Is Slavery Moral?

[Sanoy]

.

I just wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your posts. I really like how seriously you take ones thinking, going back to it's bare bones and presuppositions. It's a fascinating read, and I suspect a lot of it is your own thinking. Very interesting stuff and I thank you for it.

(∆ I mean this sincerely. Given the polemical nature of this section I feel I have to put that in there)

 

[cvanwey]

I appreciate the civility. We are having an online discussion, so I wouldn't likely be insulted even if you did it with an insult in mind. But civility is always refreshing in this context, so I appreciate it.

I think before you get too carried away with logical fallacies, we should talk about a couple of things:

1) Logic is not a study of fallacies and how to identify these. It's very typical to see when someone who never studies formal logic, or has discovered a few informal fallacies begins throwing these around as some kind of "foul" that supposed to suspend the argument.

2) Virtually all of the fallacies ever invoked in this context are informal fallacies. What you need to understand about those is that claim of informal fallacies is a kind of "reasoning by analogy". These amount to a claim that an argument is defective because it resembles in some paradigm case of a defective argument. These can be helpful and persuasive, but the reality is far more nuanced than reasoning by analogy can tackle.

The reason why I don't invoke informal fallacies in my arguments, is because I perceive it as sign of intellectual laziness. Some people erroneously think that they can shut down an argument crying "foul" without need to demonstrate why and how they see this claim of fallacy is applicable in this context.

So, Can you do me a favor? Next time when you are tempted to pull out the "fallacy card" ... can you instead tell me why you think my reasoning is false. It would be much easier discussion to have.



What you wrote above would be a very good example of of misapplying informal fallacies with claim that these invalidate or applicable to the argument.

I'm not claiming here that because we don't know therefore God

I'm claiming that our reality is void of objective meaning unless we presuppose God. These are two different claims.



Ok, I'll explain, because you are clearly unaware of the issue.

Mathematics, law, and Biblical theology can all argue in context of "proof" via clearly-defined presupposition framework.

In science, for example, there are no appeals to logical proofs, because science doesn't work via true/false binary means:

See here.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”




I don't reject that humans exist. I'm not sure where you are getting this from. I presuppose that God exists as a necessary precondition for objective meaning.



Which fallacies would these be?

Again, Can you do me a favor? Without saying or naming these fallacies ... tell me why my reasoning is false. It would be much easier discussion to have.



No. You don't understand the claim, and you keep implying that informal fallacies are absolute .

Reason of itself is a circular concept, because you would need to validate reason as a concept before you can assume that something is reasonable. And what would you use to do that other than reason? It's circular, but it doesn't mean it's invalid.

I'm not saying reason therefore God. I'm saying... "God, therefore reason", in context of examining presupposition models.

To help you out... I'll reword it as:

1) IF we assume that God exists... THEN our model assumes that objective meaning exists in reality
2) IF we assume that God doesn't exist ... THEN our model assumes that there is no objective meaning

I'm not claiming here just because reason and meaning exists, then God must exist. I'm saying that given two presuppositions above, we build two different models of reality, to which #1 is a better fit for my worldview, because it justifies me acting in a way that presupposes that there is objective meaning in reality.

If I take on #2 model, it means that I presuppose that there is no objective meaning, and reality is arbitrary, and I'm not saying it alone. It's actual conclusion that naturally follow that model.

Hence, in such reality... all meaning would be subjective.

I totally get what you are saying. Rather than provide very long response, in which most won't read, I'll make it very simple...

If logic is not absolute, and virtually all reasoning is flawed or circular, then how were you able to discern that your specific God as the conclusion?

 

[cvanwey]

I just wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your posts. I really like how seriously you take ones thinking, going back to it's bare bones and presuppositions. It's a fascinating read, and I suspect a lot of it is your own thinking. Very interesting stuff and I thank you for it.

(∆ I mean this sincerely. Given the polemical nature of this section I feel I have to put that in there)

Yes he is smart, and so are you. But one thing I've come to notice, as of lately... So I will just spill it now..

