-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I was a Christian ... once. [moved from new member intros]
- Thread starter Spectrox War
- Start date
E
Eric Hilbert
Guest
Spectrox War said:
I notice you failed to provide any verses showing the Old Testament supporting any of these things.
Where is any of that in New Testament???
You know, when atheists come here and say they used to be Christians but then say things like this, it doesn't exactly give them a lot of credibility.
So are we just supposed to take your word that the resurrection accounts contradict? Are we really to believe that in 2,000 years of Christian scholarship, nobody has ever noticed a contradiction but you, the same guy who claims that people go to Hell for not believing in Jesus and that whole nonsense about "God sacrificing Himself to Himself", are here to set us straight?
This is what legal scholars call presenting "facts not in evidence". You're making the claim that a belief in God is illogical because of evolution, but you've yet to show any evidence that evolution is true.
Why do you find them absurd? The fact that we have talking birds today notwithstanding, if God is real and His description of Himself is true, then it is perfectly reasonable, no, probable, that miracles exist.
Upvote
0
E
Eric Hilbert
Guest
But you say you're an atheist. How can you claim to know God when you claim that God does not exist?
Then how do you claim that you knew God?
Upvote
0
I can't be bothered to look up the exact references. Life's too short. But the genocide ones you should already know about (in Kings or is it Judges?). Just type in "genocide bible reference"s in Google and you can read them at your leisure. Also, read the bits when the Bible talks of slavery in the OT and the NT - it isn't pretty. Homophobia is definitely there in both OT and NT. "Treating women badly" was perhaps too harsh but they are certainly treated as second class citizens throughout a lot of it or at least as characateurs (either saints or [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]) - a clue is the fact that the Bible was written by men and Jesus was a bloke. The baby being dashed against the rocks is I believe Psalm 137 but I could be wrong. Wherever it is, it's appalling.
The Resurrection accounts would be thrown out in a court of law as nonsense. Different people at the tomb. Angels present or not. The stone already rolled away or Matthew's gospel where there is an earthquake (Matthew's quite keen on earthquakes) and then the stone rolls dramatically away.
Why does sacrificing Jesus for the crimes/sins of others make it ok? Why does God insist on blood sacrifices? Why is the odour of blood pleasing to Yahweh?
Evolution does not prove that God does not exist but it means God is no longer necessary to explain the diversity of life on this planet. The Bible paints a very different picture of the world than the evidence of the fossil record. That conflicts never gets resolved by Christians IMO. It gets glossed over.
A parrot repeating sounds is not the same as a donkey having an entire conversation in Numbers 22. Do you seriously believe these stories the way they are told in the Bible? Do you really believe Biblical-style miracles? If so, why do we never hear of any today - only stories from 2000 years ago when people were more inclined to believe in magic, superstition and devils?
I won't be writing a thesis. This is all you get. It's probably a pointless conversation anyway. We've both made up our minds.
Upvote
0
E
Eric Hilbert
Guest
Funny, how you guys always have plenty of time to make your ridiculous claims about the Bible and yet, the moment somebody asks you for evidence to back up your claims, your calender suddenly fills up.
Funny how you say you have no time but then go on to write a lengthy post.
Which part, specifically, do you feel "is not pretty"? The part where we're told that slave traders are to be put to death? The part where we're told that someone who kills a slave is to be put to death? The part where the Israelites were told to treat slaves mercifully?
Out of curiousity, are you going on the assumption that the slavery spoken of in scripture is the same kind of slavery we experienced here in North America?
And yet, you're too busy to come up with any examples.
Yeah...and?
Are you arguing that women were considered equal to men in that culture?
And what about the women who were businesswomen, judges, prophetesses, heroines, etc?
I agree. It's appalling. But what's your point? He's not telling anybody to kill a baby or praising anyone for killing a baby. He's just prophesying, saying, "Hey, this is going to get really ugly if you don't repent and it's going to lead to appalling violence".
Why?
How do you know this?
None of the accounts record angels as being absent from the scene.
Do you know what a contradiction is? A contradiction is when one account says one thing and another account disputes the facts in the first account.
None of the accounts say there was no earthquake.
Again, this is what legal scholars would call "presenting facts not in evidence". Your question is based on the premise that it is wrong, but you still have not demonstrated that it is wrong, or what is wrong about it.
Because life is in the blood.
And what are these alleged "conflicts"?
