The plan is a kaleidoscopic mystery

peterhuff,

"You have been a good sport in allowing us to examine what you've had to say."

Don't mention it; it was my pleasure.

"I have been on the other end also."

I'm not sure I like the sound of that - is that a double-entendre?

"I've got nothing else."

Damn, I was just getting started.

"Thanks!"

You're welcome.

So long, and thanks for all the ichthys. (That never gets old...)

Hi PSolus,

You have been a good sport in allowing us to examine what you've had to say. I have been on the other end also. I've got nothing else. Thanks!

Peregrine Solus's Grab Bag of Retorts

"Your statement implies a value system,..."

Are you sure that you are not just inferring one?

"Do you think you are being logical?"

I ask myself that question every day.

"Name one ‘better’ alternative and give reasons why it is a) better, b) more logical."

Not believing. a) Easier b) No assumptions.

"...without any support as to how they can be true."

I make no claim of knowing what is true.

"...we supply all kinds of proof..."

Quoting from your bible is not proof.

"...making all kinds of moral statements..."

I make no moral statements.

"...don't offer any consistency for the statements you are making."

I never claimed to be consistent.

"You call God make believe; how do you know this?"

How do you not know this?

"You are again confusing..."

Most beliefs confuse me.

"Any world-view that is worth its weight will attempt to answer the question of why we are here/how we got here."

I have no world-view.

"But you do attempt to determine the truth of things, whether you believe truth to be absolute, ultimate, objective or not."

You seem to know more about me than I do.

"I'll use Gordon Clark's reasoning here,..."

I'll counter using my uncle Earl's reasoning...

"...as based on Ronald Nash's book,..."

My uncle Earl's reasoning is based on 30 years of marriage to aunt Ethyl.

"Everything would be constantly changing."

That's how it appears to me, too.

"Truth is mental."

Is it also off-the-hook?

"If you are not sure, then why make them in the imperative sense, as though they must be so?"

Poetic license?

"I'm looking forward to this."

Glad I could be of help.

PSO: "I don't attempt to determine the truth of anything. I have nothing to prove. I never claimed to judge the truth."

PSO: "I think that most people who believe in a god, or claim that they believe in a god, just aren't thinking about it that much; the delusion that we live in a magical world is so widely held, that many people just believe it without thinking critically about it."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PSO: "I don't recall typing the word "untrue". I don't recall typing the word "false". I don't judge what is true and what is not."

PSO: "Your tortured and convoluted arguments in attempting to "prove" that the god that you believe in is the one true, all knowing, all good, perfect, eternal, all powerful, oz, oops, I mean god, who is the best selling author of your bible, which is itself absolutely true, absolutely perfect, absolutely complete, and the absolute proof that your god exists, because it says he exists, and he, himself, wrote the bible, which you know is true because it says so in the bible itself, well, you get the idea.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PSO: "I never claimed to be an authority, ultimate, or otherwise. I have no world-view. I don't pretend to know, or to be able to provide evidence of, what is true."

PSO: "Second, you probably should not assume that I use only experience when evaluating what is presented to me as fact. I use other tools, such as education, skepticism, extrapolation, common sense, critical thinking, Occam's Razor, the opinions of others, etc."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PSO: "I don't judge what is true and what is not."

PSO: "I find your belief-world-view to be a circular mess of irrationality and illogic."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PSO: "I believe nothing. Perhaps I know nothing."

PSO: "…there are many better alternatives to mindless belief."

PSOLUS,

You said that I am presenting "convoluted arguments in attempting to "prove" that the god that you believe in is the one true, all knowing, all good, perfect, eternal, all powerful, oz, oops, I mean god, who is the best selling author of your bible, which is itself absolutely true, absolutely perfect, absolutely complete, and the absolute proof that your god exists, because it says he exists, and he, himself, wrote the bible, which you know is true because it says so in the bible itself, well, you get the idea."

Do tell. You would have a difficult time making a case from what I have written to support even 5% of that diatribe. But wait...it gets even more preposterous....

RCO: "You stated earlier that you use "education, skepticism, extrapolation, common sense, critical thinking, Occam's Razor, the opinions of others, etc." to determine the veracity of facts presented to you."

To which you respond:

"No; actually, I wrote:....."

For someone so righteously exacting when it comes to what you have said...you seem to have no problem playing fast and loose with what I have said.

I'm the one being illogical...irrational...unthinking...mindless?

Right...

PART 1

"Do you not think that we have thought long and hard on other belief systems?"

I don't see any evidence that you have.

"...ignored all our proofs/evidences..."

Belief is neither proof, nor evidence.

"...or providing one iota of proof."

I have nothing to prove.

"...your belief system..."

I have no belief system.

"...is what makes something true; that truth is what you say it is, at least in your mind’s eye, your judgment, this is what truth boils down to???"

I never claimed to judge the truth.

"You use you as your ultimate authority,..."

I never claimed to be an authority, ultimate, or otherwise.

"...your views as being part of a world-view."

I have no world-view.

"Can you follow the reasoning behind that argument?"

I see no reasoning behind that argument.

"...give examples where it (truth)..."

I'm not sure that we can even know the truth.

PART 2

"Are you sure it is not?"

Nope.

"You are the one calling our belief magic and untrue, saying that you do not believe there is a God."

I don't recall typing the word "untrue".

"You are the one who is saying that what we (RCofield and I) are saying is false,..."

I don't recall typing the word "false".

"Is this the new tolerance; a tolerance that tolerates falsehood?"

I've not heard anything about "the new tolerance"; or, the old tolerance, for that matter.

"...some things are true and others aren’t,..."

I don't judge what is true and what is not.

"...we are saying that what you have stated does not correspond to the way things really are."

Why don't you tell me the "way things really are"?

"We have invited you constantly to back up what you are saying with evidence as to what you say is true,..."

I don't pretend to know, or to be able to provide evidence of, what is true.

"You are confusing two categories..."

Most beliefs confuse me.

"So are you bearing false witness about yourself?"

That sounds suspiciously biblical to me. I am not biblical.

"Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?"

Yes.

"Hopefully we are not dealing with an intentional misrepresentation here?"

I can't speak for you or RCofield.

"Are you suggesting otherwise?"

Huh?

PART 3

"...I still look at links and sites that others post."

You may not want to look at some the links and sites that I look at.

"...your own opinion that you seem to consider the ultimate authority."

I don't consider my own opinion, or anything else, to be the ultimate authority.

"Why is it so ultimate?"

It isn't.

"What makes what you say, what you believe, true?"

I believe nothing; therefore, it probably cannot be true.

"Are you so immersed in yourself that you don’t know what is true any longer?"

Apparently so; I've never known what is true.

"I think of Neitchze."

I dream of Jeanie.

"You do not live in a vacuum."

How do you know that?

"Your choices are based on underlying foundations."

Maybe I'm just spontaneous.

"They have to be in order for you to know anything at all."

Perhaps I know nothing.

"How would you ever arrive at truth without an objective standard?"

I don't know.

"And by definition, how can truth ever be false?"

I don't know.

"Are you saying that you can’t arrive at truth?"

I don't recall saying that.

"If so, is that true that you can never arrive at truth?"

I don't know.

"How do you know?"

I said, I don't know.

"Again (and again and again and again) you make these statements that imply that what you state is true and meaningful."

I don't recall implying that; maybe you just inferred that.

"So what are your proofs, the evidence you hold that makes these statements both meaningful and true?"

I got nothing.

"Have you considered maybe this is because you have nothing meaningful to say or tell other people?"

Yes.

"Your life is built on meaninglessness, nothingness."

Hmmmmm... no wonder I drink.

[preachy stuff expurgated]

Hi PSolus,

PSO: "I don't attempt to determine the truth of anything, as I'm not sure that there is absolute, ultimate truth in this world."

But you do attempt to determine the truth of things, whether you believe truth to be absolute, ultimate, objective or not.

You were talking about illusion a while back. It is statements like these that make me think that you are under the grandest of illusions.

In order to make these statements you would have to determine the truth of certain things, otherwise what you believe could rest on lunacy/untruth. But you don't believe it does. You use experience, education and your host of other tools to determine what - what?

You have determined them to be untrue. How can you arrive at untruth unless you know what is true, yet you constantly are saying that Christians believe in magic and an illusion (i.e. something that is not really there, thus not actually true)?

I'll use Gordon Clark's reasoning here, (with some of my own thrown in) as based on Ronald Nash's book, Life's Ultimate Questions, p.296-298. Feel free to argue against these propositions PSolus.

Unless truth exists no knowledge could be known. Everything would be constantly changing. Red would be blue one day and green the next, that is presuming that the concept of redness could ever be arrived at with nothing to base it on.

To know truth you would have to see things as they really are. Yes, I'll admit this is hard for someone with your world-view, who believes nothing. It is awfully hard to hold onto nothingness unless one is a zombie/mindless. But you are not.

It is true always that the concept of two plus two equals four. If it were possible for two plus two to equal five or seven then the concept would not have been true in the first place. Thus truth is eternal.

Truth is mental. It takes a mind to conceive of truth. A tree or a rock cannot entertain the concept of truth.

Truth is objective, in that truth can never be false, or it would not be true, so it must be actually what is real and originate from a superior mind to that of a human mind(i.e., God - who is unchangeable and eternal), that does change and is subjective.

We discover truth, using the mind God has given us, we don't invent it.

PSO: "As I also wrote:

I tend to look at things more in terms of probabilities.

That is not what you are conveying to us when you write about so many things. You make statements as though you believe what you are saying is true. If you are not sure, then why make them in the imperative sense, as though they must be so?

You see, on the one hand you make all these statements and on the other what you say betrays what you really believe.

RCO: "If I were to present to you an argument for the existence of God that you could use each of those tools to evaluate...would you be willing to apply those tools to evaluate said argument?"

PSO: "I've pretty much been doing that all my life."

I'm looking forward to this.

Hi PSolus,

PSO: "I think that most people who believe in a god, or claim that they believe in a god, just aren't thinking about it that much; the delusion that we live in a magical world is so widely held, that many people just believe it without thinking critically about it."

You are again confusing what is supernatural (outside of the natural realm) with what is magical. Any world-view that is worth its weight will attempt to answer the question of why we are here/how we got here. Only one makes sense of it however. You guessed it.

Hi PSolus,
In starting,

ME: "This is just the point; there is no better alternative than believing in God."

PSO: "I disagree; there are many better alternatives to mindless belief."

Your statement implies a value system, one in which you can actually distinguish a difference in qualitative terms (i.e. ‘better’), and also a judgment, another value distinctive (i.e. ‘mindless belief’) implying that some beliefs are not mindless – which is a belief in itself. So here you are making statements that contradict previous statements you have made. Do you think you are being logical?

Name one ‘better’ alternative and give reasons why it is a) better, b) more logical.

Saying so does not make it so. You make these blatant statements without any support as to how they can be true. You call us arrogant when we supply all kinds of proof as to God’s existence; all the while you make these arrogant statements without any proof at all. That my friend is hypocritical.

PSO: "Most of them, however, require at least a modicum of thought."

So you come on an 'On Faith' forum making all kinds of moral statements with the sentiment that you don't have any beliefs at all and yet that you have thought about all these things that we are talking about and yet can or don't offer any consistency for the statements you are making.

You call God make believe; how do you know this?

PART 1

PSO: "I can therefore understand you having a problem with them."

Oh yeah, right, the dumb Christian, incapable of thinking. Do you not think that we have thought long and hard on other belief systems? You prefer to be ignorant (have ignored all our proofs/evidences, without even discussing them as to why they make sense, or more sense to you), making all kinds of outrageous statements without searching out the evidence to the contrary or providing one iota of proof. You have admitted many times to your ignorance and demonstrated your lack of thought by admitting that you have not even read the Bible.

ME: “"No other world-view can make sense of human existence."

PSO: “I disagree; you may believe that your belief-world-view makes sense, but, in my experience, belief in magic makes no sense at all.”

So what you are saying is that your belief system which is based on experience (among the other tools you have revealed) is what makes something true; that truth is what you say it is, at least in your mind’s eye, your judgment, this is what truth boils down to??? Yes, I’m raising the questions and yes, I think such thinking is incredulously ‘arrogant,’ since you have mentioned the word and used it against what I have said previously. And you keep using ‘double-speak.’

ME: "When you peel back the paint of any other word-view, all you are left with is an ugly mess."

PSO: “I disagree; from my experience reading your and RCofield's attempts to make some sort of sense your belief-world-view, I find your belief-world-view to be a circular mess of irrationality and illogic.

Try and justify anything without it eventually coming back on itself when pushed far enough. Science uses science to justify itself, just as reasoning or logic uses logic in justifying itself. You have been chasing your tail throughout this whole process of questioning. You use you as your ultimate authority, just as you use the same unreasoning over and over again when I challenge your views as being part of a world-view. Round and round we go. The difference between the two is that I look to Someone outside myself who is necessary for truth to actually be. Truth cannot be true one minute and false the next, nor can truth ever be false otherwise it would not be true. Can you follow the reasoning behind that argument? If you disagree with it (this statement) then give examples where it (truth) can contradict itself and we will look into them.

PART 2

ME: “"And you misrepresent what people have done in the name of Christianity as opposed to the actual teachings of Christianity."

PSO: “Are you sure it's me?”

Yes. Are you sure it is not? If you are sure it is not, then what do you place that surety on? (^8

You are the one calling our belief magic and untrue, saying that you do not believe there is a God. You are the one who is saying that what we (RCofield and I) are saying is false, but you give the qualifier that we are welcome to believe whatever we want to believe just as you or anyone else is. Is this the new tolerance; a tolerance that tolerates falsehood?

But the point we are making is that some things are true and others aren’t, and we are saying that what you have stated does not correspond to the way things really are. We have invited you constantly to back up what you are saying with evidence as to what you say is true, yet you continue to ignore this.

PSO: “Perhaps that is the fault of the believers themselves.”

As I said, what is done in the name of Christianity does not necessarily agree with what Christianity teaches. You are confusing two categories – what one does as opposed to what is taught.

ME: “You have revealed your thoughts in this correspondence."

PSO: “You don't know that; you simply choose to believe that. Or, perhaps, I've tricked you into believing that.””

So are you bearing false witness about yourself? Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? It gets to the point where everything that is said becomes untrustworthy when someone deals with such a person, even though a smattering of truth may actually be there once in a while. Hopefully we are not dealing with an intentional misrepresentation here?

ME: "We are taking you at your word..."

PSO: “Ah, I see that I have succeeded in teaching you something.”

I hope it is not anything along the lines that liars are clever, because they eventually trip themselves up in their little fibs. I already know these things. I have chosen to take you at your word. Are you suggesting otherwise?

ME: "...and showing what your thoughts signify."

PSO: “Do you actually believe that you can show what my thoughts signify?”

In as much as what you have revealed to me through the course of these blogs, I do know some things about your and what you formulate your statements on.

PSO: ”Do you actually believe that you know my thoughts?”

To a point, since you have been corresponding with us for a while, just as you know some of my thoughts, by what I have said they have been revealed to you.

PART 3

PSO: “BTW, I don't need to go to YouTube to find people to tell me what and how to think or believe.”

You certainly appear to be very closed minded. I would admit to being narrow-minded for truth is narrow, and yet I still look at links and sites that others post.

PSO: “I have learned to think for myself; I find that a much better alternative to believing what someone else tells me that I'm supposed to believe.”

You seem to lack any way of verifying anything, besides your own opinion that you seem to consider the ultimate authority. Why is it so ultimate? What makes what you say, what you believe, true? Are you so immersed in yourself that you don’t know what is true any longer? I think of Neitchze.

PSO: “That's why I choose to believe nothing rather than what I am told to believe.”

You do not live in a vacuum. Your choices are based on underlying foundations. They have to be in order for you to know anything at all.

PSO: “Many believers, like you, may require the illusion that there exists "an objective, changeless, true, infinite (for truth doesn't change), wise standard that we can know truly what is right and what is not".

PSO: “However, there are also many non-believers, who do not require that illusion.”

PSolus, answer these questions. How would you ever arrive at truth without an objective standard? And by definition, how can truth ever be false? Are you saying that you can’t arrive at truth? If so, is that true that you can never arrive at truth? How do you know?

Again (and again and again and again) you make these statements that imply that what you state is true and meaningful. So what are your proofs, the evidence you hold that makes these statements both meaningful and true?

PSO: “Can I not simply choose not to formulate and articulate a world-view?”

You can, but denying the fact does not make it go away or any less of a fact.

PSO: “Perhaps one of the reasons that I do not have a world-view, is that I have no desire to force others to live their life according to what I think.”

Have you considered maybe this is because you have nothing meaningful to say or tell other people? Your life is built on meaninglessness, nothingness. The gospels are good news that is worth risking ridicule over. Christians risk ridicule because what the gospels teach is the most important message you will ever hear. And Jesus kept saying, “To those who have ears, let them hear the Word of God. “ You keep falling over these words because your ears are all plugged up to your own authority as ultimate and the vanities of your own imagination by which you have created your false idols from.

PSolus, wake up. Don’t waste the gift God has given you, for you are intelligent but very misguided.

RCofield,

"Should I take this to mean that you think that anyone who believes God exists is bereft of a mind?"

I can understand you coming to the conclusion, but, I don't think that it's that simple.

I think that most people who believe in a god, or claim that they believe in a god, just aren't thinking about it that much; the delusion that we live in a magical world is so widely held, that many people just believe it without thinking critically about it.

BTW, it's not just belief in gods; it's beliefs in astrology, numerology, ghosts, spirits, auras, predestination, karma, reincarnation, ET micro-managing, trickle-down economics, and much, much more.

"As I have not yet articulated my worldview here, I am curious."

Actually, you don't appear to have much curiosity to me.

"To what are you referring?"

Your tortured and convoluted arguments in attempting to "prove" that the god that you believe in is the one true, all knowing, all good, perfect, eternal, all powerful, oz, oops, I mean god, who is the best selling author of your bible, which is itself absolutely true, absolutely perfect, absolutely complete, and the absolute proof that your god exists, because it says he exists, and he, himself, wrote the bible, which you know is true because it says so in the bible itself, well, you get the idea.

"You stated earlier that you use "education, skepticism, extrapolation, common sense, critical thinking, Occam's Razor, the opinions of others, etc." to determine the veracity of facts presented to you."

No; actually, I wrote:

Second, you probably should not assume that I use only experience when evaluating what is presented to me as fact.

I use other tools, such as education, skepticism, extrapolation, common sense, critical thinking, Occam's Razor, the opinions of others, etc.

I don't attempt to determine the truth of anything, as I'm not sure that there is absolute, ultimate truth in this world.

As I also wrote:

I tend to look at things more in terms of probabilities.

"If I were to present to you an argument for the existence of God that you could use each of those tools to evaluate...would you be willing to apply those tools to evaluate said argument?"

I've pretty much been doing that all my life.

I'm doing that now.

rco, jeez, give me a chance to catch up, though i'm not sure there's much point if you're unable to call slavery slavery...

1)in a way, i think the french riots are hilarious. you may "hate on" those cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys, but you know what they're rioting about? raising the retirement age to 62! cracks me up. man...they enjoy life... month-long summer vacations.... short work week...early retirements...and wine and cheese...

of course they're going about expressing their displeasure in the wrong way, but that's not enlightenment philosophy's fault.

2) compare the government's reaction to that of historical "peasant revolts". note that police do not outright kill the rioters - like they would have done pre-enlightenment. instead, they use rubber bullets and other non-lethal means to control these riots.

i'll get to your most recent "you didn't answers" as time permits.

PETERHUFF, WALTER, TWMATTHEWS, PSOLUS,

Well, I was going to leave it up to Walter to choose our next thread, but he hasn't made an appearance today.

If my calculations are correct this one will time out sometime in the morning, so let's go here:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Danielle_Bean/2010/10/show_me_what_you_believe.html

PSOLUS,

PETERHUFF: "This is just the point, there is no better alternative than believing in God."

PSO: "I disagree; there are many better alternatives to mindless belief."

RCO: Should I take this to mean that you think that anyone who believes God exists is bereft of a mind?

PSO: "from my experience reading your and RCofield's attempts to make some sort of sense your belief-world-view, I find your belief-world-view to be a circular mess of irrationality and illogic."

RCO: As I have not yet articulated my worldview here, I am curious. To what are you referring?

You stated earlier that you use "education, skepticism, extrapolation, common sense, critical thinking, Occam's Razor, the opinions of others, etc." to determine the veracity of facts presented to you.

If I were to present to you an argument for the existence of God that you could use each of those tools to evaluate...would you be willing to apply those tools to evaluate said argument?

peterhuff,

"This is just the point, there is no better alternative than believing in God."

I disagree; there are many better alternatives to mindless belief.

