Saying goodbye
- Thread starter InterestedAtheist
- Start date
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,428
- 26,867
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Like many people I've lost loved ones. My first encounter and experience with death was the loss of my great-grandmother when I was about eight years old. I didn't know her that well, she had been in a nursing home since before I was born. But then in my adolescence my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer, she successfully fought it with chemo and radiation treatment, and we thought it was beat--but it came back with a vengeance. I lost my mom to breast cancer only a couple months after my 18th birthday back in 2000 going into my senior year of high school. A couple years after that I lost my maternal grandfather, who had suffered health problems since I was a child after he had his stroke in '85.
I lost an aunt in a drunk driving accident (the driver of the other vehicle was drunk). I lost another aunt to an unexpected blood clot in her lungs. My paternal grandmother gradually succumbed to Alzheimers before she passed, my maternal grandmother and paternal grandfathers passed not long after from old age. and then in 2019 I lost my father to kidney failure.
I only mention these things because, at this point, I'm starting to feel acquainted with death in my own life.
And here's the truth of the matter: Death sucks.
You can't pretty it up with flowery language, and to be quite frank, I don't think we should.
The Christian hope isn't that when someone dies they get to go to some blissful ever-after in some ethereal wonderland up in the sky. The Christian hope is that Christ rose from the dead, and because Jesus rose from the dead, we have God's faithful promise that what He did for Jesus He is going to do for the whole world.
Death is not a transition from one state of existence to another; it is the violent robbery of life. As such, the Scriptures do not paint death as a transition, but as an ancient foe whom has been conquered by Jesus, and will be fully laid to rest at the consummation of history when Jesus returns, the dead are raised to life everlasting, and God brings healing and renewal to the whole universe.
The Apostle St. Paul tells us that because we hope, we do not need to grieve as though we have no hope; but he does not say that need not grieve. Grief is the natural, and healthy, response to loss. To the absence of a loved one. Death takes prisoners, and makes everyone a victim. We have no reason to pretend that death is anything else other than death. And death be damned.
But even in the midst of death, our faith calls us to hope. To believe in that which is greater than death, life. And that life vanquishes death through the victory of God for the world, through Jesus who rose from the dead, and by His rising gives hope and promise to the whole world that what has happened here in the climax of the Gospel story, is in fact the climax of the cosmic story itself. Jesus rose from the dead, and so shall we; Christ rose from the dead, and all things shall be made new at last in the end. In this we also trust in God's faithfulness and care over those who have reposed--that those who have fell victim to death are, indeed, victors over death on account of Jesus. And thus we entrust them to God's mercy and love, as they--and we--await that which is to come.
In these things the Apostle St. Paul wants his faithful readers to be confident that death is not the end. The tragedy of death is not final; death is not the final word. That is the message of hope in the midst of death. Not brushing aside death, but facing death with faith, hope, and love. That grief shall one day give birth to joy and laughter. That the hungry shall indeed be fed, the thirsty shall indeed have drink, those who are deprived of justice shall have justice, that the meek--not the powerful--shall inherit the earth, and that it is to the poor and humble to whom belongs God's kingdom.
And in light of that hope, we have an opportunity here and now to faithfully live that hope into the world. The hope of justice is the catalyst for striving for justice right here and now. That in our hopeful anticipation and longing of that world, that we bear that future world into this one. That when a hungry mouth is fed, when there is justice for the poor, the needy, the widow, the orphan, and the oppressed a bit of God's kingdom leaks out from that future into right now. As we love one another, serve one another, are generous and kind to one another. And yes, even as we suffer for one another and grieve for and with one an other.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
The first death. Strictly biblically-speaking, everyone must suffer the 1st death this side of the rapture. But it is the believer alone that avoids the second death.
And even Jesus wept.
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
Grace simply means "un-merited favor." <-- You didn't work for that favor and you really don't deserve it.
Faith ("pistis" in Greek) simply means trust.
The Bible is clear in that one is saved by grace through faith. There's nothing mystical about it. To break it down further, God saves you with His un-merited favor that you don't deserve through trusting Him. And even that trust is not self-generated. It's total dependency on God's grace + nothing.
The main power plant of atheism is pathologically forced doubt. It's like an excoriation disorder--they compulsively pick at the scab because it is there. It's like people who are flat-earthers, the incredulity is necessarily forced, because the highest priority is their refusal to see proof or evidence, even when it is right in front of them. Edit: Which is why they typically move the goalpost when presented with evidence or proof, "Nice try Christian, but I'm not convinced."
Evidence is objective; persuasion is subjective.
There is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, but when skepticism becomes the ends, and not the means of finding truth, is when it becomes unhealthy. Atheism is skepticism as the ends, rather than the means.
Yes! Yes, it is possible. But isn't it also quite possible that atheists can exploit this possibility as an appeal to motive fallacy? Just because one (or even some) professing Christians/CHRINOs don't believe in an afterlife doesn't confirm that no afterlife exists, or that all professing Christians are faking it.
In any case, the question of an afterlife cannot be divorced from its source: God (John 14:1). Compartmentalizing God's works from God's existence is a serious problem that has to be addressed up-front. No miracle (including the resurrection) exists apart from the explicit claim that "miracles" are an act of God.
So start with God.
Upvote
0
But it's not really "death" is it? Because you don't die. You stay the same person, you're conscious and aware, and you go to live in a much better place.
Doesn't sound like death to me.
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
But you still have to die to "get there." That's why it's called an "afterlife."
The sting of death is removed (1 Cor 15:54-58), meaning that death is not eternal. But it's still there nonetheless. We mourn all permanent separation from our loved ones, both in life and in death. We mourn with those who mourn (Romans 12:15), especially concerning those who aren't saved. It's a brief struggle that results in assured victory (1 Cor 15:57).
False dilemma. The 3rd option is, "It is commanded due to God's nature."
- It is accepted practice that one cannot prove a negative. Theists carry the burden of proof, but rarely take advantage of that proof. Once burden of proof is attempted, no matter how flawed, the opponent must take up the burden of refutation. That's when atheists typically cave in.
- "Santa" is a strawman analogy. "God" is either the deliberate claim of an ambiguous equivocation, or the claim of an omnipotent being. An omnipotent being, by definition, is never limited to any particular form, such as "Santa." <-- This includes Russell's teapot, FSM, leprechauns, and the dragon in Sagan's garage.