Why? If an animal is capable of making sounds recognizable as human speech, then why can't that animal be manipulated to speak or be used as a conduit for an omnipowerful God to speak?
Yes.
Yes.
Because we have the completed canon of scripture.
Evidently, you won't be answering simple questions or backing up any claims you've made, either.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
E
Eric Hilbert
Guest
Thanks, but don't let me stop you. I'm sure you have something valuable to share.
Upvote
0
Eric. Congratulations. You have successfully got me on the back foot. At last a worthy opponent on a forum. I admire your argument style - although I think that what you're saying is founded in fallacy.
I'll do my best to answer your points in turn - as fully as I can. From the outset I should mention that this debate serves no purpose for either of us because it has become abundantly clear that I could never convince you of my position and I'm sure you feel you will never convince me of yours. I'm writing this for the benefit of anyone else who might be reading who may be undecided.
My last post wasn't particularly lengthy - I have written far lengthier posts on non-Christian forums. My calendar hasn't suddenly filled up although I am a busy man. The only evidence I have is that I have one life, so time is a scarce resource. Whereas most Christians I have met just seem to be hanging around waiting to meet their maker.
SLAVERY
It is morally wrong for any person to be owned. And yet The Bible does not challenge this at all. In the NT it says "slaves obey your masters." And then yes it goes on to say something like masters treat your slaves well or words to that effect.
Where's God's vision for the future? If slavery was crucial to the economy and could not be stopped immediately then fair enough, but why couldn't God say something like "I foresee a time when no person shall be owned by another because all men are equal under God." That would have have really helped Wilberforce in his Abolition of Slavery Bill (which by the way took him over 10 years to get through parliament because he was opposed by the majority of Christian MPs and the then Archbishop of Canterbury, who correctly - but immorally- argued that he was not Biblical!). There's no vision for the end of slavery in The Bible. It isn't there. It's missing.
And I'm not convinced by this argument that slaves were treated worse later on. Slaves were put to death in Roman times too. The bottom line is that a slave has no human rights.
And I haven't yet mentioned the Spanish Inquisition...
HOMOPHOBIA
Stoning gay people to death in Leviticus and Paul's comments (where he puts homosexuals in the same sinful list as thieves and murderers) is not acceptable anymore. Jesus doesn't specifically mention the issue but he says that the Torah is true, so he doesn't escape the issue either.
WOMEN
Maybe you're right here. I overstated my case. However don't some of the put downs for women worry you a little? Paul's "I do not allow women to preach or have authority over a man" will not have helped the cause of women vicars. Also my main point still stands - it's God the father and Jesus is a man. The Bible was written by men (as far as we can tell). It should be a 50:50 split in the interest of equality.
PSALM 137
I find this passage to be at best ambiguous. Why bother using such brutal imagery? If it gets misconstrued - it's not going to end up well.
RESURRECTION
I was wrong about there being no angels in one account (1 angel in both Matthew and Mark, and 2 angels in Luke and John), but my point still stands. Mark 16 onwards is admitted by Xian scholars as being added later and this misses out the Resurrection (we just see an empty tomb at the end of Mark 15) - seeing as this was the first Gospel written and others borrowed heavily from it, this is really sloppy.
I defy anyone to honestly put those stories side by side and work out in chronological order what was supposed to have happened in detail. If you can do that, you're a better man than me.
And how is it that the other 3 missed the earthquake? Ridiculous.
By the way, even if the accounts were watertight, this wouldn't be good enough evidence anyway because the accounts are so old and are not corroborated with any other evidence, that it is likely to me the accounts are made up.
JESUS AS SACRIFICE
In the modern world, we don't execute someone when some other person or persons has committed a crime. This would be an infringement of basic justice.
LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD?
It's also as a result of water, oxygen, carbohydrates, proteins etc without which we would all die. The continuation of life would also not be possible without sexual intercourse. God is just bloodthirsty.
CREATION/EVOLUTION
The Bible: The Garden of Eden was paradise. No pain. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and he puts a curse on the Earth. It is now a hellish place and animals are now savage. This is the whole reason for jesus' mission.
Evolution: Trexs were killing and devouring other animals millions of years before man came on the scene. A cheetah didn't suddenly start ripping a gazelle to pieces when Adam bit the apple.