Most of them, however, require at least a modicum of thought.

I can therefore understand you having a problem with them.

"No other world-view can make sense of human existence."

I disagree; you may believe that your belief-world-view makes sense, but, in my experience, belief in magic makes no sense at all.

"When you peel back the paint of any other word-view, all you are left with is an ugly mess."

I disagree; from my experience reading your and RCofield's attempts to make some sort of sense your belief-world-view, I find your belief-world-view to be a circular mess of irrationality and illogic.

"And you misrepresent what people have done in the name of Christianity as opposed to the actual teachings of Christianity."

Are you sure it's me?

Perhaps that is the fault of the believers themselves.

"You have revealed your thoughts in this correspondence."

You don't know that; you simply choose to believe that.

Or, perhaps, I've tricked you into believing that.

"We are taking you at your word..."

Ah, I see that I have succeeded in teaching you something.

"...and showing what your thoughts signify."

Do you actually believe that you can show what my thoughts signify?

Do you actually believe that you know my thoughts?

BTW, I don't need to go to YouTube to find people to tell me what and how to think or believe.

I have learned to think for myself; I find that a much better alternative to believing what someone else tells me that I'm supposed to believe.

That's why I choose to believe nothing rather than what I am told to believe.

Hi PSolus,

PSO: "I am simply offering an alternative to believing - one can simply live one's life not believing in a god, or any other supernatural entity or phenomenon. One is not required to kill, rape, and run amok simply because one does not believe."

This is just the point, there is no better alternative than believing in God. No other world-view can make sense of human existence. When you peel back the paint of any other word-view, all you are left with is an ugly mess.

And you misrepresent what people have done in the name of Christianity as opposed to the actual teachings of Christianity.

PSO: "While you can disagree with my disbelief, it is arrogant of you to tell me that you know what I am thinking better than I myself know what I am thinking."

You have revealed your thoughts in this correspondence. We are taking you at your word and showing what your thoughts signify.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txez9sJUtaE&feature=related

WALTER,

I can't find where you ever responded to this post either:

RCO: "Could you give me a reasonably comprehensive list of notable Atheistic/ Enlightenment advocates who were ACTIVE (not just "criticizing" from the sidelines) in abolishing slavery?"

WALT: "first, many enlightenment thinkers were not necessarily atheist. some were i suppose, "liberal" christians, lapsed christians, deists and who knows what else."

So...Walter, did it ever occur to you that if all these men on your list were "liberal chrisitans," "lapsed christians," and "deists" I can argue that it could just as easily have been the residual influence of christianity that prompted them to oppose slavery?

Now to your list:

Robert G. Ingersoll--Though his father (a devout christian) is said to have had "abolitionist leanings", I can find no evidence that Robert G. Ingersoll was personally active in the abolitionist movement. Please supply.

Henry David Thoreau: Mmmmm. Maybe. Seems that his only significant contribution was a public defense of the Harper's Ferry incident. Hardly an "active" involvement.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau--Active in the abolitionist movement? Can't find anything to support that. Evidence please.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham (all philosophers--can't find evidence of active involvement--please provide) Thomas Paine? Revolutionary, not abolitionist. Different issue.

Jaques Pierre Brissot: Ah! Finally someone who actually started an elitist "Society of the Friends of the Blacks." Printed a bunch of pamphlets and such. Doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence that this small society ever got their hands dirty with any active participation in freeing slaves, but hey, they were French. What more could we possibly expect?

Well, not a very impressive list, unless, of course, you can provide some actual evidence that these individuals were actively involved the the freeing of slaves....instead of just "criticizing" from the sidelines. We have a passage of scripture in christianity that address these kinds of "convictions" that aren't backed up by any real action:

James 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith APART from your works, and I will show you my faith BY my works.....20 Do you have to be shown, you foolish person, that FAITH APART FROM WORKS IS USELESS?

C'mon Walter. If you are going to claim the emancipation of slaves as an accomplishment of the "Enlightenment" you are going to have to come up with a more convincing list than this.

WALTER,

You never responded to this, though I thought it was pretty damning:

WALT: “who desides the greater good? i certainly hope not ancient israelites who execute people for gluttony, or disobeying a parent. the answer is actually "we do!" - armed with our evolving morals and culture.”

RCO: "Ah, yes! We are veritable gods aren’t we? Armed with “evolving morals and culture” we have “decided the greater good” and slaughtered hundreds of millions through war, sterilized the “unfit” in our fine culture, placed most of our government-funded abortion clinics in black neighborhoods to practice a “sterilized” form of racial genocide, murdered over 800 million helpless children in their mother’s womb in less than a century worldwide, turned a blind eye to rampant sexual slavery involving children…..whoooeeeee, we’re on a roll, aren’t we? But wait, we are not through yet! We’re going to institutionalize perverse homosexuality by granting it the status of “marriage,” legalize polygamy and prostitution….there is just no telling what marvelous moral heights we will eventually “evolve” to."

WALTER,

Historically, there is not a single example of an atheistic or purely secular regime that did not result in mass killing. The French Revolution was the first example of a post-Christian government that resulted in a “Reign of Terror.” And it was certainly not the last.

Morally, atheism/secularism offers no restraint of evil. A purely secular government does not see itself as accountable to any higher authority and feels free to kill (if it deems it necessary) in such a way that is consistent with a Darwinian view of survival.

The above statements are historically consistent from the Enlightenment to present day.

How do you square this with your insistence that modern man is "evolving" to an increasingly higher standard of morality?

test

RCofield,

"How positively diabolical of you!"

Indeed.

"IF that is the case, I must point out that you are guilty of manipulating the score: You credited yourself with points twice for answerwing my concern that I had offended you."

Scorer's prerogative.

"Final score: Rcofield 5 / Psolus 4. Game, set, match."

Wrong: I'm the scorer; the scores stands as I specified.

And, this ain't tennis.

"Maybe you'll have better luck next time."

I don't believe in luck.

"Of course, I might just be screwing with you..."

Indeed.

"What do you think?"

I think I'll have another beer.

PSOLUS,

RCO: "I honestly don't know what to say, other than that your last post might be the most interesting expression of candor I have ever encountered...."

PSO: "Or, it might just be me screwing with you...."

RCO: How positively diabolical of you! IF that is the case, I must point out that you are guilty of manipulating the score: You credited yourself with points twice for answerwing my concern that I had offended you.

Final score: Rcofield 5 / Psolus 4. Game, set, match. Maybe you'll have better luck next time.

Of course, I might just be screwing with you...

What do you think?

WALTER,

I'm sure you saw in the news that the French are rioting in the streets again. Seems this is happening with increasing frequency over there.

I'm trying to filter this through your insistence that modern morality is "evolving." How is it that those who reside in the "Eden of the Enlightenment" seem to be reverting to such barbaric practices? Any thoughts?

peterhuff,

"I take the [bibley stuff expurgated] approach in conversing with PSolus, not to be cruel or to undermine that he is intelligent, or deny that he is worthy of respect, but rather to expose the absurdity of the world-view he has formulated and believes."

How positively diabolical of you.

peterhuff: "going to heaven" / PSolus: "going to hell"

"The idea is to show the folly if not to him (for he seems unwilling to really examine his position), then hopefully for others."

How absolutely futile of you.

peterhuff: "sitting at the right hand of his god" / All others: "burning in the eternal fires of hell"

RCofield,

"[emoticony stuff expurgated] I honestly don't know what to say, other than that your last post might be the most interesting expression of candor I have ever encountered...."

Or, it might just be me screwing with you....

Which do you believe?

Hi RCofield,

RCO: "Thanks much for the assist with PSOLUS! Although, I must say, I found that round of exchanges with him yesterday to be most interesting."

I take the Proverbs 26:4,5 approach in conversing with PSolus, not to be cruel or to undermine that he is intelligent, or deny that he is worthy of respect, but rather to expose the absurdity of the world-view he has formulated and believes. The idea is to show the folly if not to him (for he seems unwilling to really examine his position), then hopefully for others.

RCO: "Are you watching Walter's slavery argument unravel before his eyes? His polemic is now clearly marked by a steady regression as one "proof-text" after another is stripped from beneath him. Such is the nature of "proof-texting" apologetics."

Yes, I'm reading everything that is said with interest. It is too bad that Pam is not participating. We had this same debate, although not to the same detail, about slavery ages ago.

You have shown the shaky ground of disbelief and poor reason in the common atheist position, in bringing your points home to Walter. He funnels all this through his denial and hatred of the Christian God, just like so many atheists do, by his taking a few favorite verses at apparent face value, not recognizing the cultural setting or the intent of God, while the rest of Scripture is ignored.

I pointed out to him my Rainbow colored Bible that highlights different subject areas of text in different colors. Love is highlighted in dark green and I pointed out to him the number of times throughout both testaments of God's real concern and love for His people, that they would walk in light, and for that matter all people, as revealed by these highlighted areas. Walter just takes the things that confirm his presuppositions and gathers as much extra-biblical evidence to support this view as possible.

He is, like you say, not using his understanding as it was meant in A.N.E. or in the biblical framework.

RCO: "I hate to be so hard on him, but his persistence virtually demands it."

I understand where you are coming from. I have felt the same way many times. But the realization is that we don't cover the truth with placating words to fit something that is untrue, but rather speak the truth in love. That is what we are called to do. I don't see any evidence of you doing the former, neither do I see it done with disrespect. Some truths are hard to candy-coat. Jesus didn't candy-coat the truth with the Scribes and Pharisees. He exposed what their presuppositions rested on, as Paul said to do (2 Corinthians 10:3-5).

RCO: "Peace, brother."

Blessings in Christ Jesus!

PSOLUS,

PSO: "RCofield: 5 / PSolus: 5"

..... :-) ....... I honestly don't know what to say, other than that your last post might be the most interesting expression of candor I have ever encountered....

RCofield,

"Exactly"

That's the end of that.

At some point, it's no longer funny.

RCofield: 0 / PSolus: 1

"No, I really would like to know your preference."

I actually have no preference. (Note: This may be a test.)

"Ummm...I don't recall telling you that it is impossible for someone to not believe in a god..."

RCofield: 1 / PSolus: 1

But, you don't contest the substance of the comment.

"Well, I'm glad to say that I certainly agree with that last line there!"

RCofield: 2 / PSolus: 2

"Uhhhh...I don't recall telling you that I know what you think better than you yourself know what you are thinking..."

RCofield: 3 / PSolus: 2

But, you don't contest the substance of the comment.

"And I am left with the distinct impression that I have offended you,..."

Your impression is incorrect.

RCofield: 3 / PSolus: 3

"...though I can't help but think you may have me confused with someone else."

That may well be. (I wonder who that might be...)

RCofield: 4 / PSolus: 3

"Is my impression of having offended you accurate?"

No.

RCofield: 4 / PSolus: 4

"Oh, yes, indeed I did."

RCofield: 5 / PSolus: 5

PSOLUS,

RCO: "Precisely."

PSO: "Indubitably."

RCO: Exactly

RCO: "Psolus, would you rather I just left you alone and not engage you when you post?"

PSO: "That's up to you."

RCO: No, I really would like to know your preference.

PSO: "What you can do, is learn from my example.

When you tell me that you believe in a god, I don't tell you "Why, that's impossible; I don't believe in a god, therefore, it is impossible for anyone else to believe in a god; you just think that you believe in a god; the fact is (I can't wait) that believing in a god is like having a second nose - nobody has a second nose; it is an inextricable part of the human experience that one does not believe in a god."

RCO: Ummm...I don't recall telling you that it is impossible for someone to not believe in a god...

PSO: When you tell me that you believe in a god, I simply take you at your word; after all, I have met many people who believe in a god, and many who believe in even stranger things.

I am simply offering an alternative to believing - one can simply live one's life not believing in a god, or any other supernatural entity or phenomenon. One is not required to kill, rape, and run amok simply because one does not believe."

RCO: Well, I'm glad to say that I certainly agree with that last line there!

PSO: "While you can disagree with my disbelief, it is arrogant of you to tell me that you know what I am thinking better than I myself know what I am thinking."

RCO: Uhhhh...I don't recall telling you that I know what you think better than you yourself know what you are thinking...

And I am left with the distinct impression that I have offended you, though I can't help but think you may have me confused with someone else. Is my impression of having offended you accurate?

RCO (to Peter): "Thanks much for the assist with PSOLUS! Although, I must say, I found that round of exchanges with him yesterday to be most interesting."

PSO: "But, did you learn anything?"

RCO: Oh, yes, indeed I did.

WALTER,

WALT: "oh brother. "deconstructing" your "exegesis" is all i've been doing for days/weeks now!"

No, you are simply hopscotching all over the bible looking for proof-texts to support you anti-theistic agenda. You have admitted as much on numerous occasions, yet the absurdity of that approach still seems to escape you.

You are refusing to consider the inter-textual relationship of the passages you are using by isolating individual texts and trying to insulate them from any relationship with the whole.

For instance, I pointed out to you that Paul was clearly referring back to the OT law when he stated that the law was established to prohibit/condemn forced slavery. You ignore that, as if you are somehow more familiar with the OT text than the apostle Paul, and insist that the OT law promotes forced slavery.

Another example of your ignoring the inter-textual relationship of these passages is with Ex. 21:16 and Lev. 25:46. You refuse any interpretation of Lev. 25:46 that takes into account the clear prohibition against forced slavery found in Ex. 21:16. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you interpreted you automobile owner's manual the way you are interpreting scripture you would be consigned to walking everywhere you go.

WALT: "ive done it over and over. turns out you're immune to reason/logic - or at least protected from it in terms of biblical criticism."

Again, you are mistaken. What I am immune to is a rabidly anti-theistic approach to scripture interpretation that throws reason, logic, and sound interpretive principles under the bus for the sake of grinding an atheistic ax.

Ultimately, you come to scripture presuming contradiction and then, predictably, interpret it in such a way that your presumption magically "proves" true.

You would interpret no other work of literature the way you interpret the bible, and that very fact betrays the extremity of the atheist's hate-filled, anti-God bias.

dang... that's like giving a great exit speech then storming into a closet instead of out the door... that was supposed to read:

if you refuse to think of "YOU MAY OWN THEM AS POSSESSIONS FOREVER" as referring to slavery, then... well... ok, ya got me.... no slavery here... let's move o to the new testament.

rco, you said,
"That is disappointingly weak Walter. As you well know, rhetorical flourishes like that, without argumentation to support them, are apologetic cop-outs. If you are going to refute my position, integrity would require that you do so by deconstructing my exegesis of your proof-tests."

oh brother. "deconstructing" your "exegesis" is all i've been doing for days/weeks now! ive done it over and over. turns out you're immune to reason/logic - or at least protected from it in terms of biblical criticism. if you refuse to think of "YOU MAY OWN THEM AS POSSESSIONS FOREVER" as referring to other than slavery, then... well... ok, ya got me.... no slavery here... let's move o to the new testament.

RCofield,

"Precisely."

Indubitably.

"Well, nothing "necessitates" your having a worldview, other than the fact (I can't wait) that worldviews are like noses....everybody has one."

Really?

Is everybody born with a world-view?

Or, is everybody issued a world-view by some government entity at a certain age?

"It is an inextricable part of the human experience."

Really?

Do people without a world-view die of "lack of world-view"?

"Psolus, would you rather I just left you alone and not engage you when you post?"

That's up to you.

What you can do, is learn from my example.

When you tell me that you believe in a god, I don't tell you "Why, that's impossible; I don't believe in a god, therefore, it is impossible for anyone else to believe in a god; you just think that you believe in a god; the fact is (I can't wait) that believing in a god is like having a second nose - nobody has a second nose; it is an inextricable part of the human experience that one does not believe in a god."

When you tell me that you believe in a god, I simply take you at your word; after all, I have met many people who believe in a god, and many who believe in even stranger things.

I am simply offering an alternative to believing - one can simply live one's life not believing in a god, or any other supernatural entity or phenomenon. One is not required to kill, rape, and run amok simply because one does not believe.

While you can disagree with my disbelief, it is arrogant of you to tell me that you know what I am thinking better than I myself know what I am thinking.

"Thanks much for the assist with PSOLUS! Although, I must say, I found that round of exchanges with him yesterday to be most interesting."

But, did you learn anything?

WALTER,

"rco,
you are deluded about slavery in the bible. this is because you come to the text with the preconceived idea that god could never condone slavery.

anyone (not beholden to the bible's perfection) reading exodus 21 and leviticus 25 can plainly see yahweh allowed slavery.

your persistent, "yeah but it wasn't really slavery" excuses undermine your credibility. it illustrates how you can look at a blue sky and see red."

Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | October 19, 2010 8:36 AM
***********************************

That is disappointingly weak Walter. As you well know, rhetorical flourishes like that, without argumentation to support them, are apologetic cop-outs. If you are going to refute my position, integrity would require that you do so by deconstructing my exegesis of your proof-tests.

You came to the bible with the presupposition that it condoned forced slavery as you know it--18th/19th century slavery practices. You were completely unaware of the A.N.E. practice of individuals willingly selling themselves into slavery for financial/material/marriage considerations, nor were you aware of the practice of one willingly becoming a bond-servant. Additionally, it is apparent that you were completely unaware of the numerous scriptural prohibitions God gave Israel against forced slavery. Further, you were completely unaware of I Tim. 1:8-10, not to mention the evident fact that you had never given any real thought to the teachings of Christ that clearly undermine the very roots of forced slavery.

Bottom line: You thought you had an iron-clad anti-theistic argument against the God of scripture and you got caught with your pants down.

You state: "you are deluded about slavery in the bible. this is because you come to the text with the preconceived idea that god could never condone slavery."

Actually, I had to wrestle with this issue from both positions several years ago. I think is is fairly evident that it has never entered your mind that the bible might NOT condone forced slavery. "Preconceived idea?" Indeed.

If you can't put together a better refutation of what I have presented over the course of this discussion you should concede that you were uninformed of the biblical/historical perspective and abandon your vitriolic accusations.

lev25:44-46:

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

verse 44/45
plainly says, you may buy slaves - if they're not israelites - and they become your possessions...your property. other verses explain many of the rights of israelite slaves. any sane person would say these are enumerated as differences from rules for "foreign" slaves.

verse46 says these non-israelites may be made "inherited property" and "slaves for life", and that you may not rule ruthlessly over israelite slaves (implying that ruthlessness is allowed for "foreign" slaves).

your portrayal of this as a voluntary arrangement for the foreign slaves is preposterous. OF COURSE a slave could stick around "for life", if they both agreed to it. duh.... but this verse is giving the israelite the right to keep non-israelite slaves for life - w/o regard for the non-israelites' rights.

your portrayal of ex21:16 as prohibiting slavery is wishful thinking too.

16"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

many many other verses talk about "buying slaves", so merely "selling slaves" can't be illegal, and certainly owning slaves can't be illegal. the key here is "steals a man".

the reason i'm focusing on these verses mostly is to keep posts from turning into books - we can't chase down every rabbit, but i don't want them all to get away...

rco,
you are deluded about slavery in the bible. this is because you come to the text with the preconceived idea that god could never condone slavery.

anyone (not beholden to the bible's perfection) reading exodus 21 and leviticus 25 can plainly see yahweh allowed slavery.

your persistent, "yeah but it wasn't really slavery" excuses undermine your credibility. it illustrates how you can look at a blue sky and see red.

rco,
"Now look at Lev. 25:46: “You may bequeath them [foreign slaves] to your sons after you to INHERIT AS A POSSESSION FOREVER.” To interpret this passage as permitting forced slavery one must ignore virtually every rule for the treatment of slaves given by God in the OT."

to interpret this as prohibiting forced slavery is to ignore the verse itself.

Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | October 19, 2010 8:23 AM
***********************************

Answered at 7:37 AM.

Looks like I overlapped you when I posted on the concern about this thread timing out. You lead, we will follow.

WALTER, PETER,

If these threads have a two-week shelf life this one will time out sometime Thursday morning, if my calculations are correct.

Walter, you want to pick where we go next?

peter,
you expressed concern that this thread would time out soon. i believe that will happen on the 21st - 14 days after it opened. i prefer to wait as long as possible and then pick as "fresh" a thread as possible to go to so we can switch less often.

rco,
"Now look at Lev. 25:46: “You may bequeath them [foreign slaves] to your sons after you to INHERIT AS A POSSESSION FOREVER.” To interpret this passage as permitting forced slavery one must ignore virtually every rule for the treatment of slaves given by God in the OT."

to interpret this as prohibiting forced slavery is to ignore the verse itself.

Hey Peter,

Thanks much for the assist with PSOLUS! Although, I must say, I found that round of exchanges with him yesterday to be most interesting.

Are you watching Walter's slavery argument unravel before his eyes? His polemic is now clearly marked by a steady regression as one "proof-text" after another is stripped from beneath him. Such is the nature of "proof-texting" apologetics.