Because a sovereign God is not fallen man's cosmic vending machine. Man, in the flesh, is never entitled to anything more than the doctrine of Common Grace he receives every day from the Almighty, and being Grace he's not even entitled to that. Answered prayer, if God is so willing, is reserved for the elect.
If we followed the law of Moses to the letter, slaves would go free every 7 years. That's why antebellum slavery had to be abolished. There are no fugitive slave laws in the OT. If we followed the NT, slaves and masters would mutually and voluntarily submit to one another in brotherly love (Gal 3:28). Our slavery is to God alone (Romans 6:22).
Upvote
0
Thank you for tackling those, Paulomycin!
The question is now asked again: What does it mean to say that God's character is the source of morality? Is it that God's character can be measured by some external standard to see that it is moral? Or is it that God's character is the standard by which you measure?
If you choose the second option, as it seems you have, your standard collapses. You are simply saying that God's character is the standard of morality because you can measure it against God's character. This is a tautology; it's circular reasoning; and it renders any statement about what morality is quite meaningless.
What I have seen is a great many Christians saying, "You need to prove that God does not exist, or I win the debate."
Have you ever said anything like that yourself? Would you agree with it?
By the way: are you now agreeing with me that it is possible that Santa could exist?
If prayer is being answers, if impossible things are happening, if miracles are being worked - why do we never see any evidence of them?
Statistically speaking, there should be something. Some people never pray, so their prayers are never answered. Some people believe in the wrong god, so their prayers are never answered. And some people believe in the right God, so their prayers should be answered at least some of the time.
When it comes to praying, these people supposedly have an edge. This should be showing up in the data. But it's not. It's as if prayer doesn't actually work.
Second, the "free your slaves every seven years" law only applies to Hebrew slaves, who were generally treated much better.
Thirdly, do you not realise that in Galatians 3:28, Paul is discussing the weighty issue of whether or not Christians should be circumcised? It's got nothing to do with slavery.
It's telling that you can't quote a passage from the Bible saying simply, "owning people is wrong and slavery is bad." That's because there isn't one. You're forced to resort to extremely tenuous links like Romans 6:22, which is clearly speaking spiritually and has nothing to do with, you know, actually owning slaves in the physical realm.
It's an afterlife. Meaning you're still alive. Which means you can't have died.
If death is not eternal, it doesn't count as death.
I'm afraid you haven't solved the dilemma. You've just restated it.
The question is now asked again: What does it mean to say that God's character is the source of morality? Is it that God's character can be measured by some external standard to see that it is moral? Or is it that God's character is the standard by which you measure?
If you choose the second option, as it seems you have, your standard collapses. You are simply saying that God's character is the standard of morality because you can measure it against God's character. This is a tautology; it's circular reasoning; and it renders any statement about what morality is quite meaningless.
Atheists typically cave in? No sure what you're talking about.
What I have seen is a great many Christians saying, "You need to prove that God does not exist, or I win the debate."
Have you ever said anything like that yourself? Would you agree with it?
Not really important. The point is, there is as much evidence for God as there is for Santa. If we do not believe in one, why should we believe in the other?
By the way: are you now agreeing with me that it is possible that Santa could exist?
Fine. So why do we never see any evidence of it?
If prayer is being answers, if impossible things are happening, if miracles are being worked - why do we never see any evidence of them?
Statistically speaking, there should be something. Some people never pray, so their prayers are never answered. Some people believe in the wrong god, so their prayers are never answered. And some people believe in the right God, so their prayers should be answered at least some of the time.
When it comes to praying, these people supposedly have an edge. This should be showing up in the data. But it's not. It's as if prayer doesn't actually work.
First of all, you've just conceded that the Bible is in fact pro-slavery.
Second, the "free your slaves every seven years" law only applies to Hebrew slaves, who were generally treated much better.
Thirdly, do you not realise that in Galatians 3:28, Paul is discussing the weighty issue of whether or not Christians should be circumcised? It's got nothing to do with slavery.
It's telling that you can't quote a passage from the Bible saying simply, "owning people is wrong and slavery is bad." That's because there isn't one. You're forced to resort to extremely tenuous links like Romans 6:22, which is clearly speaking spiritually and has nothing to do with, you know, actually owning slaves in the physical realm.
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
No. It means what happens after life, i.e. "death." Physical existence has ended.
I watched SisyphysRedeemed back in 2011. This is old news.
God's nature is the source of His nature.
"A = A"
Everyone behaves according to their nature.
Thus, nothing is re-stated. It's simply reduced to a fundamental axiom.
Probably because you've never had to shoulder the burden of refutation.
If you were paying attention, I already stated that you can't prove a negative. <-- Which in and of itself is no "set in-stone" rule, but it's a concession I generally make to atheists.
No. I'm a Thomist. I usually don't even trust atheists to carry the burden of proof. I got it. God has been proven numerous different ways for over 700 years. And none of those proofs were ever objectively refuted. Our secular public schooling has convinced us that all of this somehow never happened. lol.
No. Strawman fallacies are very important errors that cannot be casually dismissed.
Because "Santa" is an empirical claim of a finite being.
"God" is a non-empirical claim of an infinite being. Again, omnipotence is not limited to any particular form, such as Santa, Sagan's Dragon, Russell's teapot, etc. You atheists always strawman like that.
See, you're rushing for the cheap and easy "gotcha," when you're not paying attention to the long-game here. Typical.
Because you're expecting a literal cosmic vending machine from the heavens. A fantastic deus ex machina. Or maybe you had a Charismatic upbringing, and you're wondering where all the miracles are that they claimed.
The reason is that God usually answers prayer via the Doctrine of Providence. Demanding spectacular miracles all the time is nothing more than contempt for God's Providence. It's just as shallow as what Herod expected of Jesus in Luke 2:38.
I'm a cessationist. Miracles generally ended when the apostles died in the 1st century. Miracles will generally not happen again until the time of the Antichrist.
Other than what I stated above, is that "miracles" cannot be compartmentalized from the source (God). The proof and evidence of God's existence is not dependent upon miracles. I usually tell atheists who are compartmentalizing "God" from "an act of God," to start with God's existence. Take the Bible and put it to one side for awhile. You can't accept Special Revelation (or even miracles for that matter), if you can't even deal with General Revelation in nature.