It seems as though I have gone back and forth with many, with them telling me how my logic is flawed, and how I'm misusing this, that, or the other; that I simply don't understand, or don't know what I'm talking about...

So when we cut to the chase, and I finally press the root subject, this is when the responses seem to fall flat.

Meaning, I get great and insightful responses, about how I'm not using or viewing reasoning and logic correctly. However, when I ask questions, such as, 'how do you know the Bible was inspired by God, verses just humans?"

This is where I see all insightful responses fade, or stop...

So I press both of you here... I would greatly appreciate some type of insightful or formal demonstration, showing how the Bible was actually given from Yahweh.

When my naive brain reads from this book, it appears fairly axiomatic, that it was written by humans, and nothing more.

Please tell me why I'm wrong?

TY!!!!!!!

 

[devolved]

If logic is not absolute, and virtually all reasoning is flawed or circular, then how were you able to discern that your specific God as the conclusion?

I wouldn't say that all reasoning is flawed. Reasoning is a function of the brain or mind, and brain or mind has limits. Hence I would say that it's limited rather than flawed. I think it's an important distinction before I move on.

I'll try to condense this for you without re-writing what I've already written in other posts on this thread and other threads. It may be difficult to keep it a "few paragraphs" short, so I appreciate your patience in reading this.

As you put it above, there's no way out of the problem of "reason behind the reason", or "justifying justifications". We are left with 4 unsatisfactory options:

1) We can circularly refer to justifications. (logic works because it's valid, and logic is valid because it works ... etc)
2) We can presuppose possible answers without justification, as a necessity for our observations to fit in some intelligible context from which we are able to build a conceptual framework of the world that can have internal logical coherence.
3) We can say "I don't know"
4) We can keep supplying justifications for justifications until we are have no other choice but to resort to 1,2 or 3.

Neither choice is inherently satisfactory or comfortable in our pursuit of truth, but such is our limits.

I have to define meaning of the word "meaning" before we move on, with all of the unintended irony that would bring. But I have to do it before we move on.

By "meaning" we generally communicate:

1) That whatever is in question is significant in a sense that it has inherent (or perceived) information that's intended to be communicated to the observer.

2) As such, it has some inherent and intended (or perceived) purpose in context of that information.

So, when you find "cvanwey" carved into a tree, for example, there are good reasons for you to assume that it's not coincidental and that it means something specific with a purpose of communicating something specific. In such, you have a brain that can recognize it, and you have a reality that's able to be consistently intelligible to allow for such meaning communication/recognition to take place.

Ok... moving on.

If we discuss the nature of reality in context of our perceived meaning we can conceptualize 2 options:

1) Reality was purposefully arranged to be such by an intelligent being that constructed reality in such a way on purpose (with intent), hence we have intended meaning when we look at the reality. It's not arbitrary. We may or may not recognize it. We may recognize some. But we recognize it because our brain as a mechanism can do such a thing, because it was intended to do it. And it can recognize the reality, because reality was created intelligible in a way that our brain can recognize it.

2) There is no creator of reality. Reality just happened, and there is no intended meaning or purpose. Meaning is merely a projection of our brains that just happened to function the way they do. We subjectively "project" meaning onto everything that we think is intelligible in this reality. Thus, meaning is arbitrary in a sense that brain function is not a product of any intent, but rather a product of accidental "re-shuffling" of reality.

Now, looking at the above two possibilities we can draw some conclusions in context of what we actually do and see.

#1 is consistent with how we behave, and what we appeal to when we communicate to each other, engage in scientific enterprise, philosophy, build logical and legal frameworks, etc. We act as though our reality is meaningful. In fact, most of the time that we spend as humans (besides sleeping) is spent communicating and decoding meaning.

#2 would be much more difficult to justifiable fit into what we observe and how we behave in reality. And I know you probably think that I'm just saying it because I have inherent bias, but that's actually how I concluded that there is likely a God.

Here's why.