I hate to be so hard on him, but his persistence virtually demands it.

Peace, brother.

PSOLUS,

RCO: "Ahhhh....So you use the tools whereby one formulates a worldview....but you don't actually have a worldview that can be articulated, other than "I believe nothing?""

PSO: "Why not?

I've used many tools in my life that others use for other purposes.

And, the statement "I believe nothing" is no more a world-view than the statements "I wear jeans" or "I like pie" are world-views."

RCO: Precisely.

PSO: "Is it not OK with you if I just live my life, observing what goes on around me, thinking about what goes on around, occasionally commenting on what goes on around me, enjoying the things that I find enjoyable, avoiding the things that I find unpleasant, tolerating the things that I find tolerable?

What, exactly, necessitates that I formulate and articulate a world-view?"

RCO: Well, nothing "necessitates" your having a worldview, other than the fact (I can't wait) that worldviews are like noses....everybody has one. It is an inextricable part of the human experience.

PSO: "Can I not simply choose not to formulate and articulate a world-view?

Perhaps one of the reasons that I do not have a world-view, is that I have no desire to force others to live their life according to what I think."

RCO: Psolus, would you rather I just left you alone and not engage you when you post?

WALTER,

rco said:
"Now look at Lev. 25:46: “You may bequeath them [foreign slaves] to your sons after you to INHERIT AS A POSSESSION FOREVER.” To interpret this passage as permitting forced slavery one must ignore virtually every rule for the treatment of slaves given by God in the OT."

WALT: to interpret this as prohibiting forced slavery is to ignore the verse itself.

RCO: Uh...Walter, I didn't interpret this passage as “prohibiting” forced slavery. Take a good look at what I said.

RCO: "Remember, the Hebrews were NOT permitted to purchase someone “stolen” or forced-against-their-will into slavery (Ex. 21:16), whether foreign or no."

WALT: “to interpret ex21:16 prohibiting purchasing slaves is to create a contradiction with 25:44-46.”

RCO: Only if one assumes (a priori, as you so obviously are) that scripture as a whole promotes forced slavery. I have clearly demonstrated that far from condoning forced slavery, the bible prohibits it. The circularity of your argument is stunningly obvious in your statement above.

RCO: "This leaves only one other possibility here. The “foreign slaves” that could be inherited “as a possession forever” could only have been those foreign slaves who had become willing bondservants."

WALT: “well, no. since the previous verses say they were slaves bought from foreign places, this verse probably refers to slaves bought from foreign places who are subject to the rules for slaves bought from foreign places.”

RCO: Here you again assume (a priori) that scripture condones the Hebrews purchasing slaves who were such against their will. Again, I have clearly demonstrated that this was forbidden. You are now hanging the whole of your argument on this one verse, presupposing forced slavery and forcing it into the passage when the context alone does not warrant such an interpretation. 'Round and 'round you go.

RCO: “This is the only explanation I am aware of that comports with the copious other passages that prohibit “forced” slavery."

WALT: “this may be the only answer that comports with your a priori proof-texting motives, but you're jumping right over the obvious occam's-razor-pleasing answer: foreign slaves could be treated as possessions and willed to one's children - and thereby be deprived of LIBERTY.”

RCO: LOL! “My” a priori, proof-texting motives? You gotta be kidding me. Lev. 25:46 is YOUR “proof-text,” not mine. You are the one isolating this text and forcing your meaning into it to the exclusion of the consideration of other texts...which is the definition of proof-texting. And “Occam's Razor-pleasing?” The last time I checked, Occam's Razor was a theory of philosophy used to determine probabilities philosophically, not an interpretive tool for determining inter-textual relationships in literature. Talk about confusing disciplines!

And “motives?” I think it is quite clear who has an ax to grind on the slavery issue.

peterhuff,

"I think PSolus has a very confused world-view and has a hard time because of it, based on the contradiction I keep seeing in it."

Do go on; I can't wait.

"PSolus says he is not an atheist, and says he believes nothing."

You have been paying attention, haven't you?

"Besides the fact that that is a belief in itself..."

No it isn't.

"...and one that he has to constantly work on denying,..."

It's really no work at all.

"...he denies God by his words and thoughts and lack of education of the Bible."

As I also deny unicorns and leprechauns by my lack of education of them?

"That in itself betrays part of his world-view in that he actually interprets things according to certain views/beliefs/theories - whether he perceives them as pleasant or unpleasant."

I just scratched my shoulder because it itched; is that also part of my world-view?

"But here again concerning Christianity/God, it seems that he bases his belief..."

You mean my lack of belief...

"...on a lack on knowledge,..."

Actually, it's more of a lack of interest, but that certainly contributes to my lack of knowledge...

"...then contradicts this later by saying he uses tools such as educations, all the while not educating himself on what it is he is denying."

Not a contradiction at all; and, disinterest is not necessarily denial.

"He sees Christianity as something to be avoided because he associates unpleasantness with it."

How did you hear about that time behind the pulpit?

"It is starting to show through now that he has opened up to more than the one word or one line responses."

Maybe I'm just a late bloomer.

"Regardless, he has to analyze according to something and this starts to unravel below."

I have to? Are you the boss of me?

"First identifier, experience."

What's the second identifier?

"More signs of what his world-view is fueled on,..."

You must tell me about my world-view... Really, because it's news to me.

"...signs that he does base his thoughts on beliefs besides the belief in experience, he analyzes using all these other tools."

My experiences may be beliefs to you, but to me they are experiences.

"Those may or may not be core assumptions, core/base beliefs?"

They aren't.

"The point is, that without God there can be no certainty, no matter what you believe."

No problem; I don't need certainty... Oh, and I believe nothing (see, no work at all).

"As has been said repeatedly to Walter, certainty requires God."

And, as I have said to you on more than one occasion: I don't need certainty.

"Hopefully PSolus and Walter will come to this realization one day, [preachy stuff expurgated]."

Don't count on it.

[bibley stuff expurgated]

Hi RCofield,

I heard your call for help. (^8

I think PSolus has a very confused world-view and has a hard time because of it, based on the contradiction I keep seeing in it.

PSolus says he is not an atheist, and says he believes nothing. Besides the fact that that is a belief in itself and one that he has to constantly work on denying, he denies God by his words and thoughts and lack of education of the Bible.

He says,

PS: "Is it not OK with you if I just live my life, observing what goes on around me, thinking about what goes on around, occasionally commenting on what goes on around me, enjoying the things that I find enjoyable, avoiding the things that I find unpleasant, tolerating the things that I find tolerable?"

"...enjoying the things that I find enjoyable, avoiding the things that I find unpleasant."

That in itself betrays part of his world-view in that he actually interprets things according to certain views/beliefs/theories - whether he perceives them as pleasant or unpleasant.

But here again concerning Christianity/God, it seems that he bases his belief on a lack on knowledge, (ignorance as bliss), on the one hand, and then contradicts this later by saying he uses tools such as educations, all the while not educating himself on what it is he is denying.

He sees Christianity as something to be avoided because he associates unpleasantness with it.

It is starting to show through now that he has opened up to more than the one word or one line responses.

PS: "First, you probably should not assume that I totally accept anything as fact."

He has shown that he does, just by formulating his opinion there has to be something that he rests what he says on (regardless of whether he actually perceives that fact as it actually is, or just as he believes it to be).

PS: "I tend to look at things more in terms of probabilities."

Regardless, he has to analyze according to something and this starts to unravel below.

PS: "Second, you probably should not assume that I use only experience when evaluating what is presented to me as fact."

First identifier, experience.

PS: "I use other tools, such as education, skepticism, extrapolation, common sense, critical thinking, Occam's Razor, the opinions of others, etc."

More signs of what his world-view is fueled on, signs that he does base his thoughts on beliefs besides the belief in experience, he analyzes using all these other tools. Those may or may not be core assumptions, core/base beliefs?

The point is, that without God there can be no certainty, no matter what you believe.

As has been said repeatedly to Walter, certainty requires God. Hopefully PSolus and Walter will come to this realization one day, that they may experience the hope and certainty that is found only in Jesus Christ.

"God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Submit yourselves, then to God...Come near to Him and He will come near to you." (James 4:6b, 7a, 8a)

RCofield,

"Ahhhh....So you use the tools whereby one formulates a worldview....but you don't actually have a worldview that can be articulated, other than "I believe nothing?""

Why not?

I've used many tools in my life that others use for other purposes.

And, the statement "I believe nothing" is no more a world-view than the statements "I wear jeans" or "I like pie" are world-views.

Is it not OK with you if I just live my life, observing what goes on around me, thinking about what goes on around, occasionally commenting on what goes on around me, enjoying the things that I find enjoyable, avoiding the things that I find unpleasant, tolerating the things that I find tolerable?

What, exactly, necessitates that I formulate and articulate a world-view?

Can I not simply choose not to formulate and articulate a world-view?

Perhaps one of the reasons that I do not have a world-view, is that I have no desire to force others to live their life according to what I think.

PSOLUS,

PSO: "First, you probably should not assume that I totally accept anything as fact.

I tend to look at things more in terms of probabilities.

Second, you probably should not assume that I use only experience when evaluating what is presented to me as fact.

I use other tools, such as education, skepticism, extrapolation, common sense, critical thinking, Occam's Razor, the opinions of others, etc.

Again, skepticism is only one of the tools that I use."

RCO: Ahhhh....So you use the tools whereby one formulates a worldview....but you don't actually have a worldview that can be articulated, other than "I believe nothing?"

WALTER,

The circularity of your post @ 4:41 PM must have left you dizzy and lightheaded. You may want to give yourself time to recuperate before posting again.

WALTER,

WALT: "well "man" is the best we have to go by. even that the bible you treat as absolute is actually "man", though you won't admit that. and our current standard is probably not as the "ultimate authority or perfect standard" - since we can always try to be even better."

RCO: "Even better?" Wake up and smell the stench, Walter.

WALT: "hitler was crazy. the violated all kinds of enlightenment principles.

RCO: As are the abortion "doctors" in your friendly, racist, genocidal neighborhood abortion clinic. Enlightened morality?.....Indeed.

Hitler killed his millions. They have killed their 10's of millions...and that without a single word of protest from "Enlightened" fellows such as yourself. You sure Hitler is the only one who was/is crazy?

Have you never heard of the German Enlightenment? You have just proved the very point I was making. I'll re-post it here for your convenience:

RCO said: If man determines moral standards (independent of anything or anyone outside of himself) and one man (or group of men) determine that murder of Jews is not immoral, who are you to object? In point of fact, if a mind educated in enlightenment principles is the standard, the case can be made that Hitler and his henchmen were MORE qualified to determine moral standards than you are.

Further, you, possessing a “rational mind, educated in enlightenment principles,” have determined the following: It is morally acceptable for a woman to murder the child in her womb, it is morally acceptable for homosexuals to violate that which nature itself abhors, it is morally acceptable for a man to have multiple wives and a woman to have multiple husbands, and it is morally acceptable for young women to be horribly used and abused as prostitutes.

I can offer you any number of individuals who “think” on these issues with equal or greater earnestness than yourself, possess an “enlightened” education, (many of them more educated than yourself), who would “rationally” disagree with you on every one of these points, some of them to the point of finding your determinations utterly repugnant morally. How is one to determine who is “right?” Obviously, you can't appeal to “thinking” or “rationality,” or “enlightenment-principles education” for the moral views of such men are as varied as the colors of the rainbow. In fact, this sort of disagreement has been the source of conflict since the dawn of time! And the “Enlightenment” has done nothing to curb this conflict. Actually, a good case can be made that, if anything, the conflict has grown more intense since the “Enlightenment.”

So...my question to you is this: Given the wide discrepancy between equal men on the issues of morality and the virtual certainty that there will never be anything even resembling a unanimous consensus, does it not stand to reason that mankind DESPARATELY needs a source of Ultimate Moral Authority that comes from OUTSIDE of himself?

The question still stands.

RCofield,

"Should I assume that you accept nothing as fact unless you have, in fact, had personal experience relating to said fact-claim?"

No.

First, you probably should not assume that I totally accept anything as fact.

I tend to look at things more in terms of probabilities.

Second, you probably should not assume that I use only experience when evaluating what is presented to me as fact.

I use other tools, such as education, skepticism, extrapolation, common sense, critical thinking, Occam's Razor, the opinions of others, etc.

"Such is the circularly insular nature of raw skepticism."

Really?

"'Tis why I am skeptical of skepticism when it is held to the exclusion of any other articulate world-view."

Again, skepticism is only one of the tools that I use.

rco,
"Now look at Lev. 25:46: “You may bequeath them [foreign slaves] to your sons after you to INHERIT AS A POSSESSION FOREVER.” To interpret this passage as permitting forced slavery one must ignore virtually every rule for the treatment of slaves given by God in the OT."

to interpret this as prohibiting forced slavery is to ignore the verse itself.

"Remember, the Hebrews were NOT permitted to purchase someone “stolen” or forced-against-their-will into slavery (Ex. 21:16), whether foreign or no."

to interpret ex21:16 prohibiting purchasing slaves is to create a contradiction with 25:44-46.

"This leaves only one other possibility here. The “foreign slaves” that could be inherited “as a possession forever” could only have been those foreign slaves who had become willing bondservants."

well, no. since the previous verses say they were slaves bought from foreign places, this verse probably refers to slaves bought from foreign places who are subject to the rules for slaves bought from foreign places.

This is the only explanation I am aware of that comports with the copious other passages that prohibit “forced” slavery."

this may be the only answer that comports with your a priori proof-texting motives, but you're jumping right over the obvious occam's-razor-pleasing answer: foreign slaves could be treated as possessions and willed to one's children - and thereby be deprived of LIBERTY.

RCO: When you say “I just go by what my rational mind, educated in enlightenment principles, thinks,” you are establishing man as the ultimate authority (perfect standard). The problem with this should be obvious. For example, Hitler and his henchmen were “educated in enlightenment principles” (perhaps more-so than yourself), yet they “rationalized” (with their supposedly “rational minds”) that it was not immoral to murder Jews by the millions.
-----------------

well "man" is the best we have to go by. even that the bible you treat as absolute is actually "man", though you won't admit that. and our current standard is probably not as the "ultimate authority or perfect standard" - since we can always try to be even better.

hitler was crazy. the violated all kinds of enlightenment principles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzYsiNZgZ7M

PSOLUS,

PSO: "Experience"

"Ditto"

"Experience"

"Experience"

"Experience"

RCO: Should I assume that you accept nothing as fact unless you have, in fact, had personal experience relating to said fact-claim?

PSO: "In my opinion (see?), you have failed to make your point."

RCO: Such is the circularly insular nature of raw skepticism. 'Tis why I am skeptical of skepticism when it is held to the exclusion of any other articulate world-view.

WALTER, TW, PETER....where are you guys?! Somebody needs get on here and rescue me from the clutches of PSOLUS.....somebody.....ANYBODY?!!

Heeeeeeellllllp!

RCofield ,

"May I propose a test of my statement?"

Be my guest.

"Thank you."

No problem.

"In the morning, before you get out of bed, try to genuinely question whether or not there will, in fact, be a floor beneath your feet to support you when you swing your legs out of bed."

OK.

"If you don't mind, let me know how that goes."

I can tell you right now: Ii more likely than not that the floor will be there; that has been my experience for pretty much all my life.

"Let's count how many facts are presumed in that statement:
1)You presume that it is possible to know with certainty when there are "six" wine drinkers in your hypothetical room."

Not necessarily: I can know that there are six people in the room only if I am also in the room, and am able to count them. As to whether or not they are wine drinkers, I would have to take each of them at their word. Some of them could be lying. Such are "facts".

"2)Then there is the presumption that there is, in fact, such a beverage as "wine.""

I know that from experience; I drink the stuff on occasion.

"3)Additionally, you presuppose that there is, in fact, such a place as a "room""

I also know that from experience; I have helped to build several rooms, I have lived in several rooms, I have worked in several rooms, etc.

"4)Further, you assume that there are, in fact, those individuals who are "wine drinkers""

Again, I know this from experience; I am one, and I drunk wine with others.

"5)Then you presume that there are/is, in fact:"

An indented bullet list would have been more appropriate for the following.

"6)Opinions"

Again, I know that there are opinions from experience; I have many, and I have heard many more.

"7)Differing opinions"

Ditto.

"8)An "oakiness" in some wines"

Experience again.

"9)Varying degrees of "oakiness" in said wines....etc."

Experience.

"See what I mean?"

In my opinion (see?), you have failed to make your point.

TBC...

Continued:

"Kinda touchy this morning, are we?"

We? I don't know about "we", but I am probably as touchy this morning as I am most mornings.

"Is it possible that there are "non-rabid" christians that you have simply not encountered in the range of your experience?"

It is quite possible. And, from my experience, I would guess that it is quiet probable.

Let's recap:

1. I called one commenter on this blog a "rabid believer" (note: not "rabid christian").

2. You claimed that you believe that the two words - "rabid" and "believer" - are mutually exclusive.

3. I disagreed, stating that it has not been my experience that those two words are necessarily mutually exclusive.

4. You questioned whether I should broaden my experience, seemingly implying that if I were to gain more experience (?), I too would come to believe, as you do, that those two words are mutually exclusive.

"And...what was it again that we disagreed on?"

You stated what you believed to be a fact; I questioned the veracity of your fact.

I question the veracity of almost all facts the I hear from others; some facts more than other facts, facts from some people more than from other people.

"I'm pretty certain they don't carry signs."

I'll take your word on that.

"Does this phenomenon fall outside the range of your experience?"

No. Many people don't carry signs.

"If so, perhaps you should broaden your experience?"

There you go again...

PSOLUS,

RCO: "Presumably a reasonable degree of evidence."

PSO: “Presumably.”

RCO: "Without an almost countless number of evidence-based facts, it would be impossible for us to even function as sentient beings."

PSO: “Is that a fact? See what I mean?”

RCO: May I propose a test of my statement? Thank you. In the morning, before you get out of bed, try to genuinely question whether or not there will, in fact, be a floor beneath your feet to support you when you swing your legs out of bed. If you don't mind, let me know how that goes.

RCO: "For example, if certain chardonnays did not have an "oaky" taste, a fact that you previously insinuated is established, it would be impossible to search for one without too much "oakiness.""

PSO: “Surely you can do better than that. If you get six wine drinkers in a room, you will get at least six different opinions concerning the "facts" on whether the wine is oaky or not, and to the degree of oakiness.”

RCO: Let's count how many facts are presumed in that statement:
1)You presume that it is possible to know with certainty when there are “six” wine drinkers in your hypothetical room.
2)Then there is the presumption that there is, in fact, such a beverage as “wine.”
3)Additionally, you presuppose that there is, in fact, such a place as a “room”
4)Further, you assume that there are, in fact, those individuals who are “wine drinkers”
5)Then you presume that there are/is, in fact:
6)Opinions
7)Differing opinions
8)An “oakiness” in some wines
9)Varying degrees of “oakiness” in said wines....etc.
See what I mean?

RCO: "That is regrettable. Perhaps you should broaden your experience?"
PSO: “OK, I see that we're back to where any disagreement that I have with you is evidence of my lack of education.”

RCO: Kinda touchy this morning, are we? Is it possible that there are “non-rabid” christians that you have simply not encountered in the range of your experience? And...what was it again that we disagreed on?

RCO: "Are you aware of Dr. Mark Dever and Capitol Hill Baptist Church?"

PSO: “Not sure; what kinds of signs do they carry in front of the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, the Wilson Building, at Arlington Cemetery, on the Mall...?”

RCO: I'm pretty certain they don't carry signs. Does this phenomenon fall outside the range of your experience? If so, perhaps you should broaden your experience?

RCofield,

"Presumably a reasonable degree of evidence."

Presumably.

"Without an almost countless number of evidence-based facts, it would be impossible for us to even function as sentient beings."

Is that a fact?

See what I mean?

"For example, if certain chardonnays did not have an "oaky" taste, a fact that you previously insinuated is established, it would be impossible to search for one without too much "oakiness.""

Surely you can do better than that.

If you get six wine drinkers in a room, you will get at least six different opinions concerning the "facts" on whether the wine is oaky or not, and to the degree of oakiness.

"That is regrettable. Perhaps you should broaden your experience?"

OK, I see that we're back to where any disagreement that I have with you is evidence of my lack of education.

"Are you aware of Dr. Mark Dever and Capitol Hill Baptist Church?"

Not sure; what kinds of signs do they carry in front of the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, the Wilson Building, at Arlington Cemetery, on the Mall...?

WALTER,

WALT (to Peter): “well, i don't really have a perfect standard. i just go by what my rational mind, educated in enlightenment principles, thinks. but, you and rco think you have a perfect standard in the bible. the problem, for you guys, is how to excuse yahweh's horrible (by today's standards) behavior.