How would you even compile such a statistic? Even claims of "medical miracles" can easily be dismissed as a charting error, or lack of familiarity with the patient. And who's going to trust the family of the patient? They could be just as "delusional" as the patient.
Again, you're rushing for the cheap "gotcha." If practiced to the letter, then it's not even slavery. Nowhere even in the same zip code as Pre-Civil War antebellum slavery.
This is where your ignorance of the law of Moses becomes obvious. All foreign non-Hebrews i.e. "strangers," in the text could convert to Judaism. You're not factoring in the law of the Passover.
So yeah. It's essentially a cap on paganism. If you really insist on being a pagan, then you can stay a slave until you decide otherwise, lol. And starting a family is really inconvenient.
Did you even read the verse? The point being that, if we are all one in Christ, and that circumcision is not necessary for salvation, then "neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free." <-- That last bit there. There is no class distinction in Christ. There is no slave/master relationship.
Ephesians 6:9
"And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him."
Where there is no threat of harm, there is no slavery.
Why? Because it's your hypocritical BS standard that you're obviously stealing from a Westernized Judeo-Christian ethic?
May I remind you that you are an atheist. You have no objective evidence why "slavery is bad." You simply take it for granted as "bad." I'm explaining to you why it's bad. It was necessary to abolish antebellum slavery because CHRINOs were dehumanizing blacks! There is no fugitive slave law in the Old Testament. There is no "3/5ths rule" in the New Testament. There were no double-standards on humanity.
No, we're physically owned by Christ too.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Par5
Well-Known Member
- Nov 5, 2017
- 1,013
- 653
- 78
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
It makes communication much easier if you attribute quotes to the correct person. The quotes in your post belong to InterestedAtheist.No. It means what happens after life, i.e. "death." Physical existence has ended.
I watched SisyphysRedeemed back in 2011. This is old news.
God's nature is the source of His nature.
"A = A"
Everyone behaves according to their nature.
Thus, nothing is re-stated. It's simply reduced to a fundamental axiom.
Probably because you've never had to shoulder the burden of refutation.
If you were paying attention, I already stated that you can't prove a negative. <-- Which in and of itself is no "set in-stone" rule, but it's a concession I generally make to atheists.
No. I'm a Thomist. I usually don't even trust atheists to carry the burden of proof. I got it. God has been proven numerous different ways for over 700 years. And none of those proofs were ever objectively refuted. Our secular public schooling has convinced us that all of this somehow never happened. lol.
No. Strawman fallacies are very important errors that cannot be casually dismissed.
Because "Santa" is an empirical claim of a finite being.
"God" is a non-empirical claim of an infinite being. Again, omnipotence is not limited to any particular form, such as Santa, Sagan's Dragon, Russell's teapot, etc. You atheists always strawman like that.
See, you're rushing for the cheap and easy "gotcha," when you're not paying attention to the long-game here. Typical.
Because you're expecting a literal cosmic vending machine from the heavens. A fantastic deus ex machina. Or maybe you had a Charismatic upbringing, and you're wondering where all the miracles are that they claimed.
The reason is that God usually answers prayer via the Doctrine of Providence. Demanding spectacular miracles all the time is nothing more than contempt for God's Providence. It's just as shallow as what Herod expected of Jesus in Luke 2:38.
I'm a cessationist. Miracles generally ended when the apostles died in the 1st century. Miracles will generally not happen again until the time of the Antichrist.
Other than what I stated above, is that "miracles" cannot be compartmentalized from the source (God). The proof and evidence of God's existence is not dependent upon miracles. I usually tell atheists who are compartmentalizing "God" from "an act of God," to start with God's existence. Take the Bible and put it to one side for awhile. You can't accept Special Revelation (or even miracles for that matter), if you can't even deal with General Revelation in nature.
How would you even compile such a statistic? Even claims of "medical miracles" can easily be dismissed as a charting error, or lack of familiarity with the patient. And who's going to trust the family of the patient? They could be just as "delusional" as the patient.
Again, you're rushing for the cheap "gotcha." If practiced to the letter, then it's not even slavery. Nowhere even in the same zip code as Pre-Civil War antebellum slavery.
This is where your ignorance of the law of Moses becomes obvious. All foreign non-Hebrews i.e. "strangers," in the text could convert to Judaism. You're not factoring in the law of the Passover.
So yeah. It's essentially a cap on paganism. If you really insist on being a pagan, then you can stay a slave until you decide otherwise, lol. And starting a family is really inconvenient.
Did you even read the verse? The point being that, if we are all one in Christ, and that circumcision is not necessary for salvation, then "neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free." <-- That last bit there. There is no class distinction in Christ. There is no slave/master relationship.
Ephesians 6:9
"And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him."
Where there is no threat of harm, there is no slavery.
Why? Because it's your hypocritical BS standard that you're obviously stealing from a Westernized Judeo-Christian ethic?
May I remind you that you are an atheist. You have no objective evidence why "slavery is bad." You simply take it for granted as "bad." I'm explaining to you why it's bad. It was necessary to abolish antebellum slavery because CHRINOs were dehumanizing blacks! There is no fugitive slave law in the Old Testament. There is no "3/5ths rule" in the New Testament. There were no double-standards on humanity.
No, we're physically owned by Christ too.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
But Christians believe they will still be alive. If they're alive, then - by definition - they are not dead.
It's simple logic: if you can still see and feel and think and speak and, you know, live, then you're not dead.
I haven't watched it at all. But I am still waiting for you to disprove Euthyphro's Dilemma.
Right. Which leaves you with a problem that may well be insurmountable: to demonstrate that God is the source of morality.
You've claimed that He is. Now you have to prove it. And saying "We know that God is the source of morality because it is His nature to be so" proves nothing at all.
If God were cruel, then cruelty would be good.
If God approved of torturing people, then torture would be good.
If God were, well, what we'd call "bad" - then you, the Christian, would have to call it good. Because, by your own definition, anything God says or does is good.
Therefore, goodness can mean anything, which means that it means nothing.
Why should I have to shoulder such a burden?
Very good of you. In that case, why do you say I should have to shoulder the burden of refutation? Why should I have to prove that God does not exist if you don't have to prove that Santa does not exist?