YOU BELIEVE BIBLICAL-STYLE MIRACLES
Oh right, would that be the folllowing?:
The virgin birth
Turning water (H20) into alcohol (C2H5OH)
Jesus raising others from the dead including himself
Gravity-defying walking on water
Glowing in the dark on a hilltop
Feeding thousands of hungry people with hardly anything more substantial than a KFC Bucket
Withering a fig tree for being out of season (the only story I've ever read in which I feel sorry for a tree - it wasn't the trees fault)
Let us not forget the last great miracle before the crucifiction - the sticking back of the ear
And finally Jesus dying on the cross and long dead holy men rise from their graves and parade around Jerusalem like something out of Shaun of the Dead
Several tall tales that litter the Old Testament including a talking snake and a talking donkey - the only thing missing from this story is a green ogre and a princess voiced by Cameron Diaz.
If you truly believe what amounts to a superstitious collection of old Jewish folk tales then you have my sympathy.
If I was God I would have conveyed my extremely important message to humanity in some other way.
Let us consider what Christians believe (the genuine ones who believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God, not the dishonest "cherry pickers" who select what they like and dismiss what doesn't suit them).
Apparently the best way to convey the ultimate message is to incarnate as a human 2,000 years ago - God could have chosen any time in history to do this but instead chose the Iron Age. We'll put that aside for now.
What method did the all-knowing God devise to ensure the accurate recording of the most important message in history? He would let 4 other people write his biography (2 of which he never met). He would let one guy, Mark, write it down first with the resurrection bit missing and tag that on the end at some later stage. Then he'd allow the other 3 to write their own versions of the biography, copying huge sections from Mark, making sure the Aramaic was converted to Greek. Then wait another 3 centuries for it to be put together officially.
Does this sound like a good cosmic plan to you?
If I'd been God I would have written the account myself and taken responsibility for it with a sense of ownership instead of abandoning the task to others and hoping for the best. Or better still - use an entirely different method to communicate to all of my creations to ensure an equal opportunity.
It's the most bizarre, ridiculously inept plan in history and yet some people are happy to lap up this drivel.
I rest my case.
I'll do my best to answer your points in turn - as fully as I can. From the outset I should mention that this debate serves no purpose for either of us because it has become abundantly clear that I could never convince you of my position and I'm sure you feel you will never convince me of yours. I'm writing this for the benefit of anyone else who might be reading who may be undecided.
My last post wasn't particularly lengthy - I have written far lengthier posts on non-Christian forums. My calendar hasn't suddenly filled up although I am a busy man. The only evidence I have is that I have one life, so time is a scarce resource. Whereas most Christians I have met just seem to be hanging around waiting to meet their maker.
SLAVERY
It is morally wrong for any person to be owned. And yet The Bible does not challenge this at all. In the NT it says "slaves obey your masters." And then yes it goes on to say something like masters treat your slaves well or words to that effect.
Where's God's vision for the future? If slavery was crucial to the economy and could not be stopped immediately then fair enough, but why couldn't God say something like "I foresee a time when no person shall be owned by another because all men are equal under God." That would have have really helped Wilberforce in his Abolition of Slavery Bill (which by the way took him over 10 years to get through parliament because he was opposed by the majority of Christian MPs and the then Archbishop of Canterbury, who correctly - but immorally- argued that he was not Biblical!). There's no vision for the end of slavery in The Bible. It isn't there. It's missing.
And I'm not convinced by this argument that slaves were treated worse later on. Slaves were put to death in Roman times too. The bottom line is that a slave has no human rights.
And I haven't yet mentioned the Spanish Inquisition...
HOMOPHOBIA
Stoning gay people to death in Leviticus and Paul's comments (where he puts homosexuals in the same sinful list as thieves and murderers) is not acceptable anymore. Jesus doesn't specifically mention the issue but he says that the Torah is true, so he doesn't escape the issue either.
WOMEN
Maybe you're right here. I overstated my case. However don't some of the put downs for women worry you a little? Paul's "I do not allow women to preach or have authority over a man" will not have helped the cause of women vicars. Also my main point still stands - it's God the father and Jesus is a man. The Bible was written by men (as far as we can tell). It should be a 50:50 split in the interest of equality.
PSALM 137
I find this passage to be at best ambiguous. Why bother using such brutal imagery? If it gets misconstrued - it's not going to end up well.