RCO: When you say “I just go by what my rational mind, educated in enlightenment principles, thinks,” you are establishing man as the ultimate authority (perfect standard). The problem with this should be obvious. For example, Hitler and his henchmen were “educated in enlightenment principles” (perhaps more-so than yourself), yet they “rationalized” (with their supposedly “rational minds”) that it was not immoral to murder Jews by the millions.

If man determines moral standards (independent of anything or anyone outside of himself) and one man (or group of men) determine that murder of Jews is not immoral, who are you to object? In point of fact, if a mind educated in enlightenment principles is the standard, the case can be made that Hitler and his henchmen were MORE qualified to determine moral standards than you are.

Further, you, possessing a “rational mind, educated in enlightenment principles,” have determined the following: It is morally acceptable for a woman to murder the child in her womb, it is morally acceptable for homosexuals to violate that which nature itself abhors, it is morally acceptable for a man to have multiple wives and a woman to have multiple husbands, and it is morally acceptable for young women to be horribly used and abused as prostitutes.

I can offer you any number of individuals who “think” on these issues with equal or greater earnestness than yourself, possess an “enlightened” education, (many of them more educated than yourself), who would “rationally” disagree with you on every one of these points, some of them to the point of finding your determinations utterly repugnant morally. How is one to determine who is “right?” Obviously, you can't appeal to “thinking” or “rationality,” or “enlightenment-principles education” for the moral views of such men are as varied as the colors of the rainbow. In fact, this sort of disagreement has been the source of conflict since the dawn of time! And the “Enlightenment” has done nothing to curb this conflict. Actually, a good case can be made that, if anything, the conflict has grown more intense since the “Enlightenment.”

So...my question to you is this: Given the wide discrepancy between equal men on the issues of morality and the virtual certainty that there will never be anything even resembling a unanimous consensus, does it not stand to reason that mankind DESPARATELY needs a source of Ultimate Moral Authority that comes from OUTSIDE of himself?

PSOLUS,

RCO: "Ummmm...Doesn't something being a fact necessitate its truthfulness?"

PSO: What, exactly, necessitates that something claimed to be a fact, is, indeed, a fact?

RCO: Presumably a reasonable degree of evidence. Without an almost countless number of evidence-based facts, it would be impossible for us to even function as sentient beings. For example, if certain chardonnays did not have an "oaky" taste, a fact that you previously insinuated is established, it would be impossible to search for one without too much "oakiness."

RCO: "The adjective and the noun [rabid believers] are mutually exclusive..."

PSO: "Not in my experience."

RCO: That is regrettable. Perhaps you should broaden your experience?

RCO: "Where do you hail from?"

PSO: "I live in the city from which many people believe emanates all of the evil that afflicts this country."

RCO: I thought I recalled you having hinted at that sometime back. Are you aware of Dr. Mark Dever and Capitol Hill Baptist Church?

http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/

RCofield,

"Ummmm...Doesn't something being a fact necessitate its truthfulness?"

What, exactly, necessitates that something claimed to be a fact, is, indeed, a fact?

"The adjective and the noun [rabid believers] are mutually exclusive..."

Not in my experience.

"Where do you hail from?"

I live in the city from which many people believe emanates all of the evil that afflicts this country.

PSOLUS,

RCO: "Funny thing about facts is, the veracity of a fact is in no way affected by what I believe....or by what you think. That is the nature of facts."

PSO: "I agree.
Where we probably disagree is that I am skeptical that we can determine the veracity of any fact to any great degree.

RCO: I think this is precisely where we disagree, though I would add that I am skeptical about the motive of skepticism.

PSO: "At best, we may be able to guesstimate the likely hood that any fact is "true"."

RCO: Ummmm...Doesn't something being a fact necessitate its truthfulness?

RCO: "Don't mention it."

PSO: "Not at all."

RCO: Thank you.

RCO: "I probably take greater exception to "rabid believers" than you do."

PSO: "Are you referring to the term "rabid believers", or to the people who are "rabid believers"?"

RCO: The people. The adjective and the noun are mutually exclusive, though an understandable description.

PSO: "Should I infer that you do not consider yourself to be a "rabid believer"."

RCO: You should infer that.

RCO: "The invitation still stands, with you, of course, making the wine selection."

PSO: "You don't really believe that that is going to happen, do you?"

RCO: If I ever find myself in your neck of the woods I would count it an honor. If you are ever in my neck of the woods...I would count it an honor.

I reside in South Mississippi. Where do you hail from?

WALTER,

Part 1 of 3

WALT: rco, you said,
"You initially defined slavery as the deprivation of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” We have demonstrated, repeatedly, that God nowhere in scripture “prescribes” such slavery."

You offer in response:

ex21:4
If his master gives him [hebrew slave] a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, THE WIFE AND HER CHILDREN SHALL BE HER MASTERS, and he shall go out alone.

RCO: If one presumes the “wife” had willingly sold herself into this slavery or had become a bondservant (a presumption that is consistent with Hebrew slave-ownership), this verse in no way deprives her of liberty. Additionally, her husband is not deprived of liberty as he would have known full-well before marrying her that she would be required to fulfill her willingly-entered-into obligation to her master. The children would not have been deprived of liberty as they were seen as an extension of the obligation of their mother and would have been freed along with their mother upon the fulfillment of her obligation or treated separately once they reached adulthood in the case that their mother had become a willing bondservant. This is thoroughly consistent with the rules given for Hebrew ownership of Hebrew slaves. Hence, contrary to your contention, this verse in no way “advocates” slavery practices that in any way resembled those of the 18th/19th century, which are your reference point.

I’ll come back to Lev. 25:46 in a moment. Concerning Ex. 21:16 you offer the following:

WALT: “you quote exodus 21:16 as if it "cancels out" these verses. of course it doesn't. ex21:16 says "kidnappers" or "men stealers" - even your esv translates it that way. ex21:16 comes right after ex21:4. it is in a chapter full of rules about slavery. how can you say it forbids slavery? i mean, seriously, why even have all those other verses is ex21:16 forbids slavery? that's crazy.”

WALTER,

Part 2 of 3

How does “kidnapping” or “man stealing” differ from forcing someone into slavery? Look at the verse again: Ex 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” What is the purpose of the “theft” of the man? Clearly it is for the purpose of selling him. You earlier conceded that this verse could be referring to the practice of slave-trading (which it clearly FORBIDS). Now look at the second clause: “…and anyone found in possession of him shall be put to death.” How is this NOT forbidding Hebrews to purchase someone “stolen” for the purpose of selling them into forced (against their will) slavery? The obvious answer is that Hebrews are here prohibited from purchasing anyone who was “stolen” and forced to submit to sale into slavery AGAINST THEIR WILL.

Why is Ex. 21:16 “in a chapter full of rules about slavery?” Because it clearly prohibits forced slavery, the very form of slavery that all these other “rules” guard AGAINST. One can only conclude otherwise if one ignores the entire tenor of the regulations of slavery given to the Hebrews.

Additionally, you submit the following concerning I Ti. 1:10:

WALT: “1tim1:10 is irrelevant to whether ex21 and lev25 allow slavery.” And then: “i'm still thinking about 1tim1:10... it's the exclusivity of the esv translation as "enslavers" and the fact that the others say slave-traders or kidnappers. i think there's a difference between kidnappers, slave-traders and slave owners.”

I’ll deal with your second statement first. How is there a difference between “slave traders” and “slave owners?” Clearly, the former cannot exist without the latter! Further, there is no great mystery here as to the various translations of the word here. One can hardly contrive a scenario where “slave-traders” or “kidnappers” are different in any way from those who “enslave!” But it is even less ambiguous than that (if that is even possible). The Greek word Paul used here is “andrapodistes”—meaning “one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery.” Slave “owners” cannot reasonably be excluded from the scope of this term! I mean, honestly, do you think Paul is here saying that “slave-trading” is prohibited, but “slave-owning” (i.e. the ownership of those forced into slavery against their will) is perfectly OK?

WALTER,

Part 3 of 3

Now to your statement “1tim1:10 is irrelevant to whether ex21 and lev25 allow slavery.” I do beg to differ. Back up and look at verses 8 & 9: “Now we know that the LAW is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the LAW is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient…” What LAW is Paul referring to here? Virtually every NT reference to the “law” is a reference to the OT law! The context of this entire chapter leaves no doubt that he is here referring to the OT law when he says in verse 10 that the LAW prohibits “enslaving.”

Do you realize the significance of this? PAUL IS APPEALING TO THE OT LAW LAID DOWN IN EX. 21:16 WHEN HE SAYS THAT FORCED SLAVERY (“enslaving”) IS PROHIBITED!” Far from this passage being “irrelevant” to Ex. 21 and Lev. 25, it AFFIRMS that these passages prohibit/are not “condoning” forced slavery.

Now look at Lev. 25:46: “You may bequeath them [foreign slaves] to your sons after you to INHERIT AS A POSSESSION FOREVER.” To interpret this passage as permitting forced slavery one must ignore virtually every rule for the treatment of slaves given by God in the OT. Remember, the Hebrews were NOT permitted to purchase someone “stolen” or forced-against-their-will into slavery (Ex. 21:16), whether foreign or no. This leaves only one other possibility here. The “foreign slaves” that could be inherited “as a possession forever” could only have been those foreign slaves who had become willing bondservants. This is the only explanation I am aware of that comports with the copious other passages that prohibit “forced” slavery.

In the end, when the regulations and prohibitions concerning slavery in OT Israel are taken as a whole it is quite clear that this economic reality of that time and culture in no way resembled the slave-trade and slave-ownership of the 18th/19th century. And I remind you again, that has been your reference point for the atrocities of slavery from the moment you proposed this discussion. You have tried to equate 18th/19th century slavery with slavery within the economy of ancient Israel. This is simply erroneous when one understands the historical facts.

peterhuff,

"The Atheist are in a real quandary when he tries to argue for the problem of evil,..."

Perhaps that's why I'm not a atheist.

"Evil", in my experience, is a word used by people to describe something that they cannot intelligently comprehend.

Things that used to be "evil", but that we now understand, are no longer "evil".

RCofield,

"Funny thing about facts is, the veracity of a fact is in no way affected by what I believe....or by what you think. That is the nature of facts."

I agree.

Where we probably disagree is that I am skeptical that we can determine the veracity of any fact to any great degree.

At best, we may be able to guesstimate the likely hood that any fact is "true".

"See above."

Ditto.

"See above."

Ditto.

"Don't mention it."

Not at all.

"I probably take greater exception to "rabid believers" than you do."

Are you referring to the term "rabid believers", or to the people who are "rabid believers"?

Should I infer that you do not consider yourself to be a "rabid believer".

"My apologies."

Not necessary.

"Didn't mean to offend your culinary proclivities."

No offence taken; I don't offend easily.

"As I have been uable to develop a taste for it, wine selection is definitely not my strong suit."

I can understand that.

"The invitation still stands, with you, of course, making the wine selection."

You don't really believe that that is going to happen, do you?

This gentleman, John MacKay, was a speaker at our church about two years ago.

http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/07/christian-evolutionists.html

We must be getting to the end of the life of this current forum.

Hi RCofield,

I was just browsing and came across this site in which there were a few videos against abortion. I also liked the argument for absolute laws in logic which is one of Bahnsens favorite arguments (on the same page).

http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2009/03/atheists-debunked-forever.html

Here is their argument for/against evil in which they said,

"The Atheist are in a real quandary when he tries to argue for the problem of evil, he has to first make a moral judgment that is objectively correct. Objective moral judgments can only be grounded in the transcendent God of Christianity.
The Atheist cannot logically generate the problem of evil. Its not a problem for the believer but it is, ironically, the problem for the unbeliever. The Atheist need to make good on the statement that its evil first. Like Razi Zacharias said, Atheists are invoking a moral law in posing the question.

When Atheists say that things are evil we, as Christians, say that they are absolutely right, not relativistically right. But if atheists are going to say that is absolutely evil then you must have an absolute standard of good. Only God can provide that.

They ask if God is sadistic or impotent? But they fail to understand that those are not the only options here. The third option is the worldview of the Bible.

The Bible reveals to us that God is all good and all powerful and tells us that evil exists in the world. The Bible, because its true is consistent, and therefore those three things are consistent.

The Atheist will claim that it is not consistent and THAT is the nub of the problem here.

Atheists think its inconsistent and God thinks its consistent, who are you going to believe?

Ultimately this is a question of authority. The authority of the Atheist's logical powers verses God' logical powers. Atheists are using their logical powers to show there is no God, logically speaking. What does God tell us?

Bahnsen explains it this way. God tells us that sin has obscured our understanding. That is to say that if Adam chose to sin, Adam would enter a realm of darkness that even he would not understand. It would obscure his thinking, it would make his thinking foolish, it would thwart his ability to understand things properly.

http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/

PSOLUS,

RCO: "Not at all. The way some on this post are refusing to educate themselves is by refusing to become conversant with the facts...."

PSO: "Don't you mean refusing to become conversant with the "facts" as you believe them to be?"

RCO: Funny thing about facts is, the veracity of a fact is in no way affected by what I believe....or by what you think. That is the nature of facts.

RCO: "So, the only way I can educate myself is to agree with what you think, even when you have refused to become conversant with facts?

PSO: "Don't mean that I have refused to become conversant with "facts" as you believe them to be?"

RCO: See above.

RCO: "Meaning that I, because I disagree with what you think, am dishonest and uneducated, even when what you think ignores the obvious?"

PSO: "Don't you mean that what I think ignores what you believe to be the obvious?"

RCO: See above.

RCO: "And Thomas Moses Peter Paul Sam Joe Bubba Baum, Spiderman2, and TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 are on their own."

PSO: "You're welcome."

RCO: Don't mention it.

RCO: "If you can tell me what TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 means I’ll do better than give you extra credit; I’ll take you out to an Italian dinner and buy you a nice bottle of chardonnay that doesn’t leave too much oakiness on the palate."

PSO: "I have no idea what TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 means, but the person who uses that login name is a rabid believer, so I guessed that you might know what it references."

RCO: I probably take greater exception to "rabid believers" than you do.

PSO: "And, in my opinion, only a philistine would order a bottle of chardonnay to go with an Italian dinner, so I'd have to decline the dinner invitation even if I were able to earn it."

RCO: My apologies. Didn't mean to offend your culinary proclivities. As I have been uable to develop a taste for it, wine selection is definitely not my strong suit. The invitation still stands, with you, of course, making the wine selection.

rco,
1tim1:10 is irrelevant to whether ex21 and lev25 allow slavery.

the reason i keep pushing it to say the o.t. "endorses" and "prescribes" slavery is that there are time where hebrews/israelites took prisoners, female virgins for wives.... now i know that's prisoners of war... so maybe that's different. the bible doesn't mention ever letting them go....but i digress... if we can get through that list of "horrible verses", we can discuss the immorality of joshua's conquest.... (you can't call "saved").

i'm still thinking about 1tim1:10... it's the exclusivity of the esv translation as "enslavers" and the fact that the others say slave-traders or kidnappers. i think there's a difference between kidnappers, slave-traders and slave owners.

WALTER: "like i said, "perfect" is a high standard. i've acknowledged that there are "different kind" of slavery in the bible - but there's still the "bad kind"."

PETER: "Perfect?" Where do you get your perfect standard or concept from?
--------------

well, i don't really have a perfect standard. i just go by what my rational mind, educated in enlightenment principles, thinks. but, you and rco think you have a perfect standard in the bible. the problem, for you guys, is how to excuse yahweh's horrible (by today's standards) behavior.

we've talked about how the bible allows hebrew people to have slaves (as long as those slaves aren't hebrew), and how yahweh was sexist and so forth. i give you credit over rco for being able to at least see the slavery in the o.t.. and while i find your "excuses" (god used slavery as a lesson in obedience).

now, i'm just using my modern, rational, fallible mind, but according to my standards, slavery is bad, and sexism is bad.

do you agree sexism and slavery are bad? well, no matter how we arrived there, we got to the same point.

RCO, Peter,

Trying to define slavery as not slavery and then accusing us of not reading black and white reminds me of Bill Clinton trying to define the word "is" or saying that he did not have sexual relations with that woman.

You are both bending over backwards, both trying to take the common, black and white, understanding of words and claim they don't mean what they mean.

It's disingenuous or as you would say RCO, dishonest.

rco, you said,
"You initially defined slavery as the deprivation of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” We have demonstrated, repeatedly, that God nowhere in scripture “prescribes” such slavery."

ex21:4
If his master gives him [hebrew slave] a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, THE WIFE AND HER CHILDREN SHALL BE HER MASTERS, and he shall go out alone.

lev25:46,
You may bequeath them [foreign slaves] to your sons after you to INHERIT AS A POSSESSION FOREVER.

these verses both deprive the slave/wife/children of LIBERTY. life, LIBERTY

how can you not see that?

you quote exodus 21:16 as if it "cancels out" these verses. of course it doesn't. ex21:16 says "kidnappers" or "men stealers" - even your esv translates it that way. ex21:16 comes right after ex21:4. it is in a chapter full of rules about slavery. how can you say it forbids slavery? i mean, seriously, why even have all those other verses is ex21:16 forbids slavery? that's crazy.

ex21 distinguishes btwn hebrew slaves and other slaves. and tell us how masters of even the privileged hebrew slaves get to OWN (deprive of LIBERTY) their slaves children. how can you possibly construe that as other than forced slavery for the child.

the leviticus verses describe how the israelites may pass their foreign slaves on to their children. again, there's no "timed release" for these foreign slaves. you can paint as rosy a relationship as you like, but the FACT IS THE BIBLE TELLS ISRAELITES THEY MAY BUY SLAVES AND KEEP THEM FOR LIFE - heck, they can even pass them on to their children. how do you figure that's not deprivation of liberty?

i would accuse you of "intentional dishonesty", (like you have me) for saying you don't understand these things to be deprivation of liberty, but, given other things you believe, i will just call you delusional.

peterhuff,

Many believers, like you, may require the illusion that there exists "an objective, changeless, true, infinite (for truth doesn't change), wise standard that we can know truly what is right and what is not".

However, there are also many non-believers, who do not require that illusion.

Also, many non-believers do not need to prowl Web sites that discuss the fallibility of science.

Science is by definition fallible; people who actually understand science to not require the illusion of infallibility.

Hi Walter,

Something I missed that I should expand upon,

WALTER: "like i said, "perfect" is a high standard. i've acknowledged that there are "different kind" of slavery in the bible - but there's still the "bad kind"."

"Perfect?" Where do you get your perfect standard or concept from? Your philosophy of ethics is constantly evolving. You have demonstrated that values change and you have admitted that they are subjective. Therefore you have not reached that standard, nor does it appear from your world-view that you are capable of ever reaching it. What/whose subjective standard are you judging God on now? Are they solely yours or are they thoughts from someone else?

You still, after all this time, do not see the necessary for there to be an objective, changeless, true, infinite (for truth doesn't change), wise standard that we can know truly what is right and what is not. That standard by necessity is almighty God.

PS. Here is an interesting discussion on the fallibility of science for you Walter.

http://www.leslieannwickman.com/philosophy-of-science/

RCofield,

"Not at all. The way some on this post are refusing to educate themselves is by refusing to become conversant with the facts...."

Don't you mean refusing to become conversant with the "facts" as you believe them to be?

"So, the only way I can educate myself is to agree with what you think, even when you have refused to become conversant with facts?

Don't mean that I have refused to become conversant with "facts" as you believe them to be?

"Meaning that I, because I disagree with what you think, am dishonest and uneducated, even when what you think ignores the obvious?"

Don't you mean that what I think ignores what you believe to be the obvious?

"And Thomas Moses Peter Paul Sam Joe Bubba Baum, Spiderman2, and TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 are on their own."

You're welcome.

"If you can tell me what TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 means I’ll do better than give you extra credit; I’ll take you out to an Italian dinner and buy you a nice bottle of chardonnay that doesn’t leave too much oakiness on the palate."

I have no idea what TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 means, but the person who uses that login name is a rabid believer, so I guessed that you might know what it references.

And, in my opinion, only a philistine would order a bottle of chardonnay to go with an Italian dinner, so I'd have to decline the dinner invitation even if I were able to earn it.

PSOLUS,

RCO: "As I recall, it was you who refused to educate yourself on that point. Several times."

PSO: “So, the only way that one can educate oneself, is to agree with your beliefs?
Meaning that anyone who disagrees with your beliefs is dishonest and uneducated?”

RCO: Not at all. The way some on this post are refusing to educate themselves is by refusing to become conversant with the facts….

PSO: "Are you also dishonest for ignoring, and refusing to educate yourself of, the fact that a fetus is not a child?"