If we say that there is no inherent meaning in reality, you are essentially saying that we have a mechanism of the brain that happened to somehow develop as a "meaning communication and decoding process", purely arbitrarily, with no such intended purpose in a context of reality that's absent of inherent meaning. Right off the bat that seems a bit incoherent, both with how we act and what we observe in reality.

So, there is no inherent reason or logic as to why a an intelligent brain (a process for recognizing, contextualizing, and communicating meaning) would develop a in context that has none.

So, if we adopt #2 as a model, it would mean that the reality is rather absurd. Sure, we can "pretend" in a sense that there is meaning where there is none, but there is no ground for justifying anything at all beyond subjective preferences of what we (as a process of our brains) think the meaning should be. It doesn't really compute really well.

So, essentially you could find some meaning by ignoring that fact, and "pretending" or acting as though there is meaning, but in doing so you would be acting out the implications of the model #1 , while at the same time claiming that it's not viable... hence you have the second level of absurdity there.

Hence, for us to viably appeal or justify to some coherent model... we, or at least I (as I've concluded for myself) we have to either presuppose God, or act out the implications of that model while at the same time claiming that such model is not viable.

 

[cvanwey]

I wouldn't say that all reasoning is flawed. Reasoning is a function of the brain or mind, and brain or mind has limits. Hence I would say that it's limited rather than flawed. I think it's an important distinction before I move on.

I'll try to condense this for you without re-writing what I've already written in other posts on this thread and other threads. It may be difficult to keep it a "few paragraphs" short, so I appreciate your patience in reading this.

As you put it above, there's no way out of the problem of "reason behind the reason", or "justifying justifications". We are left with 4 options, which I really would reduce to 2 pragmatic ones. It doesn't mean that either ones would be automatically incorrect. All I'm saying is that in context of limitations of our perception, it's all we've got, unfortunately.

1) We can circularly refer to justifications. (logic works because it's valid, and logic is valid because it works ... etc)
2) We can presuppose possible answers without justification, as a necessity for our observations to fit in some intelligible context from which we are able to build a conceptual framework of the world that can have internal logical coherence.
3) We can say "I don't know"
4) We can keep supplying justifications for justifications until we are have no other choice but to resort to 1,2 or 3.

Neither choice is inherently satisfactory or comfortable in our pursuit of truth, but such is our limits.

I have to define meaning of the word "meaning" before we move on, with all of the unintended irony that would bring. But I have to do it before we move on.

By "meaning" we generally communicate:

1) That whatever is in question is significant in a sense that it has inherent (or perceived) information that's intended to be communicated to the observer.

2) As such, it has some inherent and intended (or perceived) purpose in context of that information.

So, when you find "cvanwey" carved into a tree, for example, there are good reasons for you to assume that it's not coincidental and that it means something specific with a purpose of communicating something specific. In such, you have a brain that can recognize it, and you have a reality that's able to be consistently intelligible to allow for such meaning communication/recognition to take place.

Ok... moving on.

We'll take 2 possible hypotheses in question about how we get can possibly arrive at such reality to both include intelligent (in a form of our brain, and at the lower , more reduced level of intelligence I will not discuss here) and intelligible entities that can both communicate and receive intended meaning.

1) Reality was purposefully arranged to be such by an intelligent being that constructed reality in such a way on purpose (with intent), hence we have intended meaning when we look at the reality. It's not arbitrary.

2) There is no creator of reality. Reality just happened, and there is no intended meaning or purpose. Meaning is merely a projection of our brains that just happened to function the way they do, and thus we subjectively "project" meaning onto everything that we think is intelligible in this reality. Thus, meaning is arbitrary in a sense that brain function is not a product of any intent, but rather a product of accidental "re-shuffling" of reality.

Now, looking at the above two possibilities we can draw some conclusions in context of what we actually do and see.

#1 is consistent with how we behave, and what we appeal to when we communicate to each other, engage in scientific enterprise, philosophy, build logical and legal frameworks, etc. We act as though our reality is meaningful. In fact, most of the time that we spend as humans (besides sleeping) is spent communicating and decoding meaning.