Please give me one argument that proves God's existence that has never been refuted.
Most of what Christians say on this forum is strawmanning.
But it's not a strawman. It's a fair comparison. Santa, Sagan's Dragon and Russell's Teapot are all similar to God in that there is no reason to believe in any of them.
I'm just having fun here. You rushed in a little too quickly. Take your time, try to deal with one argument at a time.
Please don't assume. You're wrong in all of that.
This may come as news to you, but most Christians do believe in miracles, and believe that they happen today, and believe they can pray for them and will receive them.
Fine. Then my argument does not apply to you. Why did you bother answering it?
By the way - do you believe that many Christians agree with you, about no more miracles in these times?
Are you ever going to actually supply evidence of God's existence? I'm waiting.
Statistics, Paul. It works like this. Any one data point could have a multiplicity of meanings, of course. But the more data you collect, the more patterns become apparent.
If Christians - other than yourself, of course, since you don't believe miracles happen - are right, then Christians are praying to God, and their prayers are sometimes being answered. People from other religions are also praying to God, of course, but their prayers won't be answered, because they're praying to the wrong God; and people who don't pray at all won't have prayers answered for obvious reasons:
So: we have different subsections of the population, and only one of them - Christians - have a chance of having their prayers answered. God may say yes, no or later to them of course; but statistically speaking, we should see some effect. The rate of recoveries in hospital, for example. Incidents of good luck. That kind of thing. But of course, we don't. It's almost as if prayer isn't having any effect at all.
Of course it is, and of course it is.
Ask the slavers in the antebellum South. They used the Bible, correctly, to justify their whole system of slavery.
Thank you for conceding that the Bible is in favour of slavery.
I suggest you think about it a little more. If that was what Paul actually meant, then why didn't Christians actually practise it? Read the New Testament and you will find a number of passages praising slavery and enjoining Christians to be good masters and Christian slaves to serve their masters devotedly.
The conclusion is obvious: Paul was talking about circumcision, not freeing slaves.
The slave master would simply point out that he was not threatening his slaves, just warning them. Is it a threat if your boss tells you that you will lose your job if you do not work well? Of course not - working well is what your job is. Why should it be a threat for a lazy slave to be punished? It's simply the natural consequence he should expect.
Kindly do not swear. It's a simple matter of ethics. Slavery is wrong. but if you read the Bible, you can clearly see that the Bible approves of it.
Of course I have objective evidence why slavery was bad. And of course, I agree with you that it was dehumanising. But so what? The Bible teaches us that it was good. And the antebellum slave-owners, many of whom were sincere Christians, simply read the Bible and followed its teachings.
I'll say it again: if you want to find an anti-slavery message in the Bible, you have to really strain and take quotes out of context. But if you want to find a pro-slavery message, it's easy to do so. Just read the Bible.No, we're physically owned by Christ too.
In antebellum America, there was quite a war between pro-slavery preachers and abolitionist ones. The abolitionists had right on their side. But the pro-slavery preachers had the Bible on their side.
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
Yet there is still a break--a line of demarcation that causes pain and loss regardless.
After crossing from death to life again.
It was covered in post #26 of this thread.
An omnipotent being, by His very nature, would be the only objective standard of morality and truth.
The proof is tautological.
But pure speculation doesn't count as an objective argument.
But pure speculation doesn't count as an objective argument.
That's your problem. Because "what we'd call bad," from your POV is no more than 7.5 billion subjective opinions on the matter. And mostly contradictory ones at that.
However, God is the objective standard according to His very own tautological nature of Holiness. We live in an ordered universe, thus Principle of Sufficient Reason demands that an Orderer is necessary. God is both the logical and moral order. <-- Truth being both a logical and a moral appeal.
Because once the burden of proof is met (no matter how poorly it's met), the ball is now in the opponent's court. This is called the burden of refutation. The burden of refutation always follows a debate opponent's presentation of burden of proof. And yes, atheists are ill prepared to do so, more often than not.
I'm a big fan of Aquinas' 2nd Quinque Viae. That's never been objectively refuted. See, subjective doubt is often treated as "close 'nuff." But it's not. There has to be an objective basis for doubt. Otherwise, it's just a negative feeling. Kind-of like how flat-earthers treat all the evidence of a round earth. They defer to their knee-jerk contrarianism, their impulsive "nuh-uh," instead of the evidence.
Maybe. I haven't been here long. But in-order to make the accusation of a strawman fallacy stick, you have to present and draw a clear distinction between your actual argument vs. the one presented as-if it were your argument. Just FYI. I'll be holding all my opponents to that standard from here out.
Have you even read Demon Haunted World? Sagan's point was that his dragon is similar to any supernatural claim because there is no scientific or naturalistic evidence to support it. Isn't that what you really meant? Huh? lol.
Oh, I believe in miracles alright. The question is when and where they happen. Atheists tee-up the ball as-if miracles were still happening 24/7. But that's only what Pentecostals, Charismatics, and other continuationists believe. I am not a continuationist. I'm a cessationist. The miracles stopped after all the apostles died in the 1st century. I am highly skeptical of any reports of miracles today. Never seen a single one myself.
Because if I ignored it, you'd think you had something to chase me with. Atheists are like that certain kind of dog who will chase you if you don't stand up to them.
Again, it was necessary to inform you about both camps. They exist, but one is a lot more quiet than the other. Cessationists are very boring televangelists. lol.
Okay, but I really hope you know the difference between proof and evidence:
The evidence provided is based on "simulation theory," an empirical argument by Yale professor Nick Bostrum, with further support by Sam Harris, who pretty much admits that he has no way to refute it.
Are You Living in a Simulation?
Short summary and reaction by Sam Harris:
Further admissions from Sam Harris' blog: Should We Be Mormons in the Matrix? | Sam Harris
S. James Gates Jr. is Toll Professor of Physics and Director of the Center for String and Particle Theory at the University of Maryland in College Park. He served on President Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
His statements on the evidence supporting the simulation argument in 2012:
And in 2018:
And the more you can manipulate that data. Just because any given person thinks they can manipulate God into performing tricks for atheists doesn't mean that claim is even theologically valid. Again, God is not a cosmic bellhop. Luke 4:12
That's where you're wrong. You assume they used the Bible correctly, because it fits your own confirmation bias. They deliberately omitted the mandatory seven year manumission, Jewish conversion warranting that same seven year manumission, laws against permanent injury to slaves, the Mosaic law against any fugitive slave acts (!!!), and that's just the Old Testament alone! If we threw in the New Testament (Ephesians and Galatians in-particular), both slave and master would see no race and would voluntarily choose to be each other's slave in mutual submission.