RCO: So, the only way I can educate myself is to agree with what you think, even when you have refused to become conversant with facts? Meaning that I, because I disagree with what you think, am dishonest and uneducated, even when what you think ignores the obvious?”

And Thomas Moses Peter Paul Sam Joe Bubba Baum, Spiderman2, and TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 are on their own.

If you can tell me what TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 means I’ll do better than give you extra credit; I’ll take you out to an Italian dinner and buy you a nice bottle of chardonnay that doesn’t leave too much oakiness on the palate.

WALTER,

In response to your last two posts:

WALT: “the o.t. prescribes slavery, therefore yahweh is not perfect.”

You initially defined slavery as the deprivation of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” We have demonstrated, repeatedly, that God nowhere in scripture “prescribes” such slavery.

You raised this issue originally with no apparent knowledge of A.N.E. slavery practices, and even less knowledge of Hebrew slave practices (a point, which, incidentally, is obvious to anyone following this discussion). We have dealt with all of the “biblical” accusations you have raised, and yet, with no acknowledgment of the fact that you were uninformed on this issue, you still insist on equating Hebrew slave practices with 18th/19th century practices.

Further, you dismissed out-of-hand Ex. 21:16 and I Tim. 1:10, though they clearly, with no ambiguity whatsoever, forbid slavery AS YOU DEFINED IT.

Additionally, it is more than mildly interesting that you have largely abandoned the myriad other “proof-texts” you initially offered and are now only offering Ex. 21:4 and Lev. 25:46 (both of which are dealt with honestly and thoroughly on the link Peter gave you). Your abandonment of the other passages without acknowledgement of your misuse of them reflects poorly on your apologetic integrity.

Ultimately, the laws of the OT regarding the poor/strangers/foreigners/slaves, etc. are, when taken as a whole, vastly more humanitarian than the common practices of the so-called “evolved cultures” of our day. It is only your highly selective “proof-texting” approach to scripture and your remarkably prejudiced (to the point of being both comical and sad at the same time) view of God that keep you from seeing this.

I’m a little uncomfortable with being as blunt as I have been in my last several posts to you, but your persistence in your now-obvious error leaves me no choice. Hence, I leave you with a repetition of what I have already posted twice:

Given that you have been presented more than adequate evidence on this issue for you to research it and educate yourself.....your insistence on maintaining an uneducated position on this matter renders your former ignorance a present intentional dishonesty.

One other comment Walter. We are told to serve God and worship only Him because He is deserving of service and worship, being greater than anything else. That service is expressed in love, just as you serve your wife in love and she serves you. You both look out for the best interests of the other in service.

That is the kind of service the Christian is call to, a service to the rest of humanity, a service to set the oppressed free, just as the Israelites were and those foreigners who came to Israel (Isaish 56:6).

If you want to see the type of justice that God considers good then read Isaiah 58 (do yourself a favor and read it). Do you want to see what pure religion is then read James 1:25-27 (notice "the perfect law").

peterhuff,

"The points you keep forgetting Walter is that we live in a Fallen world in which man has rejected God's best by choosing his own, and each to his own standard."

The point that you keep forgetting, peterhuff, is that you believe that we live in a Fallen world in which man has rejected God's best by choosing his own, and each to his own standard.

"God knows the depravity of man,..."

You believe that there is a god, and you believe that that god knows the depravity of man...

I'll let you extrapolate the rest from the above.

Your frustration arises from the fact that many people do not believe the things that you believe.

The sooner that you come to terms of that fact, the sooner that your frustration will subside.

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "rco,
like i said, "perfect" is a high standard. i've acknowledged that there are "different kind" of slavery in the bible - but there's still the "bad kind"."

When man chose to disobey God in the Garden, that perfect, yet limited in man, standard of God's had been marred by man. Hence all the evil and wickedness that is in the world that you have noticed and participate in to some degree or another, just like the rest of mankind does, has done, and will continue to do.

And the every things that you say is the "bad kind" you too, have to be able to explain as to why there are such things, when all your world-view claims you are are biological bags of matter. A rock does not know justice or fair play, nor does it care. How is it that you do? How can your world-view justify good and condemn evil?

It can't. It keeps borrowing from the Christian world-view, all the time denying it. Stranger hey?

You borrow from the law of God to condemn what your world-view has no power to explain. You have no objective standard in your world-view. It is all a matter of individual or group preference.

All the horrors in this world come from differing individual standards and the suppression of God's good, just and perfect law of love for both Him and neighbor. All this coveting, or this pride in man's ability to figure this all out by his own efforts. He won't bend the knee to anything greater than himself, as he arrogantly shakes his fist at the One who holds his life in His hands and graciously and patiently allows him another breath of air.

WALTER: "all your talk about the different kinds of slavery is nice, and if you spend a lot of time talking about the lovely hebrew-on-hebrew slavery, maybe we'll all forget about the kind of slavery i'm calling "horrible" by today's standards the slavery of "foreigners" (i.e., non-hebrews)."

WALTER: "it doesn't matter how rare it was. it doesn't matter how nice some of the masters may have been. if you're claiming the bible is "from god", it should not allow slavery at all. the facts of the matter are
1) yahweh created hebrews/others double standard.
2) yahweh condoned slavery of others."

The points you keep forgetting Walter is that we live in a Fallen world in which man has rejected God's best by choosing his own, and each to his own standard.

God knows the depravity of man, so that when these tribes and nations did wrong God provided a way to look after people in such situations. Notice throughout both OT and NT His compassion and concern for the poor, widows, orphans. The story of Ruth is a beautiful example of this.

Throughout the OT period God was instructing His people in His ways, but they proved to be stiff-necked and would not listen to His instruction, so they suffered the consequences for such action.

In Deuteronomy 28 God lays down both blessings and curses. In Romans 1, Paul reminds both Jew and Greek of their suppression of knowing God and living according to His decrees.

"The wrath of God [as it always has] is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness...For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images [both mental and physical images I might add, if you read other parts of Scripture] made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. THEREFORE, God GAVE THEM OVER TO THEIR SINFUL DESIRES of their hearts...They exchanged the truth of God for a lie....Because of this, God GAVE THEM OVER TO SHAMEFUL LUST...Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, HE GAVE THEM OVER TO A DEPRIVED MIND, to do what ought not be done." (Romans 1:18,21-24a, 25a, 26a, 28.

Since I'm running out of characters I'll let you finish the passage to see just what they are full of in verses 29-32. When you read through the list see how many of these vices apply to you Walter.

"God's righteous decrees" says that "those who do such things deserve death..." vs. 32.

Read chapter 2, esp. verse 1-16. Let it sink in. Now see what it says about the Jew and Gentile in verse 2:173:1-31.

Do you not see your hard heart Walter? Do you not see the grace that Jesus Christ brings? Are you blind to it?

rco,
like i said, "perfect" is a high standard. i've acknowledged that there are "different kind" of slavery in the bible - but there's still the "bad kind".

the hebrews rules about slavery may (or may not) have been "nicer" than neighboring ancients' slavery. DOESN'T MATTER: YAHWEH TOLD THE ISRAELITES TO TAKE SLAVES.

you know that country comedian who says, "if you [insert redneck activity here], you just might be a redneck"?

well, if you can will your slaves to your children, you just might be a slave owner.

if you can keep your slaves children forever, you just might be a slave owner.

rco,
the o.t. prescribes slavery, therefore yahweh is not perfect.

perfection is a high standard. you can't just be saying, "well, the o.t was better than other local ancient religions." remember you're claiming perfection. perfection would be ZERO verses condoning slavery, yet:

ex21:4
If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, THE WIFE AND HER CHILDREN SHALL BE HER MASTERS, and he shall go out alone.

lev25:46,
You may bequeath them [foreign slaves] to your sons after you to INHERIT AS A POSSESSION FOREVER.

now, you and peter have pointed me to a number of apologist websites apologizing and speculating that slavery of foreigners was probably pretty rare and speculating that these foreign slaves were treated more like family (imagine birds chirping, slaves skipping through fields).

you've also pointed me to that verse that says you don't have to return other people's slaves. again, lovely, but, your touting this verse shows how bankrupt your positions is. this verse is NOT saying "don't have slaves because it's immoral" - it's just regulating the slavery that yahweh endorses in ex2 and lev25.

RCofield,

Almost forgot: Are you familiar with that Thomas Moses [Peter, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or something else biblical] Baum dude?

The one who claims to have been visited by god and conscripted as a messenger?

Is he educated and honest?

RCofield,

"As I recall, it was you who refused to educate yourself on that point. Several times."

So, the only way that one can educate oneself, is to agree with your beliefs?

Meaning that anyone who disagrees with your beliefs is dishonest and uneducated?

Extra Credit:

Check out - http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2010/10/god_and_gays/comments.html#comments

Is the person logged in as "TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1" educated and honest?

Additional credit if you can tell what TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1 means.

Also, check out - http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/10/why_the_religious_right_has_a_permanent_political_edge_over_secular_america.html

Is the person logged in as "spidermean2" educated and honest?

PSOLUS,

RCO: "Ok...If you want to continue to be dishonest by ignoring facts that you are now aware of, I will continue to point out your dishonesty."

PSO: "Are you also dishonest for ignoring, and refusing to educate yourself of, the fact that a fetus is not a child?"

As I recall, it was you who refused to educate yourself on that point. Several times.

That "And you repeat:" part should not be there.

RCofield,

"Ok...If you want to continue to be dishonest by ignoring facts that you are now aware of, I will continue to point out your dishonesty."

And you repeat:

Are you also dishonest for ignoring, and refusing to educate yourself of, the fact that a fetus is not a child?

rco, peter,

re slavery.

all your talk about the different kinds of slavery is nice, and if you spend a lot of time talking about the lovely hebrew-on-hebrew slavery, maybe we'll all forget about the kind of slavery i'm calling "horrible" by today's standards the slavery of "foreigners" (i.e., non-hebrews).

it doesn't matter how rare it was. it doesn't matter how nice some of the masters may have been. if you're claiming the bible is "from god", it should not allow slavery at all. the facts of the matter are
1) yahweh created hebrews/others double standard.
2) yahweh condoned slavery of others.

Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | October 15, 2010 4:38 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ok...If you want to continue to be dishonest by ignoring facts that you are now aware of, I will continue to point out your dishonesty.

I repeat:

"Given that you have been presented more than adequate evidence on this issue for you to research it and educate yourself.....your insistence on maintaining an uneducated position on this matter renders your former ignorance a present intentional dishonesty."

And again...the Hebrew's use of "foreign" slaves in no way fits your original definition of what is "bad" about slavery: the deprivation of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

rco, peter,
re slavery.

all your talk about the different kinds of slavery is nice, and if you spend a lot of time talking about the lovely hebrew-on-hebrew slavery, maybe we'll all forget about the kind of slavery i'm calling "horrible" by today's standards the slavery of "foreigners" (i.e., non-hebrews).

it doesn't matter how rare it was. it doesn't matter how nice some of the masters may have been. if you're claiming the bible is "from god", it should not allow slavery at all. the facts of the matter are
1) yahweh created hebrews/others double standard.
2) yahweh condoned slavery of others.

From,

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

" "Wherever slavery existed, there were slaves who escaped from their masters. Ancient Near Eastern law forbade harboring runaway slaves, and international treaties regularly required allied states to extradite them. The present law, in contrast, permits escaped slaves to settle wherever they wish in the land of Israel and forbids returning them to their masters or enslaving them in Israel." [JPStorah, in loc.]

Now, this understanding could be right, and this restrictive an application (i.e., foreigners immigrating to Israel) is argued on the basis of the scope of the allowance ("whatever town"), but it is not clear from the passage that it is to be taken so restrictively. Nor is the (translation supplied) 'come to Israel' very obvious from the text.

If the passage is NOT this restrictive, then what we have here is an escape-clause that says: "if you--Hebrew or foreigner-- run away from a master, as long as you stay within Israel, you are free, and no one can return you to him/her."

This is exactly the understanding given in [HI:HANEL:2,1006]:

"A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution."

Think about this conclusion for a moment…Slavery was meant to serve the poor (and thereby, contribute to community strength and health). If a master/slave relationship turns destructive, the value is not being achieved, and it is better for the community for the relationship to dissolve. This was NOT left in the hands of the elite to decide, through appeals and litigation and hearings etc (!!!), but was something the slave could initiate himself/herself. There was a cost--dislocation--but this would have been a tradeoff-driven decision anyway.

If HI:HANEL is correct, then NO situation of 'true' slavery was exempt, and the foreigner (and Israelite alike, presumably) could live in freedom (but without the economic support substrate many sought in voluntary slavery). I would guess, however, that this would have been of little interest to most Hebrew debt-slaves, since they had a time-release clause already, and since they would want the local community reinstatement process to come to closure--for reasons of community respect, status, and sense of self-worth.

And, since this clause is based on Israel's experience in Egypt, it probably resonated with the elders of communities, and therefore had a good chance of being honored.
"It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution"--a Great escape clause?"

From same section on foreign slaves.

I have a Rainbow Study Bible that color-codes the verses of the Bible into different categories, such as God, discipleship, love, faith, sin, Satan, salvation, family, witnessing, commandments, history and prophecy. I see the number of times throughout the OT that God's instructions are concerned about love of neighbor and love towards God Himself. His concern is for justice and care of the poor and needy and aliens,

"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt. Do not take advantage of widows or orphans. If you do and they cry out to Me, I will certainly hear their cry. My anger will be arosed, and I will kill you with the sword: your wives will become widows and your children fatherless." Ex. 22:21-24

That is how seriously He takes His justice. That is a great deterrent from practicing cruelty or oppression.

"If you lend money to one of My people among you who is needy, do not be like a money lender; charge him no interest....When he cries out to Me, I will hear, for I am COMPASSIONATE." Ex. 22:25-27

"Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens in Egypt." Ex. 23:9

God allowed this experience of slavery to teach compassion for others, just like He brings the Christian through many trials and tribulations, to teach us, give us understanding and empathy for others.

WALTER: "they spend all kinds of time detailing how lovely it was to be a hebrew slave to a hebrew master....eventually i found the part about "foreign slaves". this whole distinction illustrates the double standard, the us/them mentality, the objectification of "others" that allows one to own them as real, lifetime, non-voluntary slaves.

WALTER: "w/regard to that kind of slavery, they said,
Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. SO WHAT? IT'S STILL SLAVERY......it goes on to say:
The main difference [btwn a hebrew and foreign slave] would be the absence of the "timed-release" freedom clauses [THIS MEANS THE MASTER OWNS THE SLAVE FOR LIFE], but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for life' (implying that it was not automatic.)."

WALTER: "slave-for-life-for-love!"

Obviously you didn't notice the provision of Deuteronomy 23:16-17 or the times God reminds Israel of the bondage they came out of so not to treat others in the same manner, or the number of passages that should provide for widows, children and the poor. Notice the blessing for following/obeying God's word in Deuteronomy 28 and then the curses for neglecting it. These stiff penalties were intended to motivate the Israelites to keep His commands, like they had agreed to on numerous occasions. They broke there word over and over and over again, even though they knew the consequences. He gave them a system of making restitution and understanding the cost of wrongful actions in the sacrifices. And yet God was merciful to them when they returned.
But most of them never took his instructions to heart. Over and over He rebukes them as being a stiff-necked people, slow to learn. He even sends His Son to them to teach them and make a final atonement for those who would believe, but the religious leaders are instrumental in putting Him to death.

peterhuff,

"We still have a lot of good in this world because we are made in the image and likeness of God, but also a lot of evil, because we make up our own good, a self-serving good."

That is your belief.

Other people see it differently: We have a lot of good in the world, partly because we have discarded a lot of the superstitious beliefs that used to cause so much pain and suffering in the past.

However, we also still have pain and suffering in the world, partly because many people still hold to some of those superstitious beliefs, and try to force those beliefs on people who do not hold to those beliefs.

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "i must say you're much more pleasant to converse w/than rco...but, evs..."

I don't see him the same way you do. He takes you to task to explain your world-view better than I have been able to do. His examples are solid. RCofield is more articulate than I am and I recognize that he has a better understanding of some of the issues you are bringing up. And I definitely believe that his intentions, like mine are to glorify God and as such he is looking out for your best interests. Sometimes Walter we have to shout a point home. A world-view gets so in the way of a person actually hearing what is being said. Did you notice how many times in the Bible the phrase, 'let him who has ears to hear?' or 'eyes to see?' or 'a heart to believe?'

You are anti-God because of your understanding of Him. That understanding is not warranted. You only think it is because you will not submit to His ways, ways that are there to help you and give you life and purpose and meaning if you have the ears, eyes and heart to hear them.
Our human pride and imagined self-sufficiency gets in our way.

ME: "Do you glean that God has the right to set the standard as our Creator..."

WALTER: "well, i suppose within the irrational framework of the bible - i.e., IF the bible is true, THEN god can make up whatever rules he wants - i mean...he's god..."

Not irrational. Since He made and owns everything He has the right to determine its use/the rules. Just like you and your wife (being united) have the right to determine what is permissible in your household as to how you are going to raise your daughter and as to what standard you accept of visitors. And your standard for your daughter is to want the best for her, right? Who knows best better than God? He is all knowing. His understanding is fathomless.

ME: "...and that His standard is good in various ways..."

WALTER: "as to whether what he does is moral or good etc...well that's what's at issue. if you include anything god does in the definition of "good", well, then of course he's good. but, if you subject him to our modern standards, then he wasn't always all good."

Your modern standards are not as good as you think they are, except where they mimic God's. Take a look at the world around you on any given day. Did you see the one miner who came up and wanted both his wife and mistress there? What a betrayal for his wife.

We still have a lot of good in this world because we are made in the image and likeness of God, but also a lot of evil, because we make up our own good, a self-serving good.

WALTER

“i must say you're (Peter) much more pleasant to converse w/than rco...”

Have I been unpleasant to you Walter?

“well, i suppose within the irrational framework of the bible - i.e., IF the bible is true, THEN god can make up whatever rules he wants - i mean...he's god...”

The irrationality of your scripture-study methodology seems to elude you. When you approach every passage of scripture with extreme prejudice it is no great wonder that you find the “framework” of the bible “irrational.” Romans 1:28 “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind...” Your vitriolic rejection of the existence of God will, sooner or later, (if it hasn't already) result in Him rendering your mind incapable of reason.

“as to whether what he does is moral or good etc...well that's what's at issue. if you include anything god does in the definition of "good", well, then of course he's good. but, if you subject him to our modern standards, then he wasn't always all good.”

Aside from the obvious absurdity of presuming that God is “subject” to “our modern standards,” your above statement assumes that your knowledge and understanding exceeds that of God. When one considers the astounding degree to which “modern” culture is morally bankrupt (you know, the list I keep submitting and you keep avoiding) the sad emptiness of your repeated assertion comes into sharp focus.

Your subjective view of morality is full of holes.

“yeah i did check out that slavery website you (Peter) linked to. it's like they were intentionally, underst hiding the "bad slavery". they spend all kinds of time detailing how lovely it was to be a hebrew slave to a hebrew master. i could practically hear the birds chirping as the hebrew "slaves" - more like live-in uncles and aunts, really - gaily served their benevolent hebrew masters......

......awww...isn't that sweet? lipstick on a pig: it's still slavery.”

When you first raised the issue of slavery in biblical times it was evident that you were unaware of the differences between A.N.E. (biblical times) slavery and slavery practices in the Western Hemisphere. As a result of your ignorance of the cultural setting (a necessary interpretive principle to which I tried to call your attention) of the biblical passages you are offering to support your claims against God, you are mis-interpreting (proof-texting) said passages. Even now, knowing better, you still insist on doing the same.

Given that you have been presented more than adequate evidence on this issue for you to research it and educate yourself.....your insistence on maintaining an uneducated position on this matter renders your former ignorance a present intentional dishonesty.

Do you find this post unpleasant?

WALTER: “i don't know...there must be some other (contradictory) verse releasing christians from "the law".”

RCO: Oh, yes! But not “contradictory” at all. It’s called the Gospel.

PAUL (OF TARSUS): 2Co 5:21 For our sake (God) made (Christ) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Ga 4:4 (For) when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. Col 2:13 You, who were spiritually dead because of your sins and your uncircumcision, God has now made to share in the very life of Christ! He has forgiven you all your sins: 14 he has utterly wiped out the written evidence of broken commandments which always hung over our heads, and has completely annulled it by nailing it to the cross.