RESURRECTION
I was wrong about there being no angels in one account (1 angel in both Matthew and Mark, and 2 angels in Luke and John), but my point still stands. Mark 16 onwards is admitted by Xian scholars as being added later and this misses out the Resurrection (we just see an empty tomb at the end of Mark 15) - seeing as this was the first Gospel written and others borrowed heavily from it, this is really sloppy.
I defy anyone to honestly put those stories side by side and work out in chronological order what was supposed to have happened in detail. If you can do that, you're a better man than me.
And how is it that the other 3 missed the earthquake? Ridiculous.
By the way, even if the accounts were watertight, this wouldn't be good enough evidence anyway because the accounts are so old and are not corroborated with any other evidence, that it is likely to me the accounts are made up.
JESUS AS SACRIFICE
In the modern world, we don't execute someone when some other person or persons has committed a crime. This would be an infringement of basic justice.
LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD?
It's also as a result of water, oxygen, carbohydrates, proteins etc without which we would all die. The continuation of life would also not be possible without sexual intercourse. God is just bloodthirsty.
CREATION/EVOLUTION
The Bible: The Garden of Eden was paradise. No pain. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and he puts a curse on the Earth. It is now a hellish place and animals are now savage. This is the whole reason for jesus' mission.
Evolution: Trexs were killing and devouring other animals millions of years before man came on the scene. A cheetah didn't suddenly start ripping a gazelle to pieces when Adam bit the apple.
YOU BELIEVE BIBLICAL-STYLE MIRACLES
Oh right, would that be the folllowing?:
The virgin birth
Turning water (H20) into alcohol (C2H5OH)
Jesus raising others from the dead including himself
Gravity-defying walking on water
Glowing in the dark on a hilltop
Feeding thousands of hungry people with hardly anything more substantial than a KFC Bucket
Withering a fig tree for being out of season (the only story I've ever read in which I feel sorry for a tree - it wasn't the trees fault)
Let us not forget the last great miracle before the crucifiction - the sticking back of the ear
And finally Jesus dying on the cross and long dead holy men rise from their graves and parade around Jerusalem like something out of Shaun of the Dead
Several tall tales that litter the Old Testament including a talking snake and a talking donkey - the only thing missing from this story is a green ogre and a princess voiced by Cameron Diaz.
If you truly believe what amounts to a superstitious collection of old Jewish folk tales then you have my sympathy.
If I was God I would have conveyed my extremely important message to humanity in some other way.
Let us consider what Christians believe (the genuine ones who believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God, not the dishonest "cherry pickers" who select what they like and dismiss what doesn't suit them).
Apparently the best way to convey the ultimate message is to incarnate as a human 2,000 years ago - God could have chosen any time in history to do this but instead chose the Iron Age. We'll put that aside for now.
What method did the all-knowing God devise to ensure the accurate recording of the most important message in history? He would let 4 other people write his biography (2 of which he never met). He would let one guy, Mark, write it down first with the resurrection bit missing and tag that on the end at some later stage. Then he'd allow the other 3 to write their own versions of the biography, copying huge sections from Mark, making sure the Aramaic was converted to Greek. Then wait another 3 centuries for it to be put together officially.
Does this sound like a good cosmic plan to you?
If I'd been God I would have written the account myself and taken responsibility for it with a sense of ownership instead of abandoning the task to others and hoping for the best. Or better still - use an entirely different method to communicate to all of my creations to ensure an equal opportunity.
It's the most bizarre, ridiculously inept plan in history and yet some people are happy to lap up this drivel.
I rest my case.
Upvote
0
E
Eric Hilbert
Guest
Spectrox War said:
The Bible prohibits "man stealing" (i.e. slave trading) and calls for the death of slave traders (Ex 21:16).
That's true. Do you understand that slavery in Roman culture was radically different from the slavery we experienced in North America?
Slavery had nothing to do with the economy.
First, because the purpose of the Bible isn't to address social ills or political issues.
Second, because slavery had nothing to do with men not being equal.
It's important to note that Wilberforce was addressing a different kind of slavery.
Correct. Ending slavery is not the purpose of the Bible.
That's true. Slaves were not exempt from capital punishment. They did not get a free pass just because they were slaves.
Really? They were able to own property. They were able to conduct legal and business affairs. In many cases, they could vote. There are even records of slaves being elected to the Senate. They were able to own property. They were considered a member of their masters' family and were often heirs of the estate after the master died.