Matthew 20:25-26
Thank you for interpreting the Bible in the same heretical manner as the antebellum South.
Just because you see thousands of CHRINOs who violate the standard doesn't bring the standard itself into question.
^ Zero direct quotes makes it look that much more sketchy. Ha-ha.
Spin-machine. "Warning" = threat. You're really straining and taking quotes out of context, which is exactly what you're accusing me of. The problem is that I'm actually citing direct quotes and you're not.
- Ethics are societal; not moral.
- Atheists can only make the empty claim that "slavery is wrong," and then leverage a guilt-trip against their opponent.
- Atheists cannot explain why "slavery is wrong," because they have no objective standard for doing so.
- You're arguing that the Bible approves of your eisegetical spin-machine of antebellum slavery, which has already been refuted. You must be the 2nd or 3rd atheist I've already explained this to.
Well no, you don't. At best, all you have is cultural relativism, which is often contradictory.
Upvote
0
If you're still alive, you haven't actually died. You're just continuing your life in a different form.
Thank you. I read that with interest. Your argument, however, seems flawed.
You said:
"then God's nature is based on His own nature, which is not arbitrary.
"Arbitrary" is defined as, "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."
If, as I said, God's nature had been to be what we call cruel, then you would call cruelty good. You objected that this was pure speculation, but in fact, it's just simple logic. You have said that morality is an expression of God's nature. Therefore, whatever God's nature is, is moral. How could you object to anything that nature commanded? How can you say "God would never be cruel or evil"? You have no measuring stick to judge it against.
When you say that God Himself is the standard of morality, morality could mean absolutely anything without making any difference. Therefore, God's standard of morality is completely arbitrary, not based - as you said - on any reason or system, but instead "just because."
Why? You'll need to prove that this is so. Merely claiming it isn't enough.
As you yourself have said, it is a tautology. Therefore, it can tell us nothing. All you are saying is "God's nature is goodness because goodness is God's nature." You therefore have no way of telling God's nature is actually good. All you can do is assert it.
Because we don't have to meet it. All we have to do is point out that the Christians have not actually met the burden of proof. You say it's enough to meet it poorly, but of course it isn't. Poor evidence is not good evidence. Present good, solid, reliable evidence of Christianity being true, and then the burden of refutation will be on me.
I don't think it's accurate to say that Aquinas's arguments have never been refuted. The arguments are flawed, and the flaws have been pointed out many times. In this case, the simple answer is that it's special pleading to say that everything must have a cause except for God.
Welcome to Christian Forums.
In all my time here at CF I have rarely come across a Christian argument that was not based on a logical fallacy. Often, the fallacy was strawmanning. I don't say that all Christian arguments are incorrect, nor that Christians always attack strawmen, but let us say that I am rarely surprised when these happen.
Would you mind leaving out the lols? They're impolite. It's against Christian Forum rules to be impolite.
Nowe then: yes, I have read Demon-Haunted World. It's a great book.
And yes, that is what I meant, which is why I said it "because there's no reason to believe in them." Having no scientific or naturalistic evidence for something sounds exactly like there is no reason to believe in it.
Don't blame us. That's just what most Christians say. As a cessationist, you're a rather rare sort. You're quite right to be skeptical of reports of miracles in present times. You should apply the same skepticism to the Bible.
Tu quoque.
Okay. Then I am happy to admit that you have a good answer to the question. If you don't believe that prayers are supposed to produce miracles, it would hardly be fair to ask you why they don't, would it? I'll keep it in my signature, though, because most Christians believe other than you.
Frankly, it would be novel to see either of them. At least, evidence worth the name.
I'm afraid I don't generally watch videos in arguments. If you believe there is a sufficiently good argument in there, please explain it.
No, and nobody's asking Him to be. But if most Christians - unlike yourself - do believe that God does actually produce effects in answer to prayer, then some of these - statistically speaking - should be observable. And the more claims there are, the more we should see some evidence of them.
Of course, if God doesn't actually exist, the fact that prayers don't produce any effect is easily explained.
I assume they used the Bible correctly because they quoted it in context. Take a look at your objections:
Mandatory seven year manumission? Only counts for Jews.
Jewish conversion? Why would the master allow that, if it meant he would lose a slave?
Laws against permanent injury to slaves? If you're referring to the one that says you can beat a slave in any way you wish so long as he doesn't immediately expire, you've just shot yourself in the foot. All it means is that you can punish a slave as much as you like short of death.
I haven't heard of the Mosaic laws in favour of fugitive slaves, but I'd be interested to.
All the did was quote the Bible in context. And they were right.
What it means is that they understood that Paul was not advocating the manumission of slaves.
You're not familiar with the passages from the New Testament in favour of slavery?
That's not a problem for me. Of course warning does not equal threat. But it's a plausible-seeming argument, which any proponent of slavery would be quick to make. "Oh, we're not threatening the slaves. We care for them! We just want to treat them justly. And if a slave doesn't work well, he gets punished. All they have to do is work well, and they have nothing to fear."
So? All you and I have to agree on is that slavery is wrong (as I take it you do) and then you have to explain why the Bible disagrees with you. Which it does.
If you don't know the quotes in favour of slavery, you really ought to. Otherwise, how can you answer the case?
Here's a sermon for you to read. It does an excellent job of explaining why antebellum slavery was based on a correct reading of the Bible. Pastor Warren was a man of impeccable Biblical knowledge and lamentable morals. He was in the wrong, but he shows, clearly and convincingly, that he was just following the guidance of God and Jesus, as laid out in the Bible.
Baptists and the American Civil War: January 27, 1861 | Baptists and the American Civil War: In Their Own Words
Upvote
0
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
So you concede there has been a change in form. . .a transition.
Again, I don't have to entertain pure speculation. Ever. So it's kicked-out. I know my rights.