WALTER: interesting that those are all not jesus quotes. anyway, ro10:4 seems relevant. "the end of the law" ...that does say "toss out all that moses stuff" (so it's not eternal?). col2 passage applies too: "utterly wiped out" - that's good. but, i think paul is talking about PAST sins here. and he's NOT telling people to just go n sinning because jesus has taken care of it.. and he's not talking about US. he's talking to people in first century palestine. a plain reading indicates their past sins are forgiven and there a clean slate, and if they stop sinning now etc... actually, parts of mark7 seem to get you off the letter of the law hook.

ok, so, IF we don't have to follow the "letter of the law" (is that a biblical idiom?), and can be guided by principles like "do unto others" and "what you do to the least of these you do to me", THEN that's a moral step forward. it's moral evolution.

and "good" becomes kind of subjective. we're each left to imagine "what would jesus do". well, that depends a lot on what you think about jesus. he did offer a few specifics, like in mk7 when he lists things like "evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness."

even with words like those there's wiggle room. it's subjective. what is "sexual immorality"? depends on the place and time. however he/they did it, i thank jesus/paul that christians don't have to sacrifice all those animals and kill (or even punish) people who make annointing oil and punish people who eat pepperoni pizza. praise jesus for that!

anyway, i didn't want to get off on the tanget of WHY you're allowed to pick and choose among "the law". the point is the fact that christians DO pick and choose from the o.t. laws is a moral advance. it's human society evolving, and bringing god along. and so, in the years since jesus, people have been figuring this out, sometimes in fits and starts.

JESUS: “mt5:17-18 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

RCO: Ummm….”fulfill them?” What in the world to you think THAT means, Walter?

WALTER: i don't know. you christians have all kinds of secret meaning s to words. sometimes different christians have different secret meanings, so it can be confusing. i have learned quite a few of them at our friendly (but crazy) little church up the street, like "death" and "life" and "love"...so i don't know what you think "fulfill" means. a plain reading would suggest "fulfill" some prophesy. i mean you can't "fulfill" a law (unless "fulfill" and "law" have special secret christian meanings to you). "jesus fulfilled the law" doesn't make sense, but that's probably how you're taking it. "fulfilled the the law" - like he "paid" for all our non-compliance to the law (sin)? ahead of time? so we don't have to worry about the law - even though it is eternal...and still applies? it's very confusing to a poor rational person like me. what he does say for sure is he came "not to abolish the law".

JESUS: “18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

RCO: Now, Walter, doesn’t that sound like God’s moral standards are pretty eternal? Not much room there for an “evolving” morality between the OT and NT, is there?

WALTER: yes, indeed, that does sound eternal. seems to me like jesus is clearly saying they apply to all times and we still have to follow all (613? of) those stupid o.t. laws.

RCO: Could it be that you have just “proof-texted” yourself right into a contradiction?

WALTER: hardly! i think i've found a contradiction in the bible. "the laws" are eternal. jesus says so above. they apply "until heaven and earth disappear", and yet somewhere else there's text that absolves us of the need to follow them? all of them? ar just the morally repugnant and the clothing/diet/ritual ones? does jesus say this other absolving verse(s)? or is it paul/other who changes the rule? (with the understanding that the old rules are eternal, but we just don't have to apply all of them all the time)

One correction to my last post. The first paragraph should have said "historical inaccuracies"

RCO & Peter,

I think we've reached an impasse. Your acceptance of the bible as both divine and perfect ignores the historical accuracies while requiring that you accept as good, the awful actions and/or punishments that god defines for minor no transgressions at all.

I have used the words of the bible itself in an attempt to illustrate that it could not have been written by a loving god and the character described in the bible is unworthy of anything but condemnation. No matter how hard you try, verses like those found in II Kings 2:23-24 where God kills 42 children for taunting a bald man, can’t be reconciled with anyone’s definition of love.

The bible is filled with examples of your god's thirst for blood. God even accepted human sacrifice, Jephthah's daughter (Judges 11:30-40). In II Samuel 21:1-14 the sacrifice of seven of Saul's sons, who were hanged, caused God to be appeased.

Acceptance of these actions and declaring them good is blind devotion based on no moral standard that I or anyone else I know, would accept (however those moral standards were derived). Killing children because they taunt someone is not loving, not just and certainly RCO, taunting children pose no threat to society.

The claim that Jesus "corrected" these OT problems is only partially true. Jesus does provide a far better image than the ogre who appears in the old testament but Jesus is also flawed (for a god).

In Luke 12:47,48 Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves (Greek doulos = slave). Even if you accept the more benign interpretation – servant – is it really acceptable to whip your servant? RCO's claim that Paul, renouncing slavery is equal to Jesus doing the same just doesn't jive with me. He’s a god, shouldn’t he know better?

As I read the book that the two of you believe to be the greatest book ever written, I'm struck not only by how many atrocious acts are committed or condoned but also by what is missing from the loving, moral Jesus. Jesus never spoke out against poverty or did anything to eliminate it. He seemed to teach that the poor should accept their lot in life (Mark 14:3-9). In fact, he seems to think that feeding the poor is completely optional.

You also must believe that Jesus endorses the old testament view of women since not a single one of his selected 12 were female. And his "magical" powers were used irrationally, even by biblical standards. In Matthew 21:18-19 he came upon a fig tree not in season and thus bearing no fruit. He became so incensed that he cursed the tree so that it withered and died. Really, getting angry at a tree??

I leave you with the words of the ever wise Psolus in describing your view:
You believe in your god, and you believe that your bible was written by your god, because you believe that your bible tells you that it was written by your god, and you believe that your god tells you, in your bible, that he indeed wrote your bible. Can I get a circular amen?

peterhuff,

"I don’t know if you came in during or after this debate with Walter, but 50,000,000 murders in the USA and 800 million worldwide over the last century is a lot of murder."

And yet, your all poweful god is impotent to do anything about it.

If I were you, I would be looking for a better god.

hi peter,
it has been a while. i meant to answer one or two of your posts from a week or so ago, but...well...i've been overwhelmed. i must say you're much more pleasant to converse w/than rco...but, evs...

you said,
"Do you glean that God has the right to set the standard as our Creator..."

well, i suppose within the irrational framework of the bible - i.e., IF the bible is true, THEN god can make up whatever rules he wants - i mean...he's god...

"...and that His standard is good in various ways..."

as to whether what he does is moral or good etc...well that's what's at issue. if you include anything god does in the definition of "good", well, then of course he's good. but, if you subject him to our modern standards, then he wasn't always all good.

...such as maintaining justice and also looking after those of less fortunate circumstances, that those who were slaves/servants became family members of the master of the house, that they had privileges that free men also had and that they could buy their freedom? It is all in there, plus so much more. If you take time to read it you may get a better understanding of the goodness of God."

yeah i did check out that slavery website you linked to. it's like they were intentionally, underst hiding the "bad slavery".

they spend all kinds of time detailing how lovely it was to be a hebrew slave to a hebrew master. i could practically hear the birds chirping as the hebrew "slaves" - more like live-in uncles and aunts, really - gaily served their benevolent hebrew masters.

eventually i found the part about "foreign slaves". this whole distinction illustrates the double standard, the us/them mentality, the objectification of "others" that allows one to own them as real, lifetime, non-voluntary slaves.

w/regard to that kind of slavery, they said,
Allowed to 'buy' (not take!) slaves from foreign nations around them [Note: these would NOT include the Canaanites, but would be from remote nations. SO WHAT? IT'S STILL SLAVERY This would make the incidence level of this extremely small, except in the case of royalty or the ruling class. THAT'S DEBATABLE - AND IRRELEVANT. IT'S STILL GOD-INSTITUTED SLAVERY In those days, rulers would often have slaves with special skills, such as writing, teaching, translation, but the lives of these 'slaves' would not be representative of the common "western" slavery under discussion.] LOVELY, BUT IRRELEVANT TO THE EVERY-DAY "FOREIGN" SLAVE.

it goes on to say:
The main difference [btwn a hebrew and foreign slave] would be the absence of the "timed-release" freedom clauses [THIS MEANS THE MASTER OWNS THE SLAVE FOR LIFE], but the slave-for-life-for-love situation may have been what is behind the 'you CAN make them slaves for life' (implying that it was not automatic.).

slave-for-life-for-love!

awww...isn't that sweet? lipstick on a pig: it's still slavery.

Hi Walter,

We haven't chatted for a while. You have, as you said, your hands full with RCO (and I with TWM). (^8

I'm glad that RCofield is able to really challenge you here Walter.

WALTER: "peter, rco,
refresh my memory. which are the n.t. verses that relieve you of all those animal sacrifices and haircut rules and food rules?"

Hebrews explains the typology of the OT sacrifices that have their fulfillment in Christ, but so does everything else (2 Corinthians 1:20

I'm not sure what you are getting at Walter, but there are two Scriptural passages that come directly to mind; 1 Corinthians 8 or Galatians 2:14-21 to 3:1-25.

While there look at Galatians 4:8-9 regarding our former discussion on slavery, or 1 Corinthians 7:23. Let me read the latest correspondence between you and RCofield to sort it out.

There is also Acts 10, about Peter's vision of unclean foods.

WALTER: "peter, rco,
i'm really not trying to take rco anywhere. i just couldn't resist when i saw the 1500 yrs thing. we have our hands full with the "horrible verses" and god's improving but supposedly objective eternal standards."

Did you look at the two links I supplied and read the OT and NT sections, as well as the cultural understanding on slavery from the Ancient Near East and North American slavery? Do you see how God's uses of slavery was different and beneficial as opposed to the others?

Do you glean that God has the right to set the standard as our Creator and that His standard is good in various ways, such as maintaining justice and also looking after those of less fortunate circumstances, that those who were slaves/servants became family members of the master of the house, that they had privileges that free men also had and that they could buy their freedom? It is all in there, plus so much more. If you take time to read it you may get a better understanding of the goodness of God.

PART 1

TWM: “I'm still reviewing your latest responses.”

Thanks. I understand you are off for a week. Hopefully we can continue on the next link if we don’t get this resolved.

ME: “Easily said, but you have yet to show me what you measure your higher standard by, whose subjective ideal?”

TWM: “First, American culture like all others, has defined killing as wrong. In fact, as tribes grew into towns and people started deciding on what behavior was acceptable versus not acceptable, people were accepted or excluded based on their adherence to the moral "standards" of the community. These standards were defined locally but a quick review of history suggests that many of these standards were common from community to community.”

As for murder/killing, God revealed these laws in the Ten Commandments, but even before this we find both creation and Flood legends from most ancient cultures, so the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and the Flood spread from people to people. By God’s divine providence, revelation and recorded genealogies Moses compiled and collected the history of God’s interaction with man from the beginning of history to his point in history.

So your measure is comparing cultures, or what the majority of your culture prefers? But your world-view is natural philosophic materialism, survival of the fittest. Hitler’s Germany believed that certain races were inferior to others, based on evolution, the same principles that you believe in. Now what makes their view wrong and yours right if you have no universal, absolute, objective standard to measure good and bad by? You have stepped over the issue by stating your preference again, and again, and the preference of the majority. If, as you say, that your culture, like ALL others, has defined killing as wrong, then why so much killing and such readiness to kill (murder) all around the world, from culture to culture, individual to individual, war to war, crime to crime. Is it just not the genes that determine what you believe? Some have genes that predisposition them to kill and others have genes that predisposition them to condemn killing. It all depends on which hand you have been dealt by natural selection, mutation and random chance.

If you get a chance take a listen to Richard Dawkins on arguments for God,

http://apologetics.com/

PART 2

TWM: “Later, as communities grew, they started uniting around one or more leaders, that position was usually inherited or taken by force. Nonetheless, the standards of a community…generally included prohibitions against killing and stealing. There is also no evidence to suggest that these prohibitions required access to the bible. Many communities were formed long before the bible was written…So Peter, do you really think it took the bible for a small village in Southeast Asia to decide that killing was wrong?”

No, it took God’s image written on their hearts, their consciences. The biblical view explains why men know what is evil and why they suppress that truth. Your world-view does no such thing. From a random, chance beginning, from impersonal, dead matter how do you get intent and intelligence for morality?

TWM: “Peter further said in reference to moral standards: If that is the case there are no morals, just preferences.”

TWM: “No, that's not what I said and any book on anthropology will contradict that statement. Moral standards evolved and continue to evolve and were normally defined locally. It wasn't until villages became towns and cities was there a need to codify those standards of behavior. This codification became what we call laws today.”

How can this be? Have you looked at the state of the world lately? If all you are is a biological bag of DNA that is evolving, your genes, natural selection, chance and mutations determine which way you evolve/devolve. There is no intelligence in it. There is no guarantee that you will prefer to kill or not to kill. You still haven’t answered the questions of why or how something can be good from the starting point of your world-view, blind indifferent chance.

PART 3

ME: “Do you prefer Hitler's Germany or Obama's USA? In other words, don't call what Hitler did immoral because the standard changes ('evolves') from culture to culture, individual to individual, time to time, and it is just the individual/culture imposing his/her/their preference on you.”

TWM: “…. As towns became cities and it became complicated for everyone to learn what was morally accepted, the moral standards were codified and became laws. Hitler was elected by the German people. His ascension to dictatorial powers evolved over time and here's what this transition meant.”

Remember, you are looking at this from an evolutionary framework.

TWM: “It meant that Germany went from a country of laws which limits the powers of their leaders (among other things), to a country of laws and authority. There is a very interesting parallel between your view of God and Hitler,… a short history lesson on the evolution of community based moral standards and how those standards over time evolved into laws. And since you used the example of Hitler and his moral standards, I thought it would be a good transition to discuss community-based moral standards versus those derived from authority.

TWM: “You believe the former doesn't exist and the only good set of standards are those derived from authority.”

No, I believe they exist. That is the problem with this world, between different communities and different cultural groups, and even splits and divisions within these community groups, there are all kinds of disputes as to what is and what should be, more so now than ever in some cultures. The relative individual standards that developed through Enlightenment perspectives (man as the measure of all things), have continued with widening influence through multimedia, music, university agendas, the intellectual gate-keepers of societies, etc. This blurred further the line of God’s objective good, the same problem as in the Garden of Eden (Did God really say?); that is the lack of recognizing objective authority (or rather listening to it) and resulted in losing a true measure (a fixed and unmovable standard and reference), so that everyone wants to be their own god, deciding right from wrong (subjectivism).

TWM: “In the case of Hitler, the laws under which Germany operated could be usurped by the ultimate authority at the time, Hitler. His word was as good as law.”

That is right. His standard became the ‘good’ standard, which I have been saying all along. Without God all you have is one subjective standard in opposition to another. But why is Hitler’s wrong or bad? It is a community of people that have taken on the beliefs of their leader. That could happen anywhere and does. So much for the ‘should’ or ‘ought.’ Unless there is an objective, absolute, universal standard anything is possible and anything goes and is driven by the law of survival of the fittest or forcing the masses to conform to the visions of the leader(s).

Hi TWMatthews,

PART 4

TWM: “You've stated more than once that God is the only being capable of defining [OBJECTIVE] moral standards. He is the ultimate, sole, moral authority. Obviously I disagree and think that mankind has evolved moral standards just fine without paying particular attention to the bible. But even so, here's where we are way off.”

You have said over and over that moral standards evolve. The question remains why they are good if they are evolving and changing. Why do some cultures believe abortion is wrong and others like yours and mine believe that abortion is right and the moral choice of the woman to kill her unborn child? (Sorry RCO, I’ve got to come back to this one, it is too good an example to pass up). I don’t know if you came in during or after this debate with Walter, but 50,000,000 murders in the USA and 800 million worldwide over the last century is a lot of murder.

How can a ‘good’ standard keep changing? IT GOES AGAINST LOGIC. How can something be bad one minute and then good the next, just because someone prefers to look upon it this way? NO. Good needs an objective standard for there to be such a standard.

TWM: “Because you think that God is good and perfect, all of his actions are good.”

Correct. He is necessary for there to be such a thing as good.

TWM: “So no matter what heinous acts are attributed to God in the bible -- and either Walter and I can provide lots of references for really awful acts -- they are good by your definition. So when a disobedient son is beaten to death by his father, because that's what God says to do, that's morally pure. Do I have that right?”

You have not given any convincing proof. You make all these claims about a God you do not know. You only know about Him. The Spirit has not introduced you to the real Jesus. Did you read the two links on slavery? They give an OT view and a NT view of God’s character in establishing these rules for His people in the cultures of the time and what slavery meant to the cultures of the time, why people entered into slavery, etc. God made these provisions because of the Fall and the consequences it brought from the evilness of man. He wanted a people that understood how holy and just He was/is. But they were stiff-necked just like the cultures around Him and kept drifting back to the evil ways of the cultures around them.

peterhuff,

"Convince a man against his will, he remains the same unchanged still."

Cut the cards and shake the dice, grandpa just gave grandma lice.

"No, I'm not trying to tell you what you have to do."

So, when you begin a sentence with, "You have to...", what exactly are you trying to do?

"Your pride hinders me."

I'm proud to hear that.

"I'm trying to get you to make sense of what you believe."

Are you sure that you're not trying to understand how I am able to choose not to believe?

"Since you claim you believe nothing, there is no point in going there."

I'm sure it's easier for some to understand than for others.

"PSolus, you already have..."

Well, then, you're welcome.

"Sorry we couldn't go further."

So long, and thanks for all the ichthys.

BTW, you do get that, right?

You do understand the allusion, don't you?

You know: 42? Always know where your towel is? Don't Panic?

Is this mic working?

WALTER,

Part 1 of 4

“you assert here the verse is for "extreme rebellion". where does it say that?”

Ummm….where I am from a child cursing and/or punching a parent is still considered a pretty extreme form of rebellion. Maybe we are just not as “evolved” as you seem to be in Falls Church.

“you're just making stuff up to rationalize (i.e., provide excuse, apologize for) yahweh's childish over-reacting behavior.”

Oh, well. You caught me. I guess I was pushing the envelope to think that you would buy the whole “cursing and punching a parent is extremely rebellious” argument. And I am sure God is probably losing sleep because thou thinkest He is “childish.”

“from lev20:9 on, the next few verses list other capital offenses: cursing parents, adultery, incest, homosexuality, sex w/mother in law, beastiality....come on. these are vile crimes. there's no hint of mediation, leniency, graduated punishments.”

Vile crimes indeed!.....sex w/mother-in-law? Ugh! Homosexuality and adultery are vile crimes, Walter? I’m impressed. Your morals ARE evolving.

Hmmm. God required the same penalty—death—for incest, bestiality, etc. AND cursing/striking parents? Maybe God understands something about children rebelling against parents that you don’t? Nah! That couldn’t possibly be the case. You are WALTER the Pious, the highly evolved moralist of the 21st century.

“nowadays, if a kid breaks national-community laws you worry about, then s/he does get be punished - but perhaps lighter than adults would be. there are already laws for rape, murder, stealing, adultery, vandalism, civil disobedience etc... (and the penalty is usually not death). usually, nowadays, in the enlightened world, we only follow yahweh's instructions re penalties if the crime is murder. the only places where o.t-type laws are in effect these days is in the islamic world. ouch...”

Actually, Walter, the penalty for all sin is still death. (See Rev. 21:7)

WALTER,

Part 2 of 4

“i think the reason i'm always thinking about this stuff is that my wife, daughter and i go to a fundamentalist lutheran church. up until last year my daughter went to their private schoold attached to the church. they taught 600o-yr old earth and literal noash's flood.”

Yikes! Good thing you got her outta there. Who can tell the immeasurable damage the “young earth” and Noah’s flood doctrine could do to her mind? BTW: Did you put her into a secular, “Enlightened” school where they can broaden her mind by teaching her such perverse things as what a wonderful choice the homosexual “life-style” is AND make sure that her purse is full of condoms?

“do you realize that you sound like an oppressive dictator justifying his regime? death for questioning authority- "said moral necessity being the maintenance of national order and civility." warning of the "greater evil"... you say it will lead to "chaos, incivility, and even death "... the slippery slope...

Right. I’m a regular Nazi, aren’t I?

“well, IF it leads to death and chaos"...THEN maybe the death peanalty becomes proportionate.”

Yes. We really can’t know for certain that murder will lead to death. Maybe we should repeal all the penalty-laws for murder and wait and see what happens.

“if morals are objective and eternal then why don't we kill kids for disobedience these days...”

You are still making the same mistake: Confusing the moral standard with the OT penalty. Whether you think cursing/striking parents is immoral or not, God has not retracted the moral standard. Dishonoring parents always has been, still is, and always will be…immoral.

“here i can hear you invoke the familiar refrain, "jesus changed all that". you assert that jesus said we don't have to follow ALL of the old testament. you'll start talking about "law" and "gospel" and blah blah blah those are just clever hoop-jumping moves to "cover for" young yahweh's temper. and, jesus didn't say "throw out the old testament laws", ….”

Still confusing the moral law with the penalty. You do struggle with making this obvious distinction, don’t you? And “young yahweh’s temper?” You are obviously unfamiliar with the book of Revelation.

