I don't have time to do the whole thing right now, but I will over time. Here are the quick easy to reference ones.
I did make one mistake, it wasn't Jesus who said it, but it is in the Bible. Does that make it less valid?
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters should not show them disrespect just because they are fellow believers. Instead, they should serve them even better because their masters are dear to them as fellow believers and are devoted to the welfare of their slaves. 1 Timothy 6:1-2
I don't see anywhere in this passage the declaration, "Christians can own slaves." I see Paul urging Timothy to teach the Christians under his leadership to act as peaceful, respectful disciples of Christ no matter their circumstance. Believers in the Early Church were from widely varying walks of life. Some were slave owners, some were slaves, some were nobles, some merchants, and so on. In whatever position a believer found himself, he was to conduct himself in a manner that avoided giving any legitimate cause to unbelievers to speak ill of the Christian faith. Were Christian believers who were slaves to suddenly revolt, using their faith as justification, the ensuing public disorder would have quickly given Christians a very bad reputation. Paul, then, was not approving slavery here at all, but urging his fellow believers not to defame their faith by rebelling against their masters, to act respectfully, in peace and grace, as proper disciples of Jesus Christ.
Galatians 3:26-28
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 3:9-11
9 ...since you have put off the old man with his deeds,
10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
Here is the explicit teaching of the apostle Paul concerning slavery: In Christ there is equality. Why does Paul, then, urge his fellows believers who are slaves to remain in respectful submission to their masters? Because all Christians are called to love others with agape love. Paul explains:
1 Corinthians 13:4-8
4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;
5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;
6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away.
God's love, agape love, "does not seek its own," it "suffers long and is kind," it "bears all things" and "endures all things" because agape love is a
self-sacrificing love. In light of this, Paul commands Timothy to teach Christians who are slaves to behave respectfully toward their masters, not in tacit approval of slavery, but in order that they might love in the self-sacrificing way Christ has loved them and in so doing commend their faith to the non-believer.
Now what you're saying, I believe, is how Israelites can only be indentured servants, but people of other races can be bought and sold and inherited as property, right? I don't see how race is an okay exception to begin with, but let's look at how you get yourself a permanent Israelite slave:
If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. Exodus 21:2-6You see? All you have to do is give your Israelite indentured servant a wife, whom you can purchase, and then give her to your indentured servant. Then she and her children belong to you forever, and if you hold them hostage, you can encourage the original Hebrew servant to become your slave forever. So, here is the Bible describing how to breed Israelite slaves and to go beyond the whole "indentured servitude" argument.
Okay, well, first off any Hebrew servant marrying a woman given to him by his master would know about the restrictions involved. If he did marry, it would be knowing full well the decision he would have to make come his year of release from servitude. So, there is no unfairness in this that I can see. The marriage was not forced upon him and the restrictions upon the release of his wife and children would be no surprise. In light of these facts, it seems any servant accepting a wife from his master knew he was essentially consigning himself to servitude in perpetuity.
I wonder, too, why a servant's master would supply to him a wife? There was no obligation on the part of the master to do so. Marriage was not a compulsory thing for servants. Why, then, would such an arrangement come to pass? It seems that a wife would be supplied to the servant by his master out of sheer good will. But if this is the character of the relationship between the servant and his master, if the master was willing to take such generous steps to secure the well-being of his servant, it would be very likely that the servant would want to become his servant for life. So, rather than being manipulated or conned into remaining forever in servitude, the servant's choice to marry and remain with his master very likely arose out of his gratitude toward, and friendship with, his master. And this is suggested by what the servant declares: "I love my master..."
Thus your ugly distortion of this passage in Exodus dissolves.
Would you describe these things as objectively moral? Is there some reason that slavery of this kind or any kind needed to exist that God shouldn't have just abolished because it should be considered objectively moral that no human being should ever own another human being?
All manner of evil has been occurring on our planet almost from the first moment God put humans on it. It isn't just slavery God ought to abolish but murder, and rape, and theft, and gossip, and lying, and gluttony, and selfishness, and, well, you get the point, I'm sure. But in order to do this, God would either have to make puppets out of us all, unable to do anything but what God wanted, or He would have to destroy the lot of us and start over. Which would you prefer? Well, the decision isn't really up to you. God has promised that He will judge this world and forever abolish the wickedness of it and make a "new heaven and a new earth wherein dwells righteousness." It's just a matter of time.
And did what did they use to discover these things? Science. What would happen if they turned to religion to answer these questions? Nothing. That was the point. You pointing out that even Christians turn to science to explain things doesn't help your case. So when we talk about finding evidence of something, even Christians will turn to science to find proof, because they can't use the Bible to prove something empirically.
I mentioned Kepler, Pascal, Faraday and others to show that religious belief and science are not incompatible. And not only are they not incompatible but for many of these scientists their religious belief helped
provoke their scientific endeavours. You have moved the goalposts in your remarks above in order to slip the import of my comments. Initially, you were suggesting that science and religion were mutually exclusive, but I gave you examples of scientists for whom the reverse was true. You wrote,
"Following religion does not lead to a better understanding of the world around you."