God's nature is not based on random choice or personal whim, but rather on His nature of reason (as the infinite Logos) or system of Holiness, which is also according to His very nature.
When I say, "God is good." I'm not saying that God chooses to conform to a higher standard of morality that governs Him. No. I'm saying that God's very nature is the only moral nature that exists. God is the very embodiment and source of Good.
I don't have to prove anything. It was already proven for 700+ years. Before the Nobel Prize. Before Sweden officially existed.
Alright, you're gonna twist my arm anyway. . .here's a short proof:
P → Q, P infers Q
or
p→q
p
∴ q
p = universal logic
q = universal logician
Modus ponens is a basic first-order inference in propositional calculus (logic).
^ See, it's extraordinary evidence due to its extraordinary parsimony. Extraordinary evidence that's also compatible with Occam's Razor.
Never objectively refuted, because you only have two options:
1. Accept it for the proof it is.
2. Reject logic.
That's how the logic trap works.
If you accept #1, then Deism is established and atheism is falsified. Or, you can reject logic and become an existentialist absurdist (atheist). No shame in that. But you cannot have logic and atheism at the same time and in the same relationship.
It tells us we've reached the ground floor. Either that, or you demand infinite regress, which really does tell us nothing. . .to infinity.
If you claim to accept logic, then you have to accept some ground rules (tautological maxims). If you doubt those rules, then you're either (a.) not playing the game of logic, or (b.) you're telegraphing the desire to cheat. "Dirty pool old man," and other mixed metaphors.
You don't have to meet burden of proof, but in all fairness you do have to meet burden of refutation.
What, via the magic of gainsaying? lol. ‘argumentum ad lapidem’, much?
But it's not based on your subjective whim. It's based on the number of objective flaws in the evidence. If there are no objections, then it's as "good, solid, and reliable," as it stands! It is always on the opponent to locate and specify the errors, if any.
Because you said so. You're not actually bringing it, except for a spurious accusation of special pleading. Really, that's all you got?
The proper definition of law of causality is not, "everything must have a cause." It is, "every effect necessarily requires an antecedent cause." Law of causality is abstract. It is not about "cause and things." It's about the inherent relationship between cause and effect. <-- Every effect necessarily requires a cause (that's the law), but this doesn't mean one can assume this is equally true for cause itself.
A cause doesn't necessarily have to be the effect of some prior cause, and that cause doesn't necessarily have to be the effect of some prior cause, etc. etc. ad infinitum.
^ This triggers what is known as an infinite regress. Infinite regress never answers anything. Infinitely! Thus, it cannot be a rational conclusion for anything.
Okay, if you say so. I haven't been here long. But in-order to make the accusation of a strawman fallacy actually stick, you have to present and draw a clear distinction between your actual argument vs. the one presented as-if it were your argument.
Oh, I get it. You wanna weaponize any perceived offense by ratcheting up the oversensitivity. I heard there's also a rule against being petty.
^ Empirical evidence, which is inductively reasoned exclusively.
"God" is not an empirical claim.
An omnipotent being is never limited to a particular named form like, dragon, unicorn, fairy, leprechaun, teapot, or flying spaghetti monster. <-- That's what they all have in common, and that's why they are strawman arguments at worst, and a complete misapprehension of God at best.
No, because the entire narrative assumes "God" in book 1, chapter 1, verse 1. If "God," then of course "acts of God" are certainly about to happen. Miracles are only exclusively defined as acts of God. Miracles don't spontaneously happen in and of themselves.
I know the difference between General Revelation vs. Special Revelation.
You're not obligated to behave that way. I'm willing to give you every opportunity to not act according to stereotype. How's that?
Fine. Please don't forget.
I am not going to transcribe Sam Harris' (two minute) statement for every single atheist who says, "I don't generally watch videos in arguments," which is a lot. I'm sure you've already heard of the simulation argument by now.
- Disclaimer: It's an empirical argument, therefore inductive, and thus not a proof. What this means is that you're free to doubt it all you want to, as is the case with all evidence in nature.
- The empirical evidence is, "everyone's computer," then the math kicks-in.
- The projection is of the possibility of our own advanced simulations, but the realization is that we are most likely simulated beings ourselves. <-- By someone who is clearly not "us."
- Principle of Sufficient Reason kicks-in, "If simulation, then simulator," which Harris himself admits. But Harris says every religion, including Mormonism (which was his example) is back on the table.
- If our "omni" is simulated, then whoever simulated it is omnipotent by default. Such advancement cannot be compared to who we are in the here and now.
Yeah, this is not a formal argument. I'm not even pretending it is one. I defer to Bostrum and Harris. Nothing I present is original at all. I stand on the shoulders of giants. <-- Am I allowed to "lol" at my own jokes, or will you call the cops on me?
I'm totally willing to throw them under the bus too. Bad theology, which includes prayer, is never a good selling point.
Nope. All "strangers," which means non-Jews can observe the Passover if they convert. That naturally comes with benefits.
Because the law isn't about stacking slaves. Why would the master even buy slaves if it meant he would lose them in 7 years or less?
Leviticus 24:22
You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country; for I am the Lord your God.’
No exceptions. No racial excuses, like the Casor suit in 1654 that subverted indentured servitude in the United States. They get to become FULL Jews, if they want. And if they really-really want to maintain their paganism? Then they're contained for life. Yes. But you cannot say there isn't a way out (or two).
That's nothing more than eisegetical spin.
Exodus 12:49 One law for the stranger and the countryman. No double-standards.
Exodus 21:27
And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.
Exodus 21:20
“And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.
^ NOTE: This last one is a deterrent. There were no MRIs back then. No way to diagnose traumatic injury. Thus, you cannot interpret this verse as license to abuse slaves as much as you want "as long as they don't die." People have died from just one punch to the back of the brainstem.
Thus, a deterrent to abuse instead.
"But what if a slave wanted to run away?"
Deuteronomy 23:15
“You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you."
Thus, you've been lied to. These passages should really cause you to question your sources. And I fully concede that they could have been quoting from some antebellum-era pastors. But at the same time I'm calling those very same pastors heresiarchs - arch heretics.
Because they were under Roman occupation. In any case, Jesus does it all much more efficiently. If the NT were followed, then race would not be a factor (Galatians 3:28). The master would voluntarily submit to the slave under Christ, and vice-versa. They would be brothers.