Your claims (you know, the ones you refuse to back up?) were specificall about the Bible and its teachings. The Spanish Inquisition (as well as the other Inquisitions) was something that contrary to Biblical teaching, not because of it.
Nor do we stone people for any of the other sins the Bible tells us punish by death.
How is a prohibition against homosexuality "homophobia"?
I am right.
I guess it would if there were any.
Why should the Bible help the cause of something the Bible prohibits?
Because it was a brutal culture and because it's a description of a brutal consequence.
And my point that two accounts emphasizing different details is not the same as a contradiction still stands.
That's an...oh, for the sake of charity, let's just say "interesting" claim.
I defy you to show evidence for your claim. But then, I've been asking for evidence for about three posts now and I don't think it's going to happen.
Who says they missed it?
Irrelevant. You are talking about modern, Western culture. I'm talking about the culture in which the Bible was written.
I should probably warn you right now that mocking our religion is probably not going to earn you a lot of credibility with Christians.
And if you don't believe God's Word, you have mine.
Actually, Jesus didn't become a man to "convey a message". This had already been done.
Which two do you believe He didn't know?
No. It sounds like somebody who's never picked up a Bible but gets his talking points from atheist websites.
So, you've lied about the Bible, misrepresented the Bible's teaching on a variety of topics, gotten facts wrong about church history, secular Roman history, justification, the nature of God, the nature of scripture, etc, and you call the inerrent Word of God "inept"?
Spectrox, I wasn't paying attention and didn't realize we were in the "Exploring Christianity" forums. Debate is not allowed here and we've rocketed over the debate line some time ago. As a result, unless you want to start another thread somewhere and continue this conversation there, this will be my last post here.
Sorry, moderators. I forgot I was in the Exploring Christianity forums. If you want to delete this post, it's OK.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I have not deliberately lied on this forum. I have made slight errors in my exuberance as an amateur blogger which I have admitted to. This is more than Christians do. And even my slight ineptness is nothing compared to the amazing ineptness of some entity who claims to be the creator of the entire Universe who apparently isn't interested in our social welfare. That one statement of yours sums up your position nicely.
At the end of the day theists should be demonstrating their claims. Atheists just don't think there is sufficient justification that the God claim is true. I have gone a great deal further by exposing some extremely dodgy morals in the Bible. And yet you defend it with weasel words. You are a sycophant to an idea.
Upvote
0
Actually, personally I would begin with Leviticus 25:44-46:
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
Dont get much more straightforward than that! You're free (in this god's mind) to own other people and even pass them as property on to your children, as long as they're not Israeli.
Or this little pearl from Exodus 21:
"If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever."
So, if your master "gives' you a wife and you have kids, the wife and kids stay his. If you decide you want to stay with your family, you belong to this master forever!
Or this snippet a little further in Exodus 21:
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her."
Well at least if she doesnt "please" the man she was sold to, the customer can get his money back, just not from foreigners. Remember these are rules set up by this god in the story. Not a case of such a figure just ignoring the actions of his creation, but him specifically giving on instructions on what was to be done.
Just be careful in the way (not "if") you beat them: (exodus 21:20-21)
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property."
Of course, it's not just an old testament thing: (ephesians 6:5)
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."
So, again, it's not a case of a god just ignoring the bad actions of his creation. This is a god (I dont believe the story to be true, just pointing out the irrationality) directly telling some people (the slaves) to be loyal and obey those who hold them as slaves. You dont feel this is a direct endorsement of slavery?
Elsewhere in the NT, there's more: From 1 Timothy,
"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them"
Or in Luke 12:
"The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it"
The idea of owning another human being and passing them as property to your children, and beating them (as long as they get up in a day or two) and having your way sexually with them (if not you get your money back) is absolutely positively morally reprehensible. End of story.
Yes it's true that in the times and places these scriptures were put into writing, it was considered morally okay, just as it was in the southern United States (and to alot of people in the north) a century and a half ago. All the more evidence that such "morals" often change with place and time and are a product of society, not of an unchanging "god". But the writings that make up the bible are crystal clear. These people believed that what they were doing was totally cool with the god they believed in as long as they followed a few simple rules.
Is a serpent capable of making such sounds? To the best of my knowledge, they lack the anatomical features necessary to make such sounds. To say nothing of the advanced brain functions necessary for forming language. Of course, if you just want to say "god did it" you can say anything. But that's not really conducive to a discussion on evidence and contradictions.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
There are photos of Prince Charles. There are recordings of Prince Charles. there are writings of Prince Charles. There are thousands (really probably millions) who have directly seen, heard, even felt Prince Charles and can act as a direct witness that he exists. There are children of Prince Charles. I could go on...