Now, you have abandoned that line and are arguing instead about science as a tool. Well, my comments weren't to the matter of which thing - religion or science - is the better tool for investigating the material universe because that wasn't, originally the assertion you had made.
What you don't seem able to comprehend is that it was because these men were turned toward religion, at least in part, that they were the sorts of scientists that they were. You won't find the empirical method spelled out point by point in the Bible, but you will encounter in it the God who gave us the capacity to reason to the empirical method. And it was this God of reason, and rationality, and order that prompted many of the first scientists to be scientists.
Now I can't understand how anything less than the proof that rocks exist is still somehow proof. Evidence isn't proof.
I have in past posts made a clear distinction between evidence and proof. Not even scientists, however, operate totally from the standard of absolute proof. Like a homicide detective, scientists must often accumulate evidence, and interpret it, and arrive at their conclusions deductively. And as I pointed out, frequently they get things wrong and have to abandon their theories and interpretations. I don't understand why, then, you are so fanatic about having incontrovertible proof - except, perhaps, that you think such an unreasonable standard helps your anti-theistic position. But you are requiring more even than scientists require of their own investigations.
I can't say things the way that I want to out of respect, but there is not good proof. If there was good proof then everyone would believe in God. Some folks wouldn't do what they are supposed to, but everyone would know he at least exists. There is always some doubt, so there is no proof.
God's goal isn't simply to garner our belief that He exists. He wants us to love and trust Him, to obey Him, and to worship Him as He deserves to be worshiped. Clearly, He thinks the way He has approached achieving these goals is the best way to do so. You don't agree. That's okay. You just keep camping on the "where's the proof?" hill until the day you see God face-to-face. But, then, having finally the proof you always demanded, it will be far too late for you to benefit from it.
1 Peter 1:6-9
6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials,
7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ,
8 whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
9 receiving the end of your faith--the salvation of your souls.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
There
is good evidence in support of a belief in God. We have touched upon some of this evidence in our discussion. You reject it all because it is not absolute proof, but if you did this as, say, a homicide detective you would never solve a case (and you'd likely get fired in a hurry, too). I believe God exists because I see clear evidence of Him in the nature of Creation; because of the testimony of the Bible, which I believe is the inspired Word of God; because reason and logic strongly indicate that He exists; and because I interact with Him every day. My faith does not, therefore, exist blindly. I have good cause to be a believer in God and a follower of Christ. But God has so ordained it that I cannot come to Him without the exercise of faith. He values our faith very highly and is determined that any who would know Him would exercise faith in Him in the process. You can submit to Him in this - or not. God makes no apologies for insisting that we trust Him without being able to see Him. But if you refuse to do things God's way, you may end up regretting your choice for all eternity.
Can we add someone's lies in a lab? No. But we can make a judgement about how much integrity a person has based on how many times we catch them lying, and to what degree they lie. It isn't terribly accurate, but it is a measurement that I will bet you have used at some point in your life. Have you ever uttered the words, out loud or in your head, "he has no integrity". Have you ever made that judgement call about someone? If you have, you measured how much lying vs. truth telling a person has done.
But you aren't measuring integrity
itself, just the
effect of a person's integrity (or lack thereof) upon their actions. Actual integrity is not accessible to empirical evaluation because it is an immaterial thing. As I said, such things cannot be weighed or tasted, or touched but they exist nonetheless.
I wrote,
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" does not always apply in every case. If you tell me the milk is in the fridge, and I look in the fridge and see it is not there, telling me that the absence of the milk from the fridge is not evidence that it is not in the fridge would be silly. But that is what you're trying to do with the matter of the missing transitional fossils in the geologic column!
To which you responded,
Stuff gets destroyed over time. You can't compare something that should exist fresh in the here and now (milk) with some fossil, somewhere in the world, buried some depth in the ground, under some amount of rock, that happened millions of years ago and left to be destroyed in any number of other ways.
You missed my point entirely. The freshness of the milk in my analogy was not it. I used the analogy of the missing milk to point out that the statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not universally-applicable. Sometimes, the absence of a thing
is evidence of its absence. How fresh the milk was had nothing whatever to do with this point.
We find fossils quite regularly in many places around the world. Many thousands of them have been unearthed, but the
multi-millions of transitional fossils that should exist if the ToE is true have never appeared. Why? Why aren't the transitional fossils, which should absolutely saturate the geologic column, never found? We find other comparatively rare fossils, but never the myriad of transitional fossils predicted by the ToE. Why is this? Your appeal to the destruction of fossils over time is refuted by the many fossils that
are found. If they can be found, the far more abundant transitional fossils should have been encountered in massive numbers long ago.
Well, I haven't time to write more at the moment. Honestly, you have established yourself in our discussion as an entrenched denier of the Christian worldview. You clearly are not interested in Christianity as a viable alternative to your atheism but only as a position to be attacked and defeated. With such deeply-set bias provoking your responses, I see little point in responding to them. There is no man so blind as he who refuses to see.
Selah.