I'd like to see you try to spin 'em.
Warnings don't always equal threats from an individual. However, a warning within that very context (the slave dynamic) always equals a threat. That's why Paul urges masters to "give up threatening," and "knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him."
And not a brother in Christ. Or a biblical follower of Christ, for that matter.
We don't agree why it's wrong. My argument is that both the UK, as well as the antebellum Pre-Civil War US were both doing it wrong. If we'd followed scripture, then fair treatment, injury prohibitions, freedom to leave, equal rights, and 7 year manumission after conversion. Yeah, and I'd be that kind of slave too, if I had a huge debt to pay off.
And a very poor exegete. See above.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
Read it anyway. I must admit that I've never seen a pastor butcher the book of Philemon before.
Upvote
0
You still haven't.
Nor have you managed to refute his arguments. I don't think you will be able to because he is, quite simply, quoting the Bible in context.
Upvote
0
This is an awful lot to deal with. Perhaps we should cut down on the conversation so we can handle it bit by bit?
You can dress it up in pretty words all you like, but all you're saying is "It just IS!"
Which is no use to you at all. You're still stuck on Euthyphro's Dilemma, and I'm sorry to tell you that you are never going to escape it.
You're stuck in the dilemma. By your definition of morality (morality is according to God's nature, and we know that it is moral because God's nature is to be moral) it means nothing.
In other words, if you can make an argument that stands up, it will be on me to refute it. You haven't managed it yet, but if you do, I shall be happy to hear it.
Second: do you agree with abiding by the rules of the forum? If yes, then fine. If not, then that says something about you.
Sure. Life is full of changes. So what?
It's not speculation. It's simple logic. Saying that God is the foundation of morality simply means that anything God was would be moral. Therefore, you have no means to assess whether what he calls good is actually good or not.
I didn't say it was. I said it was completely arbitrary, according to the definition you posted.
You can dress it up in pretty words all you like, but all you're saying is "It just IS!"
Which is no use to you at all. You're still stuck on Euthyphro's Dilemma, and I'm sorry to tell you that you are never going to escape it.
In other words: "He is, that's all. He just is! Why won't you just accept that?"
You're stuck in the dilemma. By your definition of morality (morality is according to God's nature, and we know that it is moral because God's nature is to be moral) it means nothing.
Sure you do. That's what this forum is about.
If it was proven, then you can explain the proof.
That looks extraordinarily complicated, probably as a disguise for its considerable flimsiness. No, the existence of logic does not imply a universal logician. Why would it?
I have the feeling you're trying to convince yourself of this more than anyone else. Look, it's really simple. You don't have any good evidence for God's existence, so I'm justified in remaining an atheist. If you did have good evidence, I would no longer be an atheist. But you don't seem to, and I doubt you ever will.
So? That still isn't either proof or evidence that God exists. Just that there are some things we don't know the reason for, as I am always happy to admit.
Sure. If the burden of proof has been met.
In other words, if you can make an argument that stands up, it will be on me to refute it. You haven't managed it yet, but if you do, I shall be happy to hear it.
I was speaking in the general, not the specific. I was saying that this is what generally happens on CF. Rest assured, when you make a flawed argument, I will point out to you what the flaw is.
Well, sure. It's just that the arguments of Christian apologists are usually not of a high calibre, and so it doesn't usually take much effort to knock them over.
It's all I need. Like I said, it's a simple argument to knock over.
Sure. So what?
Fine. Then maybe it was some other uncaused cause that caused the universe. And that's the point. Who knows?
I'm quite happy saying I don't know what caused the universe to come into existence.
What's the problem here exactly? All I was doing is saying that Christians on this forum generally have very poor arguments. If one of them gets made to me, rest assured I shall answer it.
I'm sorry if you think it's offensive to be reminded to be polite. You're wrong. It's not.
No, they're not strawman arguments. They're perfectly appropriate examples of a common Christian fallacy - that of saying "You can't disprove God, so He must exist."
No idea what you mean, honestly. What are you talking about?
The steretypes you hold are none of my business.
I'll try not to. Okay, you're a rather rare type of Christian who doesn't believe God works miracles any more. Noted.
Nope.
First: I have no idea what you're talking about. You'll need to make yourself clearer.
Second: do you agree with abiding by the rules of the forum? If yes, then fine. If not, then that says something about you.
Upvote
0
So, it's laws that discriminate against non-Jews. No surprise there.
Because he'd get seven years work out of them. Easy question.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
No, I totally did. The dude omitted some key verses in Philemon to fit his own confirmation bias towards Southern slavery, specifically v.12, 16, and 17. Of course, this is probably where you'd eisegetically read into it and assume that Paul is lying, even though you have no reason to. But his obvious butchery of the Holy Word of God is not limited to these 3 cases of eisegetical bias alone.
If you really want to defend this guy, we can go into it further. I find it very strange how passionately you want to prop this guy up as your strawman exegete.
I just gave 3 examples of this pastor's deliberately ignoring context. This is a textbook case of CHRINO cherry-picking.
Did I bring this stuff up? No, the thread clearly says that I didn't. I'm pretty sure you were just dropping one erroneous opinion after another, and assumed that I wouldn't actually make the effort to respond, and now you're starting to feel a bit overwhelmed.
If you don't want to address every-single-point you brought up, you're more than welcome to concede. Oh, and I get to dog you about any question you ignored, you know, like you do with others here. Won't that be FUN?!??
That's what the Bible refers to as the first death, as opposed to the "second death" of Revelation 20:14.
"If" scenarios are always based on pure speculation. Your opponent can either take the bait, or call it out for what it is. We're dealing with a concept you believe is fictional, so you're compounding the problem with your own "if" speculative fiction. No, I'm not gonna bite. I don't believe in "if" anymore.
No-no-no. Everything behaves according to its nature --dogs, cats; everybody. You behave according to your nature. I don't believe you would accept the accusation that 100% of all of your behavior is arbitrary. I don't believe anyone's behavior is truly arbitrary, unless they're clinically insane.
RE: "It just IS," is actually more than that. I'm invoking law of identity here. God behaves according to His nature. And an omnipotent being would never-ever be arbitrary, given His full sovereign knowledge and control.