WALTER,

Part 3 of 4

“who desides the greater good? i certainly hope not ancient israelites who execute people for gluttony, or disobeying a parent. the answer is actually "we do!" - armed with our evolving morals and culture.”

Ah, yes! We are veritable gods aren’t we? Armed with “evolving morals and culture” we have “decided the greater good” and slaughtered hundreds of millions through war, sterilized the “unfit” in our fine culture, placed most of our government-funded abortion clinics in black neighborhoods to practice a “sterilized” form of racial genocide, murdered over 800 million helpless children in their mother’s womb in less than a century worldwide, turned a blind eye to rampant sexual slavery involving children…..whoooeeeee, we’re on a roll, aren’t we? But wait, we are not through yet! We’re going to institutionalize perverse homosexuality by granting it the status of “marriage,” legalize polygamy and prostitution….there is just no telling what marvelous moral heights we will eventually “evolve” to.

WALTER,

Part 4 of 4

“with regard to the idea that jesus removed the need for us to continue following all the "laws" (i.e., kill kids for disobedience, and kill people for eating the wrong kind o f bread on the wrong day...)"

Still confusing the law with the penalty.

“mt5:17-18 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

Ummm….”fulfill them?” What in the world to you think THAT means, Walter?

“18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Now, Walter, doesn’t that sound like God’s moral standards are pretty eternal? Not much room there for an “evolving” morality between the OT and NT, is there? Could it be that you have just “proof-texted” yourself right into a contradiction?

“well, heaven and earth have not disappeared yet....so the law is still applicable, right?”

Mmmmmhhhmmmm…Indeed.

“i don't know...there must be some other (contradictory) verse releasing christians from "the law".”

Oh, yes! But not “contradictory” at all. It’s called the Gospel.

2Co 5:21 For our sake (God) made (Christ) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. Ga 4:4 (For) when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. Col 2:13 You, who were spiritually dead because of your sins and your uncircumcision, God has now made to share in the very life of Christ! He has forgiven you all your sins: 14 he has utterly wiped out the written evidence of broken commandments which always hung over our heads, and has completely annulled it by nailing it to the cross.

peter, rco,
refresh my memory. which are the n.t. verses that relieve you of all those animal sacrifices and haircut rules and food rules?

peter, rco,
i'm really not trying to take rco anywhere. i just couldn't resist when i saw the 1500 yrs thing. we have our hands full with the "horrible verses" and god's improving but supposedly objective eternal standards.

Hi PSolus,

PSOLUS: "You have a proclivity for telling me what I have to do; why is that?"

Convince a man against his will, he remains the same unchanged still. No, I'm not trying to tell you what you have to do. Your pride hinders me. I'm trying to get you to make sense of what you believe. Since you claim you believe nothing, there is no point in going there.

ME: "If not then why should I waste my time, except to show the futility of what you are saying?"

PSOLUS: "Only you can answer that question."

PSolus, you already have (Proverbs 15:33). Sorry we couldn't go further.

Hi RCofield,

I have the feeling I know where Walter is taking you with these two passages. Walter has said that his biggest road block to believing the Bible is the Flood and (I believe by inference) a young earth view of creation.

WALTER: "i take it this means you think moses wrote the "books of moses" around 1400 b.c.?"

WALTER: "no one but literal fundamental believe that - and that's based solely on internal evidence, i.e., the bible says moses wrote these books, and adding genealogies in the bible puts moses/exodus 1447-1407, so moses wrote between 1447-1407."

RCO said: You are conflating the exercise of Divine judgment by God with the exercise of man's depraved will.

TWM: So all those rules in Leviticus and Exodus are not really rules? The bible says not to work on the sabbath. Moses tells his followers that the man seen collecting twigs on the sabbath should be put to death. And when the puritans punished people (beat them, imprisoned them, all sorts of nasty things) simply for working on the sabbath you don't think there's a correlation? Or are these people evil in your estimation?

RCofield,

"Or how about this: "I believe nothing." Brilliantly logical, isn't it? The best part is, you never have to engage a meaningful issue...AND you can thereby arbitrarily declare all logic illogical (except, of course, your own flawless logic)."

I also know how to avoid getting picked for jury duty; works every time.

"Right. And this from someone who doesn't even own a bible. Two thousand years of study, research, and verification proves nothing only to those who refuse to acknowledge facts."

So, all this derision because I don't own a bible?

"Only to someone who believes nothing and therefore has no knowledge of the relationship between logic and belief."

Well, that explains that.

"Perhaps. Maybe you could phrase all of your posts to me more simply. After all, I am handicapped with the inability to think."

I can try, but I can't make any promises.

TW,

"Look RC, the bible is full of contradictions."

You have yet to demonstrate that.

"You've chosen to pull out “love your neighbor as yourself” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” to illustrate your point about a loving, moral God. But you are ignoring God's punishment of death for waiting too long before consuming sacrifices or his call for death for having sex with a menstruating woman or for working on the sabbath."

You are conflating the exercise of Divine judgment by God with the exercise of man's depraved will.

"Any reasonable person would find these in conflict..."

No reasonable person would presume to take Divine justice into their own hands. Those who have tried were no only "unreasonable," they are rightly judged to be insane.

"..and history supports that because history is filled with examples of reasonable people doing awful things."

Reasonable people do not do awful (unreasonable) things.

"And how can they not, if they follow the bible?"

By leaving the exercise of divine judgment in the hands of God where it belongs.

"How can they not feel justified in beating their willful children?"

By reading the whole of what scripture says about child-rearing and applying it.

"Or treating their wife to be subservient because the bible tells them to."

And yet some of us manage to not do that. How? By reading the whole of what scripture says about the husband/wife and applying it. (read Eph. 5)

"It's all a matter of which verses you choose to follow..."

No, it's all about taking them as a whole and allowing scripture to interpret scripture instead of forcing your own ideas into them.

"...and your idea that God will fill us with a divine spirit so that we may better understand it is contradicted by thousands of years of religious atrocities."

People who are filled with the Spirit of God obey the Word of God do not commit atrocities.

"No matter how you try to square up that circle, it's still a circle."

Right. And yet many do. Why do you think that is? (Hint: See above.)

peterhuff,

"I bet. Have you ever considered that you are the one who is confused?"

I am often confused.

"That is because your world-view is confused."

I don't have a world-view.

"You say you don't have one."

Ummm...

"Every person who is able to think and communicate has one."

How do you know that?

Or, do you just believe that?

"You are just ignorant to the fact (or pretend to be), something you have admitted to before."

OK, you got me; I am ignorant of the fact that I have a world-view, but you know that I have a world-view.

Can you explain to me what my world-view is?

"There is nothing new in what you say."

It might be new to someone.

"You are playing a game with us."

Sometimes, yes.

"I'm being serious and frank with you."

OK.

"That is why I believe that it is futile to continue our conversation unless/until you are willing to get serious too."

You sound like my mom.

"I don't mind your humor, but I find we are not getting anywhere in our discussions."

OK.

"All you do is make assertions."

And you don't?

"You have to decide whether you have anything worthwhile to say or not, because this has to be a two-way street, as pointed out in recent posts."

You have a proclivity for telling me what I have to do; why is that?

"If not then why should I waste my time, except to show the futility of what you are saying?"

Only you can answer that question.

peterhuff,

"A choice between what and what?"

A choice between believing, or not believing.

I choose not to believe.

"Does that choice rest on nothing,..."

It rests on skepticism.

"...or is there a belief that underlies making that choice?""

No, just skepticism.

"Do you just randomly say, 'Today I choose the Bible to be true!', or 'Today I have no belief' then formulate sentences that show that you believe words have meaning when placed in certain order, and in that order they actually say something logical, then tomorrow say, 'Today I choose the Bible to be false!' without having a foundation in which to rest that claim upon?"

None of the above.

"What I am saying is that the foundational system you rest claims upon is a belief."

What you are saying is that you believe that the foundational system that I rest claims upon is a belief.

It isn't; it's skepticism.

"In order to even talk or write you would have to have multitudes of beliefs that rest on even more basic beliefs that rest on your core value beliefs."

You probably believe that to be necessary for me because you believe it to be necessary for you.

It isn't necessary for me.

"Beliefs are built on other beliefs."

Just as a belief in a god is built on belief in a bible, and belief in a bible is built on belief in a god?

"No matter how basic thought has to rest on other thoughts about reality and what you perceive it to be."

Thoughts and perceptions are not beliefs.

"If it didn't you would not be alive for very long, nor would you be able to say anything intelligent."

On what do you base that belief? Another belief?

"You would have to believe that words have meaning in context, that you are able to communicate to other people in a way that they would be able to understand what you have said, and so on and so forth down the list it goes, even to the point of sitting on a chair."

Why are you trying to force your beliefs on me?

"The chance is that you subconsciously assess the chair and determine it is able to support your weight before sitting on it, based on previous associations."

Experiences are not beliefs.

"The first time you get on a bike you fall."

Do you simply believe that, or, are you saying that based on experience?

"You have to believe that if you try you will eventually understand how to ride it, that if you do so and so then you will learn to ride, or else you would never venture on one again."

I do not have to believe that.

"You have to be able to understand that you cannot fly unassisted if you jump from the top of the Empire State building."

Understanding is not believing.

"That is a belief that is based on other more foundational beliefs."

That is understanding based on a knowledge of physics, and possibly on seeing someone else drop like a rock to the pavement.

It might also have something to do with binocular vision and evolution.

TW,

TWM: “My question to you RCO is, I thought the bible was perfect and perfectly clear. Why is it that Walter and I read the same passages as you and come away with vastly different meanings?”

RCO: Might have something to do with your atheistic prejudices. See my previous post to you.

TWM: “Isn't it just possible that these passages, the ones that you keep pointing to as easy to understand, there in black and white, are really awful and only by "interpreting" new meaning into them can you possibly derive a "greater good meaning"?”

RCO: I dunno, TW. Where I live, a child cursing and punching their parents is still viewed as a pretty extreme form of rebellion. Maybe we just haven't “evolved” as much as you guys up there in N. Carolina have.

TWM: “Relax a little or give me some advice (as a parent). My wife and I are traveling next week and we'll be gone for a week. The 2 younger boys just told us that next week is their fall break. (They had no idea we were traveling). I definitely don't want to look at a facebook page and find out that the Matthews household has become "party central". Any suggestions?

RCO: What?! You're asking ME, the “stone them if they disobey guy” for parental advice?

Well, you asked for it: Tell them that if the Matthews' household becomes party central while you are away...you will stone them to death when you get back. :-)

Nah! Just kidding. One thing I always told my children as we (or they) were leaving is this: “Don't let me find out that you did anything in my absence that you wouldn't do if I were standing there.”

Of course, it did help that they knew if they DID do something like that in my absence.....I would stone them when I returned.

Oh, btw: If you read the road map for your trip subjectively......well, I don't want to get too mushy here, but suffice it to say it would bother me if you never found your way home. Then who but Walter would butt heads with me on this forum?

"Don't tell me you believe nothing."

I believe nothing.

"You believe all kinds of things,..."

I believe nothing.

"...both about God and values and meaning and everything else."

I believe nothing.

"If you didn't you would be like a rock in my back yard."

Is that another example of logic?

RCO, and to just add to what Walter is asking, if there are historical errors in the bible would you concede it's not perfect?

rco, you characterized the bible as,
"..66 books written over a period of 1500 years..."

i take it this means you think moses wrote the "books of moses" around 1400 b.c.?

no one but literal fundamental believe that - and that's based solely on internal evidence, i.e., the bible says moses wrote these books, and adding genealogies in the bible puts moses/exodus 1447-1407, so moses wrote between 1447-1407.

RCO: The atrocities you cite are not a testimony against the veracity of the bible. They are proof-positive that the biblical testimony that heart of man is totally wicked and utterly depraved is dead-on. One can't “love your neighbor as yourself” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” while committing the above-listed crimes against humanity. There is no ambiguity on these points.

TWM: Unfortunately, it is testimony against the veracity of the bible. It means that well intentioned people can do awful things simply because that's their interpretation of what their holy book says to do. History confirms this. Do you really think that people who have devoted their lives to God are inherently evil?

Look RC, the bible is full of contradictions. You've chosen to pull out “love your neighbor as yourself” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” to illustrate your point about a loving, moral God. But you are ignoring God's punishment of death for waiting too long before consuming sacrifices or his call for death for having sex with a menstruating woman or for working on the sabbath.

Any reasonable person would find these in conflict and history supports that because history is filled with examples of reasonable people doing awful things. And how can they not, if they follow the bible? How can they not feel justified in beating their willful children? Or treating their wife to be subservient because the bible tells them to. It's all a matter of which verses you choose to follow and your idea that God will fill us with a divine spirit so that we may better understand it is contradicted by thousands of years of religious atrocities.

No matter how you try to square up that circle, it's still a circle.

Hi PSolus,

PSOLUS: "You both sound pretty confused to me."

I bet. Have you ever considered that you are the one who is confused? That is because your world-view is confused. You say you don't have one. Every person who is able to think and communicate has one. You are just ignorant to the fact (or pretend to be), something you have admitted to before. There is nothing new in what you say. You are playing a game with us. I'm being serious and frank with you. That is why I believe that it is futile to continue our conversation unless/until you are willing to get serious too. I don't mind your humor, but I find we are not getting anywhere in our discussions. All you do is make assertions. You have to decide whether you have anything worthwhile to say or not, because this has to be a two-way street, as pointed out in recent posts. If not then why should I waste my time, except to show the futility of what you are saying?

with regard to the idea that jesus removed the need for us to continue following all the "laws" (i.e., kill kids for disobedience, and kill people for eating the wrong kind o f bread on the wrong day...)"

mt5:17-18

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

well, heaven and earth have not disappeared yet....so the law is still applicable, right?

i don't know...there must be some other (contradictory) verse releasing christians from "the law".

PSOLUS,

PSO: “Is the following equally logical: Believing this universe created itself is patently illogical, and infinite regression is an irrational ideology, therefore: "unicorns"? Or, maybe this: Believing this universe created itself is patently illogical, and infinite regression is an irrational ideology, therefore: "leprechauns"?”

RCO: Or how about this: “I believe nothing.” Brilliantly logical, isn't it? The best part is, you never have to engage a meaningful issue...AND you can thereby arbitrarily declare all logic illogical (except, of course, your own flawless logic).

RCO: "The fact that it is a proven, reliable collection of 66 books written over a period of 1500 years from eyewitness accounts of actual historical events recorded in 3 different languages by at least 39 individual writers living on three different continents without internal contradiction in its argument and that it is the only known comprehensive meta-narrative and explanation of the observable physical universe in which we exist..."

PSO: “None of the above is a fact, and none of the above is provable; everything that you have stated is simply what you believe to be true.”

RCO: Right. And this from someone who doesn't even own a bible. Two thousand years of study, research, and verification proves nothing only to those who refuse to acknowledge facts.

RCO: "...and that it is the only document I am aware of that explains the whole of the human experience in comprehensible terms and that it has stood the test of time...would be PART of the specific logic on which I base my belief in the bible."

PSO: “What you have stated is not logic; it's belief.”

RCO: Only to someone who believes nothing and therefore has no knowledge of the relationship between logic and belief.

RCO: "Your last three questions were the most sensible I've seen you post."

PSO: “Perhaps they were just the most simply phrased.”

RCO: Perhaps. Maybe you could phrase all of your posts to me more simply. After all, I am handicapped with the inability to think.

Hi PSolus,

PSOLUS: "It is not a belief, it is a choice."

A choice between what and what? Does that choice rest on nothing, or is there a belief that underlies making that choice?

Do you just randomly say, 'Today I choose the Bible to be true!', or 'Today I have no belief' then formulate sentences that show that you believe words have meaning when placed in certain order, and in that order they actually say something logical, then tomorrow say, 'Today I choose the Bible to be false!' without having a foundation in which to rest that claim upon?

What I am saying is that the foundational system you rest claims upon is a belief.

In order to even talk or write you would have to have multitudes of beliefs that rest on even more basic beliefs that rest on your core value beliefs. Beliefs are built on other beliefs. No matter how basic thought has to rest on other thoughts about reality and what you perceive it to be. If it didn't you would not be alive for very long, nor would you be able to say anything intelligent.

You would have to believe that words have meaning in context, that you are able to communicate to other people in a way that they would be able to understand what you have said, and so on and so forth down the list it goes, even to the point of sitting on a chair. The chance is that you subconsciously assess the chair and determine it is able to support your weight before sitting on it, based on previous associations.

The first time you get on a bike you fall. You have to believe that if you try you will eventually understand how to ride it, that if you do so and so then you will learn to ride, or else you would never venture on one again.

You have to be able to understand that you cannot fly unassisted if you jump from the top of the Empire State building. That is a belief that is based on other more foundational beliefs.

Don't tell me you believe nothing. You believe all kinds of things, both about God and values and meaning and everything else. If you didn't you would be like a rock in my back yard.

RCO wrote: TW, you are falling into your old habit of allowing post after post to go unanswered. I'll be glad to answer every question and deal with every argument you raise, but that is going to have to work both ways. I posted at least 4 or 5 times to you prior to this most recent post of yours, some of them pretty pointed, and you didn't mention a single point from them.

TWM: Yes, and you are falling into your old habit of criticizing the quality of people's posts rather than address them. And just because we are challenging your positions -- as you are challenging ours -- does not make them hateful or disingenuous. They are disagreements -- plain and simple. Relax a little or give me some advice (as a parent).

My wife and I are traveling next week and we'll be gone for a week. The 2 younger boys just told us that next week is their fall break. (They had no idea we were traveling).

I definitely don't want to look at a facebook page and find out that the Matthews household has become "party central". Any suggestions?

peterhuff,

"I tried to take you down the road to testing the logic of what you believe but you were not willing to go there...."

Again, I believe nothing. If I did believe something, you might be right to test the logic of that belief, but it doesn't make sense to use superstition to test the logic of something.

"That is what Walter, TWM, RCofield and others are doing in these discussions. They are testing the truth claims."

I'll have to take your word on that.

"RCofield and I are trying to get deeper, to the underlying core values of their Noetic structure (ie. the sum total of a persons beliefs, plus there relationships), but I'm not sure we are getting there. We keep going off on tangents."

You both sound pretty confused to me.

RCO, I don't want you to feel left out.

RCO said: "God is all good in the passages that you think are “lovely” and He is all good in the passages that you think are “horrible.” Your rejection of God and your subjective moralism blind you to the greater good that exists in the so-called “horrible” passages.""

Walt responded: "uh...nope...not gonna fly - unless you can explain the "greater good" (hahahaha) in these verses:"

RCO said: Do I agree that the death penalty is excessive for the occasional disobedience of a parent? Certainly. But these passages are not dealing with occasional disobedience--they are dealing with extreme rebellion within a national-community context. That is the point you have consistently missed.

TWM: My question to you RCO is, I thought the bible was perfect and perfectly clear. Why is it that Walter and I read the same passages as you and come away with vastly different meanings?

Isn't it just possible that these passages, the ones that you keep pointing to as easy to understand, there in black and white, are really awful and only by "interpreting" new meaning into them can you possibly derive a "greater good meaning"?

peterhuff,

"On the contrary, PSolus. I have thought on some of these issues for almost thirty years. That is roughly when I became interested in Christianity. That is almost, but not quite, half of my life. Before that I dabbled in all sorts of philosophies, mainly because one of my best friends, at that time, was an intellect who graduated in Engineering and we would discuss all kinds of things. So I dabbled to keep up."

I'll have to take you at your word on the above.

"We are all believers."

I am not a believer. I understand that that is something that you, a believer, cannot comprehend. Just because you cannot comprehend that I choose not to believe, does not mean that I do not, indeed, choose not to believe.

"It just depends what you put your faith in."

I put my faith in nothing.

"Philosophers are thinkers Psolus. You haven't even read the Bible, to your shame,..."

I disagree; to my credit.

"...so what do you know direct hand from it?"

Little to nothing.

"At least Walter and TWM have to some extent. They carry on reasonable conversations."

Oh, I see: Read your bible = reasonable; not read your bible = unreasonable.

"I ask you questions and you say you believe nothing."

Yes, because I believe nothing.

"That is impossible."

And yet, I believe nothing; just because you believe it to be impossible does not mean that it is, indeed, impossible.

"I think the only reason they keep quite about what you say is because you are an ally in their fight against the Christian God. You share that in common."

We're fighting against the "christan god"? Who knew!

"But if I were to ask them honestly their opinion on someone who claims to believe nothing, I think they would find such a position indefensible also."

Well, ask them.

BTW, does indefensible = impossible?

"You have a world-view that you filter everything through, and that world-view is built, little by little, on certain non-negotiable principles, or starting points."

Who died and put you in charge of world-views?

How do you know that I have a world-view?

That's just one more thing that you believe, and I don't.