A better example would be someone like Socrates or Homer. But it's all irrelevant. No one ascribes divinity to Prince Charles or such historical figures. If they do, then you can rightfully doubt the stories as being without merit.
You see, when dealing with matters you cant directly witness, your level of belief should be directly proportional to the amount of evidence behind it and indirectly proportional to how unlikely the story is (based on what we know about physics, biology, etc).
For example if you live in New York, if ten friends tell you they just saw Jenifer Lopez in a department store, you should probably be inclined to believe them, unless they have a history of lying to you. This is because it's pretty well established she exists, you know she lives in NYC, and she probably shops every now and then. Not alot of evidence should really be necessary.
But if one of your friends tells you he has been having a secret affair with Jennifer Lopez the past few years, you're probably going to expect evidence. If none can be provided, you can rightfully dismiss the story. Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Talk to me about a man who lived a couple thousand years ago and inspired a big following, then sure I can buy that. Tell me that he was a divine being in human form, then you are going to have to provide a bit more than just "because god said so."
Upvote
0
I can't speak for him, but I feel the same way so I will answer your question.
"Knowing" god is a myth. You feel you "know" him because you have been raised in a time and place in history that the prevailing gods belief is the christian trinity of gods. You are told by those around you of these gods that no one has seen or heard. You are told to associate all things good with this god (or gods, it gets confusing when you talk of a trinity), and all things bad as being a result of man-made "sin". You effectively compartmentalize your brain, so that basic rules of logic and reason arent allowed to touch the "god" areas. In effect, you brainwash yourself to be a part of a cult. A large scale cult, but a cult nonetheless.
But the reality is you dont "know" any such thing. You dont "know" anymore than those brought up in a different time and place where different gods beliefs predominate.
When I was a child I was as religious as anybody. But going into my teen years, I started to ask questions. Initially when I received nonsensical answers, I accepted them and moved on. But more and more I came to realize that this invisible undetectable being probably didnt actually exist. especially when I realized the only reason I believed these stories in the first place was simply of because of where and when I was born. That I would have been told different stories of different gods in another time and place. I realized the only reason I ever believed what I did in the first place was because it was what I was TOLD, by people who had been TOLD by others who had similarly been TOLD, all the way down the line.
So yes, I did "know" the judeo-christian god in the same respect that you do, namely that I believed in him without question based on what I was told by those who brought me up, but now I realize that it was all just a myth. I am therefore now "a-" (without) "-theist" (gods).
Upvote
0
E
Eric Hilbert
Guest
Chris72 said:
OK. So then, you don't believe that a sovereign God has the right to punish those who violate His laws?
Yes. God isn't in favor of seperating families.
That's true. Masters are not punished for not killing their slaves.
Yes...and?
No, I don't. It's an acknowledge meant of a common practice and instructions on how Christians are to behave within that practice.
Again, why is this a bad thing?
Actually, this is a parable. Verse 41 even tells you that it's a parable.
Why? If a person chooses to enter into slavery or chooses to remain a slave once his indenture has ended, why is that bad?
Ah, so you are equating it with the slavery experienced in North America. That explains it. Please pick up a history book. Slavery in Roman culture was nothing at all like the "man-stealing" slavery we saw in North America.
Is an omnipotent God capable of causing a serpent to make such sounds?
Why not? If God is omnipotent, then why isn't this aspect of His nature and character relevant to a discussion on evidence?
Then he wasn't a Christian, as being a Christian not only requires a relationship with God, but action on God's part. If God did not exist to perform these actions, then he was not the recipient of God's action and, thus, not a Christian.
...which is not the same as being a Christian.
How does that make the "stories" untrue?
If I say that the Auburn Tigers are the 2010 BCS National Champions, does the fact that I was born and raised near Auburn, into a family of Auburn fans (including a father who was an Auburn professor) make that any less true?
I see. Then you were not called, regenerated, and saved and sanctified by God?
Not according to your description above. According to what you just said, you claim you knew God (who you also claim did not exist...mental hospitals are full of people who claim to know people who do not exist) because of what other people told you and because of where you were born.