#2 would be much more difficult to justifiable fit into what we observe and how we behave in reality. And I know you probably think that I'm just saying it because I have inherent bias, but that's actually how I concluded that there is likely a God.

Here's why.

If we say that there is no inherent meaning in reality, you are essentially saying that we have a mechanism of the brain that happened to somehow develop as a "meaning communication and decoding process", purely arbitrarily, with no such intended purpose in a context of reality that's absent of inherent meaning. Right off the bat that seems a bit incoherent, both with how we act and what we observe in reality.

So, there is no inherent reason or logic as to why a an intelligent brain (a process for recognizing, contextualizing, and communicating meaning) would develop a in context that has none.

So, if we adopt #2 as a model, it would mean that the reality is rather absurd. Sure, we can "pretend" in a sense that there is meaning where there is none, but there is no ground for justifying anything at all beyond subjective preferences of what we (as a process of our brains) think the meaning should be. It doesn't really compute really well.

So, essentially you could find some meaning by ignoring that fact, and "pretending" or acting as though there is meaning, but in doing so you would be acting out the implications of the model #1 , while at the same time claiming that it's not viable... hence you have the second level of absurdity there.

Hence, for us to viably appeal or justify to some coherent model... we, or at least I (as I've concluded for myself) we have to either presuppose God, or act out the implications of that model while at the same time claiming that such model is not viable.

I greatly appreciate the response and effort!

However, this does not address or answer my question:

So I press both of you here... I would greatly appreciate some type of insightful or formal demonstration, showing how the Bible was actually given from Yahweh.

You see, even if I axiomatically presuppose God, I must still wrestle with if God inspired the Bible

So I ask again... Even assuming everything above you said 'is' true, please demonstrate truth in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46?

Thank you

 

[Sanoy]

Yes he is smart, and so are you. But one thing I've come to notice, as of lately... So I will just spill it now..

It seems as though I have gone back and forth with many, with them telling me how my logic is flawed, and how I'm misusing this, that, or the other; that I simply don't understand, or don't know what I'm talking about...

So when we cut to the chase, and I finally press the root subject, this is when the responses seem to fall flat.

Meaning, I get great and insightful responses, about how I'm not using or viewing reasoning and logic correctly. However, when I ask questions, such as, 'how do you know the Bible was inspired by God, verses just humans?"

This is where I see all insightful responses fade, or stop...

So I press both of you here... I would greatly appreciate some type of insightful or formal demonstration, showing how the Bible was actually given from Yahweh.

When my naive brain reads from this book, it appears fairly axiomatic, that it was written by humans, and nothing more.

Please tell me why I'm wrong?

TY!!!!!!!

Well we kind of went into this before. Scripture says that it is inspired by God. That proposition can warrant belief if God exists, and Scripture appears to refer to the existent God. Notice this is not the circular statement so often given. The first step to that is getting you to apprehend that God exists, and that can't happen in your current mode of thinking.

The reason why both of us have tried to get at your presuppositions is because that is the only way out of your current mode of thinking. Imagine a shelf with books on it. The shelf is made of steel and all the books are easily held by it. That is your mode of thinking. Like your thoughts, you are confident in the safety of your books because you see how well the shelf holds them up. But have you stopped to see whether the shelf is even attached to the wall? Or perhaps you can think of a perfectly designed house. No matter how strong and interconnected the steel girders are, none of it matters if the foundation does not exist. You have to look at the root of your thinking before you can get out of it. Naturalism is based on an assumption, that only the natural world exists. The conclusions it makes that sound so certain have an assumption as the foundation. But the assumption has no solidity, and neither can the certainty of the conclusions based on those assumption acquire solidity to the assumption. That would be circular.

 

[cvanwey]

Well we kind of went into this before. Scripture says that it is inspired by God. That proposition can warrant belief if God exists, and Scripture appears to refer to the existent God. Notice this is not the circular statement so often given. The first step to that is getting you to apprehend that God exists, and that can't happen in your current mode of thinking.

