveting husbands, but using the text to demonstrate how women were perceived and treated. The list is obviously in order from greatest possession to least possession if you think about it, and they explicitly include both genders when talking about slaves/servants, but only mention wives and not husbands. That a man's house is considered a greater possession than his wife is not my idea or a reflection of my values, it's the Bibles idea.

 

I've heard that about the 'sit down and shut up' part too.

 

Fourth issue:

Again, the Law was made for an imperfect people. Just because an item occurs in the Law doesn't mean that God approves it. See divorce. The Bible did say that if you kill your slave (indentured servant), you should be killed. If you don't, then jokes on you because now you can't make money.' Actually, the NT did say it was morally wrong: 'turn your own cheek, not eye-for-eye.' Jesus was a servant to the poor financially and poor spiritually, and Paul called for us to be slaves (that we may one day become heirs - for we are like indentured servants now) as well to one another and God. 

 

(If you want to just copy and paste the Skeptics Annotated Bible, just go ahead and do that, might save you some typing :) )

 

The difference between slavery and divorce in the Bible is that the Bible does condemn divorce, unless under specific circumstances, but the Bible does not condemn the practice of slavery as an institution. The best you get is that the Hebrews are not supposed to enslave their own people, and that is the only restriction on slavery apart from not killing your slave or permanently injuring them to the degree of taking out their eye and so on. God even tells the Hebrews to get slaves on the slave market and take them as spoils of war from your surrounding neighbors.

 

They are not indentured servants, but slaves. There are two practices of "slavery", one can be likened to indentured servitude, and this was restricted to fellow Hebrews, for fellow Hebrews were not allowed to be enslaved. The other was for non-Hebrews and this was slavery in full regard: harsh physical labor, kept for life, any offspring kept for life, viewed as property, and could be beaten so long as you don't kill them or take out their eye and so forth.

 

The NT never condemns slavery despite talking about slavery, and even tells slaves to obey their masters and be good slaves no matter how harsh their slave master is. You are equivocating human slavery with the metaphor of being slaves to sin or God.

 

This doesn't come from the Skeptic's Bible; I almost never use it and any passage that comes from there I check it out with more neutral sources. The interesting insight on the 10 commandments and women came from a retired minister from the progressive wing of Christendom. As for slavery the Bible itself is a good starting point.

 

Anyways, this is a lot. We are jumping from topic to topic to topic to topic all in one post. Many of these could have their own 5 page threads. I'll be honest: this does make it hard to discuss because it can be so overwhelming.

I am used to jumping around topics so it doesn't bother me. If it is easier you can only respond to topics you want to; I won't get offended or view silence as meaning you don't have a good response. We all have lives outside the forum, and sometimes we don't have the time or it is just too taxing to answer everything. I've been busy myself over the holidays.

 

Thank you for understanding. It's very common for 10 topics to become 15, 15 become 20, 20 become 30 etc.

 

I guess the one thing I wanted to add that is that the NT also commands masters to treat their slaves fairly. A lot of us have a very corrupt understanding of slavery where the master just beats the slaves all the time and bosses them around 24/7. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users