I know God because God called me, regenerated me, saved me, sanctified me, and lives within me. I have the internal witness of my conscience, the external witness of creation, the revelation of His Word, and the witness of the Holy Spirit.
In short, you say you knew him because others told you so. I know Him because I have experienced Him and because He has worked in me.
No, you still have a God and Christ is still your Lord. You simply refuse to submit to Him and choose to rebel against Him.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I gotta admit, this is getting kind of scary to me talking with someone who doesnt understand how slavery is a bad thing.
I dont believe in a "sovereign god" so I dont really have that problem. But no, I dont think that enslaving people for not being israeli is just.
You look at a law stating that if a person owns another being, and sets him up with a wife and they have children, he has the right to keep the wife and children, and if the slave doesnt want to be separated, the master keeps them all...and your response is "well, god just loves families"! Holy crap this is insane.
<<staring at the screen with eyes wide open and jaw dropped>>
allright, this is just too much. I said I would try to be respectful, but this is some of the creepiest [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] I have ever heard. I'm out. If there are any non-slavery-supporters here, I would be happy to talk. Otherwise, I'm just seriously hoping you are writing this somewhere you are being supervised, closely.
I dont believe in a "sovereign god" so I dont really have that problem. But no, I dont think that enslaving people for not being israeli is just.
You look at a law stating that if a person owns another being, and sets him up with a wife and they have children, he has the right to keep the wife and children, and if the slave doesnt want to be separated, the master keeps them all...and your response is "well, god just loves families"! Holy crap this is insane.
<<staring at the screen with eyes wide open and jaw dropped>>
allright, this is just too much. I said I would try to be respectful, but this is some of the creepiest [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] I have ever heard. I'm out. If there are any non-slavery-supporters here, I would be happy to talk. Otherwise, I'm just seriously hoping you are writing this somewhere you are being supervised, closely.
Upvote
0
E
Eric Hilbert
Guest
And talking to someone who's never taken a history class and learned the difference between slavery in that culture and the type of "man-stealing" slavery the Bible condemns is quite frustrating to me.
You can't have it both ways. You can't base a post on the idea that the events in the Bible are true, but the forces behind them are not.
Why not? Do you believe that criminals should be sent to prison?
I'm sorry that your frustration at not being able to understand such a simple concept is leading you to lash out in this way.
I don't really have the time to educate you fully on this, nor do I have the desire to keep responding to someone who only has personal attacks in their arsenal but, as I explained to you before, you keep insisting that slavery in Roman culture was akin to the slavery we knew here in North America.
If you lived in this culture and passed a slave on the street, unless you knew his family, you most likely would not even know he was a slave. If your doctor was a slave, unless he told you, you probably wouldn't even realize he was a slave. If the pedagogue (a big word that means private teachers) who taught your children was a slave, unless you knew so, you probably wouldn't realize he was a slave.
The kind of slavery we're talking about is completely different from that of what you're thinking of. You seem to have this idea that slavery in this culture was like a Roman version of Roots and it was not. Slavery in this culture was much more akin to indenture or even the modern idea of having someone on a retainer than what you're talking about.
Again, man-stealing is condemned in scripture. There were laws to protect slaves from abuse and to see that slaves were treated fairly. Slaves could marry. Slaves could own property. Slaves could carry out legal and business transactions. In most cases, slaves were considers heirs of the masters' estate. Slaves could usually vote (depending on their citizenship). Slaves could be elected to the Senate. The children of slaves the Bible refers to as "bondslaves" (that is, slaves who completed their term of service but who chose to stay with their master) were not considered to be slaves and were free to join the household or not.
I understand that, as someone not familiar with the Bible, you may not be aware of this, but Joseph was a slave. He was also the second most powerful man in all of Egypt, second only to Pharaoh. He had great political power, wealth, and led Egypt on Pharaoh's behalf. Not exactly like Kunta Kinte, is it?
You can laugh at me all you like but, by refusing to acknowledge the nature of slavery during this culture, you're the one who is showing yourself to be uneducated.
Please, for your own sake, pick up a history book once in a while.
Yes, I'm sure the idea of not punishing someone for something they haven't done is a real eye opener.
Then I would strongly suggest that you never, ever take a Western Civ class where Roman culture and the indenture found there are discussed because if my post upset you that much, a Western Civ class would make your head explode.