The reason why both of us have tried to get at your presuppositions is because that is the only way out of your current mode of thinking. Imagine a shelf with books on it. The shelf is made of steel and all the books are easily held by it. That is your mode of thinking. Like your thoughts, you are confident in the safety of your books because you see how well the shelf holds them up. But have you stopped to see whether the shelf is even attached to the wall? Or perhaps you can think of a perfectly designed house. No matter how strong and interconnected the steel girders are, none of it matters if the foundation does not exist. You have to look at the root of your thinking before you can get out of it. Naturalism is based on an assumption, that only the natural world exists. The conclusions it makes that sound so certain have an assumption as the foundation. But the assumption has no solidity, and neither can the certainty of the conclusions based on those assumption acquire solidity to the assumption. That would be circular.

Okay, I'm a deist. Prove Yahweh wrote the Bible, and not humans whom only claimed they received divine inspiration from Yahweh. I'm making it as easy as possible....

 

[devolved]

I would greatly appreciate some type of insightful or formal demonstration, showing how the Bible was actually given from Yahweh.

Certainly, give me a sec .

 

[devolved]

Okay, I'm a deist. Prove Yahweh wrote the Bible, and not humans whom only claimed they received divine inspiration from Yahweh. I'm making it as easy as possible

I can't really demonstrate what you are asking for, mainly because no Biblical authors would claim that to begin with. They claimed that Biblical authors were inspired by God's spirit to write it. We could discuss as to what that could mean as it would map on observable reality.

But if your claim is that God did not write the Bible, and humans did, then I, and the Biblical authors would agree with you

 

[cvanwey]

I can't really demonstrate what you are asking for, mainly because no Biblical authors would claim that to begin with. They claimed that Biblical authors were inspired by God's spirit to write it. We could discuss as to what that could mean as it would map on observable reality.

But if your claim is that God did not write the Bible, and humans did, then I, and the Biblical authors would agree with you

Again, not trying to straw man you, and correct me if I'm off base.... I'm honestly not patronizing you....

So basically, even a deist, Muslim, or other, is well justified to conclude that Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 are written by humans, with self-serving intentions to 'approve' slavery (while appealing to most people's desire to believe in a God, (i.e.) 'and if God says it, then it must be okay')?.?.?.

And even if I believe in God, that does not mean the Bible was actually inspired by God, and that it is much safer to conclude that the Bible is an ancient collection of books that people still follow, rationalize, etc, to continue to align with their own reality?

Furthermore, that 2 Timothy 3:16 (All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness), is just another piece of text written by men, and men alone?

 

[jardiniere]

But that is you personally deciding what you want the word to mean. It does not mean that for the rest of the world. This makes communication difficult. One needs to use a different word that communicates CLEARLY "allowing, but not approving" and condone is not it.

It's difficult when words have similar meanings, and one person used one meaning and another person used another. It would seem that you possibly believe that the word approve means something like morally acceptable enough to allow. I don't have such a strict meaning of approve-and it's not necessary to use approve as if it must mean morally acceptable. The bible as written approves slavery, in that it allows and condones it. But none of that actually indicates to me, that the bible morally applauds slavery. It may indicate that to you, if you believe that God or God's surrogates, wrote the bible.

No, that is what the word "condone" means. As I said, next time someone has allowed something they disapprove of to go on tell them they "condoned" is and see if they understand your private meaning for the word. Their response to you will be testing your position in real life.

One doesn't have to find an action morally acceptable in order to condone it. One doesn't have to find an action morally acceptable in order to approve it. One doesn't have to find an action morally acceptable in order to allow it.

In order to get across the point of morally repugnant behavior, you need to actually speak to the bad moral consequences of the action. I don't see the bible doing that re: slavery. Thus, seems to me, giving the benefit of the doubt to the bible, the bible finds slavery morally acceptable, since other actions by people in the bible are spoken of in terms of moral consequences.