This isn't about what you wish. This is about objective truth.
^ This is clearly evidence that you're not paying attention to my follow-up responses and failing to edit as you go. Then you complain about how long the conversation is.
I can totally explain it.
It is extraordinarily simple. It is nothing more than Leibniz's PSR shoved into a modus ponens. Most compact syllogism there is.
Because you asserted thus (???), from some perceived position of arbitrary authority alone? Seriously? You're just trying to "nuh-uh" Principle of Sufficient Reason because IA said so! No one lets me get away with that lame tactic. In which case, you've deliberately chosen either misology, existential absurdism, or insanity.
Because Principle of Sufficient Reason. Let's say I enter into a contract with a guy to write a computer program, which he delivers on his end and is just waiting for me to pay him. Can I get away with violating the contract, and therefore non-payment, by simply asserting, "The existence of a program does not imply a programmer!" No. I'd be guilty of straight-up fraud.
What if you hire me to design something, but then try to cheat me because, "The existence of a design does not imply a designer?"
Even sillier: You hire a moving company to help you move into a new house. I suppose you don't have to pay them because, "The existence of a move does not imply a mover?"
Principle of Sufficient Reason. I can simply declare I won this entire debate because, "The existence of writing does not imply a writer."
Then, when put through a modus ponens, you're essentially forced to either concede the existence of a "universal logician" i.e. Deism, or deny logic altogether. That's how the trap works. And it totally works.
Evidence is objective. Persuasion is subjective. <-- "Good" evidence is in the persuasion category. That's not my responsibility, "You can lead a horse to water. . .etc." I can't make you deal with the evidence.
Except for reason itself. What you're doing is demanding an escape hatch for every little thing, including logic itself. IOW, you don't really want anything reliable to count as proof for me to even gain a footing to prove God with. You wanna blow up the foundation before getting started. You bait & switch; saying you want proof, but then sabotage any means of getting there--by any means necessary. Typical atheist behavior.
It was met. "Proof by asserting" your way out of it and abandoning logic when it doesn't go the way you wanted it is exposing your true motives. So you abandon burden of refutation when it's upon you.
It stands literally unrefuted. And that's how I win.
Via the magical power of your sovereign "Nuh-Uhs," gainsaying and ‘argumentum ad lapidem.' Got it.
So you've grown lazy. I'm not a garden-variety presuppositionalist. You're showing lack of homework. You don't wanna read up on PSR, or modus ponens. Yeah, doing the actual work is such a drag, right? It's so much easier to pretend as-if you accomplished something here, or that your opponent never did anything.
Proof by (repeated) assertion fallacy to the contrary doesn't count. Ever. If it did, I could simply proof-by-assertion God into existence. Easy-peasy.
That's the very real loophole for the un-moved mover (primum movens). If you ever studied this subject, then you would know it already. This is basic Aristotle here. If you ever went to college, and missed hearing this without skipping class, I'd ask for my tuition back.
We can know. This has already been determined deductively. . .
Given that Big Bang Theory falsified Steady State theory, the universe (nature) did have a cause from outside itself.
Thus, cause rationally supersedes nature. Or is simply known as "supernature."
To account for ultimate cause, the only options* are as follows:
- Chance
- Intent
- A material cause.
^ The latter invokes an infinite regress, which is completely irrational. "Turtles All The Way Down" applies equally to cosmological claims as it does to theistic claims.
"Chance" is not a thing-in-itself. Voltaire argued that chance is a placeholder for "we don't know." You need material dice to actually roll them to begin with. Thus, chance is eliminated.
Thus, deductively speaking, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." -AC Doyle
Conclusion: It was done intentionally on purpose. Q.E.D.
*Until you can actually bring a fourth option (or more), then all rational options have been cited.
Bottom line: It has ^ been deductively proven that it was done on-purpose.
Then you're a huge fan of question-begging the entire universe. <-- Big red flag here that someone claims to value reason, but in the end really doesn't care about it at all.
That is currently being put to the test. Time to bring it. You can't simply assert "strawman" like a magic word. You have to show the clear distinction between your argument vs. the one that is allegedly misrepresented. That's the point. Otherwise, I can just repeat "strawman-strawman, squaaaawk, like some stupid parrot, and you'd always be magically wrong!
You're an activist. Weaponizing the rules is what you do.
1. I'm accepting the burden of proof, simply because I don't trust you with it. So don't worry about me shifting the burden of proof.
2. Every-single example of those strawman arguments is literally implying that "God" is an empirical claim. If one were being honest, then "teapot" by definition, is limited to the form designation "teapot." Dragon is limited to dragon, etc.
The clear distinction here that proves the atheist strawmen is that "God" is never consistently defined as a finite being limited to form, such as teapot, dragon, spaghetti, etc.
- General Revelation in nature (not Bible) proves God's existence. <-- That's Thomism.
- The Bible assumes God's existence as a given without bothering to prove His existence. Because page 1, of book 1, chapter 1, verse 1 states, "In the beginning God. . ."
The Christian presuppositionalist pre-supposes that the Bible is true, and then tries to draw contrasting arguments and contradictions with a secular POV.
The Thomist doesn't do that. They just argue from general revelation. If Paul is correct in Romans 1:18-20, then you don't need a Bible to prove the existence of God in nature. No Bible necessary, and no spurious mystical definitions of faith necessary. Okay?
Then please stop behaving according to stereotype. Please try to do something that isn't completely predictable. Please.
You're scared. I get that.
Then you're going to have to actually deal with what I posted. You can't say, "nope," refuse to look, and then demand an explanation. Sam Harris does a very wonderful job of explaining it. You should prefer it coming from an atheist. Which is why I posted it. C'mon, you can do this! I know you can find the courage. I know you don't wanna dump the entire debate over a two-minute video.
I clearly asked permission. Don't even try to weaponize that.
You're not paying attention here. Non-Jews get to convert to Judaism and then they get all the benefits, including seven-year manumission. No atheist can weasel out of this one.
That's the maximum you can hope for. In any case, it's not "for life." And that's seven years after the last sabbath festival. It doesn't count for slaves bought during the seven-year period. The time limit is based on the holiday; not the time of purchase. So, if you buy a slave say, a year prior to mandatory manumission, then you only get him for one year. No more.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