Upvote
0
Classic inconsistency here! Eric Hilbert accuses me of lying and then in the next breath says he won't post on here again to the moderator (an actual human being) and then goes on to violate his own word by posting here again. By the way I didn't lie - I was going from memory and hadn't picked up a Bible for 15 years prior to this debate. The only thing Eric could find factually wrong with what I was saying was my claim about the inconsistency of the presence of angels at the resurrection. A trivial mistake (due to my memory) and yet he thinks that is sufficient justification for destroying my argument. The basic criticism is still valid. There are inconsistencies in these 4 different accounts whether he has resolved them in his head or not. What are angles anyway? What were they doing by the tomb? Why were there 2 of them in 2 accounts and 1 in the other accounts. Had the other one got bored and disappeared into the ether? What evidence is there for angels? Has anyone on this forum actually seen any?
Eric's other comment about the Bible's purpose not being to solve social ills (or words to that effect) tells me everything I need to know about where he is coming from in his head. And with that one comment he has lost the moral debate. If an act does not come from a place of wanting to improve society, it is by definition either amoral or immoral. And he can justify his anti-social comment from the Bible (even though Jesus seemed to want to change society e.g. saving an adulteress from being stoned to death, driving out the money lenders from the Temple, challenging the piety of the Sadducees, etc). Credit where credit is due - Eric is at least being consistent about his perverse belief (which is more than I can say for liberal Christians). The Bible has not been interested in alleviating human misery since it came into being. It's to do with saving individual souls who are sycophants to an idea. Like rats fleeing a sinking ship rather than trying to save the ship by trying to repair it. That's the difference between Christianity and Humanism. I know which one I think is more honourable.
And strangely, Eric demands answers off atheists as if Christianity is the default position. As if babies are born Christians. They are not. They are born either agnostic (not knowing) or arguably atheist (absence of a belief in a God or Gods) until some religious nutter fills their head with absolute twaddle. And yet not once has Eric told us why he believes Christianity is the one true religion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why has he found it so persuasive? Why must we all believe? 1Peter 3:15 demands that all Christians give good reason as to why they believe. Eric's style of evangelism is much more negative than that. He tries to find holes in others' arguments but can't. He says he believes in Biblical-style miracles but can't provide any rational justification for these bizarre happenings and hasn't once questioned why they don't happen today.
Also it did not escape my attention that Eric steered away from discussing creation versus evolution. Does he perhaps think that the world began in 4004BC?
Eric's comments that happily accept slavery and, worse still, genocide paint a picture of a scary individual. I certainly wouldn't leave him alone with my kids.
And then Eric issues a threat along the lines of "I have sympathy for you if you don't believe God's Word". This is the only weapon at the Xians disposal -"If you don't believe this book, God the Mafia Boss is going to break your legs." Nice. Do you worship God the Father or The Godfather? Irrespective of whether God made me or not, he has no right to break my legs or indeed anyone else's.
The God of the Bible isn't fit to judge my local village fete cake-making competition, let alone a human soul. Love may fail to draw a child to their parent for a short while, but love is never controlling and it never rejects completely.
I would rather face reality on reality's terms rather than cocoon myself in an anti-social far-fetched self-contradictory delusion.
The God of the Bible is not moral enough, not big enough, not accurate enough and not realistic enough. He just isn't good enough. Christianity is simply the greatest story ever sold.
There's one born every minute...
Upvote
0
E
Eric Hilbert
Guest
You're absolutely right. I did post here again after stating that I wouldn't post here again. Unfortunately, for all of my many talents, omniscience is not one of them. When I click on the User CP button to see who has replied to what post, it doesn't tell me what forum it's in. So my posting was strictly a mistake on my part.
Now, that having been said, I believe I've said all there is to say to you and all I would be doing at this point would be encouraging your childish insults and tantrums. So, with that in mind, I'm going to add you to my ignore list, as I don't believe any sort of edifying conversation is possible with you.
Upvote
0
Moxie123
Well-Known Member
- Aug 19, 2011
- 604
- 83
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Hi Spectrox!
I've been reading through this thread and I have a few questions for you:
1) Describe in detail how you became a Christian. What made you decide to choose Christianity above all other faiths?
2) Did you go to church, and if so, what kind of church was it i.e., Catholic, Methodist, non-denominational, Ladder Day Saints, Unitarian, etc.?
3) How long did you explore Christianity until you decided it wasn't for you?
4) And were you ever baptized and/or make any public profession of faith?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