The personal feelings of anyone sanctioning an act do not matter. If it is condoned, it is approved of whether reluctantly or enthusiatically.

Exactly. Slavery is approved of in the bible, whether reluctantly or enthusiastically. Thus it is condoned. We have to examine most closely whether that approval is with moral endorsement.

No it it not more. As I said, there are laws above divorce in most civilized nations but that does not mean they all approve or nor condone divorce. Same for prostitution and other matters. In Thialand child prostitution is probably legal. Does not mean they condone it.
Which is exactly why I am convinced that the Bible does not condone slavery. Your whole position rests on a personal interpretation of the word "condone" and they you use it to reject the Bible. It went like this..

A. You said that condone as allowing slavery in this instant but not approving of it.
B. Then you said that the bible does more than merely tolerating slavery but approves of the offensive behaviour.
C. Therefore, according to you, the bible does not come from God.

I didn't really say that, and it's an aside, as it's personal. I thought it would help to explain why when I sees the bible allowing slavery, the lack of forceful moral language to discourage slavery is alarming, and doesn't seem to me to likely represent God.

You did a bait and switch on yourself. First "condone" does not mean approval, but then you said it does and you therefore reject it. Setting up rules to protect people is not condoning a behaviour as large as slavery same as setting up rules to conduct war to reduce civilian death does not mean nations all approve of war per se.

Your information is lacking. The world is not black and white and setting up nations is not a matter of making rules that will eliminate all evil and enforcing them and still creating a good society. Your view of setting up a nation is way too simple.
The Bible does not condone slavery as we have seen. That is a word used as a weapon so people can reject the Bible, feel themselves superior to it and feel free of its claims and warnings on their behaviour.

As I have read about slavery, and as I have read the bible, the bible does indeed condone slavery, approve slavery, and allows slavery. I just don't think the bible is terrifically moral on this subject, personally, because I find slavery repugnant.

It's also possible the bible doesn't think slavery is a moral action to take-because condoning, approving and allowing something does not necessarily indicate a stance on moral behavior. It can, but is not necessary. So maybe the bible finds slavery repugnant too. However, I'm able to express why I find slavery immoral. But the bible doesn't bother to indicate it's moral stance on slavery.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It's difficult when words have similar meanings, and one person used one meaning and another person used another. It would seem that you possibly believe that the word approve means something like morally acceptable enough to allow. I don't have such a strict meaning of approve-and it's not necessary to use approve as if it must mean morally acceptable. The bible as written approves slavery, in that it allows and condones it. But none of that actually indicates to me, that the bible morally applauds slavery. It may indicate that to you, if you believe that God or God's surrogates, wrote the bible. .

It is going to be next to impossible to accurately communicate if you allow yoursself to redefine words as you want and not as they are actually defined in our language. And I notice that definition changes within your own post. If words are not defined by the dictionary for you, but you have no strict meaning (a book is pretty strict) then we cannot really communicate because I will have to keep asking how you "personally" define your words since you do not strictly use the dictionary. The problem is we can no longer communicate.

Now I walk with the living God and have some inside knowledge about the writing of the Bible. He did not use surrogates but men who also walked with him but on deeper levels than I have known. The use of the word "surrogate" for those who were the friend of God is rather demeaning to that relationship.

In any case, as long as you give yourself license to define words the way you want and not according to the dictionary, conversation is too frustrating. You use words but mean something different than the dictionary defines them to be. This is high maintenance. Maybe another time we can talk on a difference subject.

 

[cvanwey]

In any case, as long as you give yourself license to define words the way you want and not according to the dictionary, conversation is too frustrating. You use words but mean something different than the dictionary defines them to be. This is high maintenance. Maybe another time we can talk on a difference subject.

I find this response rather disingenuous, as many terms from the verses have been defined in this thread many of times, and here you are, lecturing others on altering definitions...?

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
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.

Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)
44 “‘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.

beat - strike (a person or an animal) repeatedly and violently so as to hurt or injure them, usually with an implement such as a club or whip.

slave - a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

property - a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively

bequeath - leave (a personal estate or one's body) to a person or other beneficiary by a will.

ruthlessly - without pity or compassion for others (which implies that if they are not Isrealites, you may rule over them ruthlessly)

 

[Sanoy]

Okay, I'm a deist. Prove Yahweh wrote the Bible, and not humans whom only claimed they received divine inspiration from Yahweh. I'm making it as easy as possible....

Are you though? I have no interest in playing online sports, so if that's your idea then you will need to find another team. (Technically you would need to be a "Theist" not a "Deist" to start)

 

[cvanwey]

Are you though? I have no interest in playing online sports, so if that's your idea then you will need to find another team. (Technically you would need to be a "Theist" not a "Deist" to start)

I'm actually trying to make your response as easy and simple as possible... Your position, a priori, axiom, presupposition, or other, is that a God must exist. So I'm reconciling that a God exists in some capacity (to conclude/close all former discussions on God vs. no God). So even if I do fully conclude a God must exist, then how might one conclude that the Bible was actually inspired by Yahweh specifically, verses, all text being written by humans (just like every other book on the planet)? Or even, Yahweh specifically does actually exist, but either inspired none of the Bible, or, only parts of the Bible?

We shall start with the cited verses from Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 already aforementioned...

This is not a game. I'm asking for your equipped and stated knowledge base to discern this conclusion.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm actually trying to make your response as easy and simple as possible... Your position, a priori, axiom, presupposition, or other, is that a God must exist. So I'm reconciling that a God exists in some capacity (to conclude/close all former discussions on God vs. no God). So even if I do fully conclude a God must exist, then how might one conclude that the Bible was actually inspired by Yahweh specifically, verses, all text being written by humans (just like every other book on the planet)? Or even, Yahweh specifically does actually exist, but either inspired none of the Bible, or, only parts of the Bible?

We shall start with the cited verses from Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 already aforementioned...

This is not a game. I'm asking for your equipped and stated knowledge base to discern this conclusion.

I don't need you to make it easy or simple, the Gospel is straight forward to those who are able to hear. I have one desire in mind, your life. I have 0 interest in online sports. I seek sincerity and you should too. You didn't just become a Theist in the last few minutes. I will not waste my words or His words on an insincere person.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I find this response rather disingenuous, as many terms from the verses have been defined in this thread many of times, and here you are, lecturing others on altering definitions...?

Except the dictionary definition was rejected and posters admitting useing their own personal spin on the words. I find that really disingenuous.

But I have discussed this with others before. Those who desire to accuse God of evil do not want to hear anything else. I know why as well, but it is no use discussing it. If a man does not want to understand but wants to accuse, there is no point in discussion. The mind is made up against all contrary evidence or argument.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't need you to make it easy or simple, the Gospel is straight forward to those who are able to hear. I have one desire in mind, your life. I have 0 interest in online sports. I seek sincerity and you should too. You didn't just become a Theist in the last few minutes. I will not waste my words or His words on an insincere person.

Dear Sanoy,

I have no idea where your apparent hostility is coming from?.?.? As I stated in post #423, intelligent full fledged Christians have no problem 'schooling' me on my methods of epistemology, applying definitions, applications for logic and reason, and the like. Both you and 'devolved' have spent many posts forging to demonstrate the necessity for the existence of God. As I stated in post #423, I receive quite a bit of feedback, responses, and attempts in correction to my apparent misdirection, in my modes of thinking. However, as I stated, this seems to either unravel, or come to a halt, the second I press many in the attempt to actually demonstrate that Jesus Christ influenced the Bible?

I actually felt the conversations were fairly productive. Both you and 'devolved' laid out your cases, provided clear reasoning, and made a concerted conscious effort to demonstrate for the existence of a God. I finally felt that maybe this string of conversation would prove me wrong again; that instead of validating post #423, individuals would actually demonstrate the final piece of the puzzle - (i.e.) illustrate this enlightened methodology in an attempt to prove divine inspiration of the Bible.

I was actually hoping I would be wrong, in my assumption from post #423. That someone would finally provide consistent, logical, well reasoned application to provide this final step, as they had done in all the prior replies in an attempt to demonstrate the existence for a God.

Well, to my dismay, I was yet again let down, as evidence by posts #428, #429, and now your last post

So I ask one final time, for anyone out there willing to actually respond to such a request....

My assertion is that all books, in human history, are authored by humans, and humans alone.

Please provide demonstration that the Bible was actually divinely inspired, and not just another collection of human only written books?

As I stated prior, I'm starting with Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46

Thank you in advance!

 

[cvanwey]

Except the dictionary definition was rejected and posters admitting useing their own personal spin on the words. I find that really disingenuous.

But I have discussed this with others before. Those who desire to accuse God of evil do not want to hear anything else. I know why as well, but it is no use discussing it. If a man does not want to understand but wants to accuse, there is no point in discussion. The mind is made up against all contrary evidence or argument.

Dear Dorothy,

What you are accusing others of doing, you are certainly doing yourself. The verses from Exodus and Leviticus are pretty clear. By applying definitions to key words, and even reading such verses to my spouse, whom is a Christian BTW, or even reciting such scripture to many other Christians in the past, has harbored the same reflex response.... (i.e.) "No, that's not what it actually says, does it?" And as soon as they read the verses in context for themselves, then try to rationalize them. I'm not kidding... I've received very similar responses from dozens of devout Christians.

Hence, the reason I now bring them up here. You are now doing the exact same thing as most others, in defense for the Bible. I find it dishonest, disingenuous, and I see a severe cognitive dissonance applied.

It's one thing to assert a prime mover, but it becomes a completely separate 'thing' to also assert that this God is just, loving, and strives for a relationship from all humans. So as I've stated to others, please justify Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46 in a rational, consistent, and logical way; as to demonstrate a 'loving' and perfectly 'just' God. Otherwise, please reconcile that it is highly likely, these passages were written by humans, in a consorted effort to support slavery, simply by stating, 'God says so.' - as this would be an effective way to control slavery in a time where most/all individuals believed in God.

Thanks!

 

[Sanoy]

Dear Sanoy,

I have no idea where your apparent hostility is coming from?.?.? As I stated in post #423, intelligent full fledged Christians have no problem 'schooling' me on my methods of epistemology, applying definitions, applications for logic and reason, and the like. Both you and 'devolved' have spent many posts forging to demonstrate the necessity for the existence of God. As I stated in post #423, I receive quite a bit of feedback, responses, and attempts in correction to my apparent misdirection, in my modes of thinking. However, as I stated, this seems to either unravel, or come to a halt, the second I press many in the attempt to actually demonstrate that Jesus Christ influenced the Bible?

I actually felt the conversations were fairly productive. Both you and 'devolved' laid out your cases, provided clear reasoning, and made a concerted conscious effort to demonstrate for the existence of a God. I finally felt that maybe this string of conversation would prove me wrong again; that instead of validating post #423, individuals would actually demonstrate the final piece of the puzzle - (i.e.) illustrate this enlightened methodology in an attempt to prove divine inspiration of the Bible.

I was actually hoping I would be wrong, in my assumption from post #423. That someone would finally provide consistent, logical, well reasoned application to provide this final step, as they had done in all the prior replies in an attempt to demonstrate the existence for a God.

Well, to my dismay, I was yet again let down, as evidence by posts #428, #429, and now your last post

So I ask one final time, for anyone out there willing to actually respond to such a request....

My assertion is that all books, in human history, are authored by humans, and humans alone.

Please provide demonstration that the Bible was actually divinely inspired, and not just another collection of human only written books?

As I stated prior, I'm starting with Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46

Thank you in advance!

I do not believe you.

I have no hostility toward you, I love you very much as a fellow child of God, but I'm not going to waste my words where they have no room for growth. The only thing productive we could talk about is why you recoil the moment God calls your worldview into question. I have sat and watched it happen, so who is God to you and why do you recoil?