"One of them for you is that there is no true and living God."

You are free to believe that.

"That my friend, comes from a world-view that suppresses the truth of God."

Are we friends? Can I borrow some money?

The "truth of god" is another thing that you believe, and I don't.

"The same could be said of you."

It could be said of anyone, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

"But it would need to be the Holy Spirit that convinced/convicted you."

Your "holy spirit" sounds pretty sinister.

Oh, that's another thing that you believe and I don't.

"You assume our beliefs are illogical, but that is not the case."

Are you sure?

"I tried to take you down the road to testing the logic of what you believe but you were not willing to go there...."

Again, I believe nothing. If I did believ

Hey TW,

Part 1 of 2

TWM: “If the bible is the perfect word of God and it's as clear as both of you claim it to be, why were hundreds of Mexican Indians rounded up and tortured and/or slaughtered in New Mexico because they refused to abandon their own, native religions? I've asked this question in a number of ways and I still don't get your response. Why do well intentioned people, do so many bad things for no reason at all other than they think that's what God wants?”

RCO: The atrocities you cite are not a testimony against the veracity of the bible. They are proof-positive that the biblical testimony that heart of man is totally wicked and utterly depraved is dead-on. One can't “love your neighbor as yourself” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” while committing the above-listed crimes against humanity. There is no ambiguity on these points.

TW: “You and Walter have been having a wonderful discussion on slavery and how it's described in the bible. My position has been and I think Walter holds essentially the same position; if God defines the rules from where to get slaves, how long to hold them, who retains ownership of the children of slaves, etc. isn't that approval of slavery?”

RCO: I've addressed this repeatedly, contending that there were forms of voluntary slavery. The links Peter supplied on this are excellent and reference very scholarly works that say the same thing I am saying (only much better). Both you and Walter are erroneously equating slavery in the Ancient Near East in biblical times with slavery in the deep south during the 1800's. You do need to read the links.

TWM: “If the bible is so crystal clear, how is it that we can disagree on its meaning like we do? And isn't it possible that millions of Christians throughout history have misunderstood much about what the bible actually says?”

RCO: That first question is totally nonsensical given that you utterly reject the Divine inspiration of scripture. If it is Divinely inspired and you reject that, you will by default mis-interpret it. The answer to the second is equally simple: Only if we come to it with pre-established, wicked prejudices. If we do, the fault lies not with scripture but the interpretor.

TW: “Let's take one point that RCO was making with Walter -- the big picture point about children and the greater good. Isn't is possible even likely that devoted Christians reading these passages might not necessarily kill their offspring but beat the crap out of them and use the bible as justification?”

RCO: See my immediately previous point.

TW,

Part 2 of 2

TW: “There can be no greater good achieved, as RCO seems to imply, by beating or harming your children. I'll never believe that this could lead to a greater good. This, from a parent of 3 boys -- 3 independent, willful and sometimes disobedient boys; who were no different from their father.”
RCO: How absurd. You need to re-read what I wrote. Both you and Peter are either having difficulty keeping up with an argument that is built on sequential points or you are intentionally subverting what I said. I am a father of 2 grown daughters and 1 grown son. I never beat them and I never harmed them, but neither did I tolerate foolishness. And they are model citizens who obviously love and respect their father and their mother.

TW, you are falling into your old habit of allowing post after post to go unanswered. I'll be glad to answer every question and deal with every argument you raise, but that is going to have to work both ways. I posted at least 4 or 5 times to you prior to this most recent post of yours, some of them pretty pointed, and you didn't mention a single point from them.

Hi Peter, this is a continuation from my last post and RCO, Walter and Psolus, feel free to jump in.

When last we met Peter, I was giving you a short history lesson on the evolution of community based moral standards and how those standards over time evolved into laws. And since you used the example of Hitler and his moral standards, I thought it would be a good transition to discuss community-based moral standards versus those derived from authority.

You believe the former doesn't exist and the only good set of standards are those derived from authority. In the case of Hitler, the laws under which Germany operated could be usurped by the ultimate authority at the time, Hitler. His word was as good as law.

You've stated more than once that God is the only being capable of defining moral standards. He is the ultimate, sole, moral authority. Obviously I disagree and think that mankind has evolved moral standards just fine without paying particular attention to the bible. But even so, here's where we are way off.

Because you think that God is good and perfect, all of his actions are good. So no matter what heinous acts are attributed to God in the bible -- and either Walter and I can provide lots of references for really awful acts -- they are good by your definition. So when a disobedient son is beaten to death by his father, because that's what God says to do, that's morally pure. Do I have that right?

most of those "sins" i listed things are bad ideas in so many ways, but DEATH?! yes, disobeying one's parents is bad. but the death penalty as punishment for it is over-reacting. it's not fair.

Have you ever noticed that there is no record of an Israelite child being stoned to death for disrespecting/disobeying/cursing their parents? Why do you think that is the case?

that's irrelevant. death penalty is what yahweh wanted. besides, i think we are to assume, if folks were being good hebrews, it was part of the regular course of life. the bible didn't say the israelites picked their noses, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

if morals are objective and eternal then why don't we kill kids for disobedience these days...

here i can hear you invoke the familiar refrain, "jesus changed all that". you assert that jesus said we don't have to follow ALL of the old testament. you'll start talking about "law" and "gospel" and blah blah blah those are just clever hoop-jumping moves to "cover for" young yahweh's temper. and, jesus didn't say "throw out the old testament laws", he just said, and i paraphrase, "don't be obessed with them. don't think they are everything." he's being nuanced, actually. it's a great moral step forward. for instance, he shows how if the greater good is served by picking up sticks on the sabbbath...wel, then, pick up sticks of the sabbath. that opens up quite a can of worms, no? who desides the greater good? i certainly hope not ancient israelites who execute people for gluttony, or disobeying a parent. the answer is actually our "we do!" - armed with our evolving morals and culture.

Hi PSolus,

PSOLUS: "I disagree; what we have here is a failure on RCofield's and peterhuff's part to think.

On the contrary, PSolus. I have thought on some of these issues for almost thirty years. That is roughly when I became interested in Christianity. That is almost, but not quite, half of my life. Before that I dabbled in all sorts of philosophies, mainly because one of my best friends, at that time, was an intellect who graduated in Engineering and we would discuss all kinds of things. So I dabbled to keep up.

PSOLUS: "They are believers, not thinkers."

We are all believers. It just depends what you put your faith in.

Philosophers are thinkers Psolus. You haven't even read the Bible, to your shame, so what do you know direct hand from it? At least Walter and TWM have to some extent. They carry on reasonable conversations. I ask you questions and you say you believe nothing. That is impossible. I think the only reason they keep quite about what you say is because you are an ally in their fight against the Christian God. You share that in common.

But if I were to ask them honestly their opinion on someone who claims to believe nothing, I think they would find such a position indefensible also. You have a world-view that you filter everything through, and that world-view is built, little by little, on certain non-negotiable principles, or starting points. One of them for you is that there is no true and living God. That my friend, comes from a world-view that suppresses the truth of God.

PSOLUS: "Until they decide, or are instructed, to believe something differently, they will hold on to their current beliefs just as NRA members hold on to their guns and rifles.

The same could be said of you. But it would need to be the Holy Spirit that convinced/convicted you.

PSOLUS: "You are not going to be able to change their beliefs using logic; that is a lost cause."

You assume our beliefs are illogical, but that is not the case. I tried to take you down the road to testing the logic of what you believe but you were not willing to go there (Psalm 14:1).

That is what Walter, TWM, RCofield and others are doing in these discussions. They are testing the truth claims.

RCofield and I are trying to get deeper, to the underlying core values of their Noetic structure (ie. the sum total of a persons beliefs, plus there relationships), but I'm not sure we are getting there. We keep going off on tangents.

yahweh is obsessed with the death penalty. we could have this same discussion about many many many crimes punishable by death in the o.t... (this is one way in which it's very similar to the koran - and how the koran is a moral step backward...) from this site

http://www.religioustolerance.org/exe_bibl1.htm

i could proof-text at least 38 offenses that yahweh deems worthy of the death penalty. several offenses show up mulitple times so it's more than 38 verses.

among them:

following another religion: Exodus 22:20, Numbers 25:1-15.
a stranger entering the temple: Numbers 1:51 See also Numbers 3:10, 18:7 and 17:13.
proselytizing: Deuteronomy 13:1-10
communicating with the dead: Leviticus 20:27
black magic: Exodus 22:18 states
adultery: Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22
incest: Leviticus 20:11 Leviticus 20, verses 12 and 14.
and rape, kidnapping, human sacrifice, blasphemy, not being circumsised, eating leavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and on and on and on.. .

Manufacturing anointing oil: Exodus 30:33
Engaging in ritual animal sacrifices other than at the temple: Leviticus 17:1-9
Consuming blood: Leviticus 17:10. This would include eating rare meat.
Eating peace offerings while ritually unclean: Leviticus 7:20
Waiting too long before consuming sacrifices: Leviticus 19:5-8
Sexual activity with a woman who is menstruating: Leviticus 20:18
Going to the temple in an unclean state: Numbers 19:13
Persons teaching another religion: Deuteronomy 13:1-11
A prophet whose prophecy does not come true: Deuteronomy 18:22
Gluttony and excessive drinking: Deuteronomy 21:20

Hi Peter,

I'm still reviewing your latest responses.
TWM: "Any expectations are by definition, higher than those set by believers. The idea that God would abide by his own rules -- like "thou shall not kill" is contradicted by numerous ugly stories in the bible."

Peter: Easily said, but you have yet to show me what you measure your higher standard by, whose subjective ideal?

TWM: First, American culture like all others, has defined killing as wrong. In fact, as tribes grew into towns and people started deciding on what behavior was acceptable versus not acceptable, people were accepted or excluded based on their adherence to the moral "standards" of the community. These standards were defined locally but a quick review of history suggests that many of these standards were common from community to community.

Later, as communities grew, they started uniting around one or more leaders, that position was usually inherited or taken by force. Nonetheless, the standards of a community would be pretty much known to all and, as surprising as this is to believe, generally included prohibitions against killing and stealing. There is also no evidence to suggest that these prohibitions required access to the bible. Many communities were formed long before the bible was written or in geographically remote places like Asia, Africa and South Africa and yet they came up with the same kinds of moral standards.

So Peter, do you really think it took the bible for a small village in Southeast Asia to decide that killing was wrong?

Peter further said in reference to moral standards: If that is the case there are no morals, just preferences.

TWM: No, that's not what I said and any book on anthropology will contradict that statement. Moral standards evolved and continue to evolve and were normally defined locally. It wasn't until villages became towns and cities was there a need to codify those standards of behavior. This codification became what we call laws today.

Peter (again): Do you prefer Hitler's Germany or Obama's USA? In other words, don't call what Hitler did immoral because the standard changes ('evolves') from culture to culture, individual to individual, time to time, and it is just the individual/culture imposing his/her/their preference on you.

TWM: An interesting perspective -- dead wrong, but interesting. So first, let's see where we are. As towns became cities and it became complicated for everyone to learn what was morally accepted, the moral standards were codified and became laws. Hitler was elected by the German people. His ascension to dictatorial powers evolved over time and here's what this transition meant.

It meant that Germany went from a country of laws which limits the powers of their leaders (among other things), to a country of laws and authority. There is a very interesting parallel between your view of God and Hitler, but I'll have to continue that on the next page.

c/PSOLUS,/RCofield,/ * *

PSOLUS,

"Yes. That might threaten your impervious (as far as you are concerned) belief that you believing nothing."

It is not a belief, it is a choice.

Again, I don't expect you, a believer, to comprehend that.

"Right. You see only what you want to see."

I see what is shown to me; try showing me something other than simple belief.

"When one sees what one wants to see, appearances can be deceiving."

Again, try showing me something other than simple belief.

"From a very long list, the fact that believing this universe created itself is patently illogical and the irrational ideology of infinite regress would have to be in the top 5 or so."

So, your logic is: Believing this universe created itself is patently illogical, and infinite regression is an irrational ideology, therefore: "god"?

I'm not sure that that actually qualifies as logic.

Is the following equally logical: Believing this universe created itself is patently illogical, and infinite regression is an irrational ideology, therefore: "unicorns"?

Or, maybe this: Believing this universe created itself is patently illogical, and infinite regression is an irrational ideology, therefore: "leprechauns"?

"The fact that it is a proven, reliable collection of 66 books written over a period of 1500 years from eyewitness accounts of actual historical events recorded in 3 different languages by at least 39 individual writers living on three different continents without internal contradiction in its argument and that it is the only known comprehensive meta-narrative and explanation of the observable physical universe in which we exist..."

None of the above is a fact, and none of the above is provable; everything that you have stated is simply what you believe to be true.

"...and that it is the only document I am aware of that explains the whole of the human experience in comprehensible terms and that it has stood the test of time...would be PART of the specific logic on which I base my belief in the bible."

What you have stated is not logic; it's belief.

"Your last three questions were the most sensible I've seen you post."

Perhaps they were just the most simply phrased.

"Your carefully cultivated reputation for avoiding meaningful dialogue may be in jeopardy."

I can understand that you might want to believe that.

re: killing disobedient children

you said,
"You are completely focused on the death penalty because it seems disproportionate to the offense. You don’t see the “greater evil” that can result from such a pattern of rebellion—chaos, incivility, and even death on a much larger scale. God does see, and prescribes a severe penalty to curb such rebellion. So, which is less destructive: The death of one individual rebel…or the death of dozens, or even hundreds or thousands? The severity of the penalty was proportionate to the moral necessity—said moral necessity being the maintenance of national order and civility.

death IS disproportionate to the offense of disobeying your parents. at least not by today's standards. maybe it was ok back then, but not anymore. do you realize that you sound like an oppressive dictator justifying his regime? death for questioning authority- "said moral necessity being the maintenance of national order and civility." warning of the "greater evil"... you say it will lead to "chaos, incivility, and even death "... the slippery slope... well, IF it leads to death and chaos"...THEN maybe the death peanalty becomes proportionate. what ever happened to "an eye for an eye"? god wants "an eye for a tiny little scratch on the arm". hhhmmm....is this a case of god not following his own rules...? i guess he's entilteled...he's god... but seems to me, and BY TODAY'S moral standards, he over-reacting.

CORRECTION:

The third line of my previous post should read: "Yes. That might threaten your impervious (as far as you are concerned) belief that you believe IN nothing."

PSOLUS,

RCO: "I begin with reason and logic, and I have virtually never argued FROM God/bible/belief."

PSO: I don't see that.

RCO: Yes. That might threaten your impervious (as far as you are concerned) belief that you believing nothing.

PSO: "I see your belief in your bible based on your belief in your god, and your belief in your god based on your belief in the bible."

RCO: Right. You see only what you want to see.

PSO: "Your belief in one appears to be based on your belief in the other."

RCO: When one sees what one wants to see, appearances can be deceiving.

PSO: "Can you specify the logic on which you base your belief in your god?"

RCO: From a very long list, the fact that believing this universe created itself is patently illogical and the irrational ideology of infinite regress would have to be in the top 5 or so.

PSO: "Can you specify the logic on which you base your belief in your bible?"

RCO: The fact that it is a proven, reliable collection of 66 books written over a period of 1500 years from eyewitness accounts of actual historical events recorded in 3 different languages by at least 39 individual writers living on three different continents without internal contradiction in its argument and that it is the only known comprehensive meta-narrative and explanation of the observable physical universe in which we exist and that it is the only document I am aware of that explains the whole of the human experience in comprehensible terms and that it has stood the test of time...would be PART of the specific logic on which I base my belief in the bible.

RCO: "I have only defended them when others attack them with ignorant, uninformed argument."

PSO: "Do you correlate my disbelief in both as an attack on both?"

RCO: Not at all.

Your last three questions were the most sensible I've seen you post. Your carefully cultivated reputation for avoiding meaningful dialogue may be in jeopardy.

RCO, Peter and Walter;

Sorry for the delay. I'm still here but with little time and I'll be gone most of next week for a conference in Washington state so I'll have little time then either. But with that behind us, I've started reviewing the most recent blogs. If these issues have already been addressed then ignore them. I've starting from Oct. 14th at 2:57 am.

Peter: You and Walter need to go to this site (below) and read it carefully and slowly before you go around throwing silly, baseless accusations at the most holy, living, loving Lord of glory that you know little about. Note when it is speaking of OT and NT slavery/servanthood.

TWM: I'll ignore the classification that our arguments are either silly or baseless. I was watching the public television show "God in America" and it describes many of the atrocities committed by Christians against lots of different people from native Americans to Mexican Indians. There's one thing about this that neither you Peter or RCO have explained to me, at least sufficient for this Geek to understand.

TWM: If the bible is the perfect word of God and it's as clear as both of you claim it to be, why were hundreds of Mexican Indians rounded up and tortured and/or slaughtered in New Mexico because they refused to abandon their own, native religions? I've asked this question in a number of ways and I still don't get your response. Why do well intentioned people, do so many bad things for no reason at all other than they think that's what God wants?

To RCO: You and Walter have been having a wonderful discussion on slavery and how it's described in the bible. My position has been and I think Walter holds essentially the same position; if God defines the rules from where to get slaves, how long to hold them, who retains ownership of the children of slaves, etc. isn't that approval of slavery? Again, this raises the same question we've been talking about before and with all due respect Peter, I think these questions are anything but silly.

If the bible is so crystal clear, how is it that we can disagree on its meaning like we do? And isn't it possible that millions of Christians throughout history have misunderstood much about what the bible actually says?

Let's take one point that RCO was making with Walter -- the big picture point about children and the greater good. Isn't is possible even likely that devoted Christians reading these passages might not necessarily kill their offspring but beat the crap out of them and use the bible as justification?

There can be no greater good achieved, as RCO seems to imply, by beating or harming your children. I'll never believe that this could lead to a greater good. This, from a parent of 3 boys -- 3 independent, willful and sometimes disobedient boys; who were no different from their father.

rco, you said,
"Do I agree that the death penalty is excessive for the occasional disobedience of a parent? Certainly. But these passages are not dealing with occasional disobedience--they are dealing with extreme rebellion within a national-community context. That is the point you have consistently missed."

"So...how did I fail to explain the "greater good" of Lev. 20:9?

you assert here the verse is for "extreme rebellion". where does it say that? there's nothing in lev20 about degrees of disobedience or repeated offenses or only if it rises to the level of civilization destroying behavior - you're just making stuff up to rationalize (i.e., provide excuse, apologize for) yahweh's childish over-reacting behavior. this verse is listed among MANY others for which the penalty is death.

from lev20:9 on, the next few verses list other capital offenses:

"cursing parents, adultery, incest, homosexuality, sex w/mother in law, beastiality...."

come on. these are vile crimes. there's no hint of mediation, leniency, graduated punishments.

nowadays, if a kid breaks national-community laws you worry about, then s/he does get be punished - but perhaps lighter than adults would be. there are already laws for rape, murder, stealing, adultery, vandalism, civil disobedience etc... (and the penalty is usually not death).

usually, nowadays, in the enlightened world, we only follow yahweh's instructions re penalties if the crime is murder. the only places where o.t-type laws are in effect these days is in the islamic world. ouch...
------------------

i think the reason i'm always thinking about this stuff is that my wife, daughter and i go to a fundamentalist lutheran church. up until last year my daughter went to their private schoold attached to the church. they taught 600o-yr old earth and literal noash's flood.

WALTER,

WALT (to PSOLUS): if i believed the bible were true, i would be christian.

all these "fine points" we're discussing wouldn't matter."

RCO: If I really believed God didn't exist I would be an atheist (you know, as opposed to being an agnostic). And I certainly wouldn't waste large amounts of time on religious blogs arguing "fine points" with christians.

Hmmmmmmmmm. :-)

Maybe clicking sound of your keyboard is the uneasy noise of a not-quite-convinced conscience trying to assure itself?

Just a thought.

RCofield,

"No. Who's not thinking HERE?"

You are not thinking "HERE"; you are believing "HERE".

"You guys are so busy trying to pin "circular logic" on me that you don't recognize when your own logic is flawed (i.e. "a fetus is not a child,"..."

That is not flawed logic; a fetus is not a child, just as an embryo is not a child, a zygote is not a child, an ovum is not a child, and a sperm is not a child.

None of the above has been born, except for the child.

"..."I believe nothing,"..."

That, also, is not flawed logic; I, indeed, believe nothing.

I'm guessing that you are simply unable to comprehend that.

"...etc. and Walter's arguments to which I was referring)."

Walter's on his own.

"As for "my God" and "my bible" and "my beliefs," if you will go back and look you will find that those are never my entry-point into the discussion."

I qualify them because there are many bibles and many gods that people believe in, and I want to limit this discussion only to the specific bible and the specific god that you happen to believe in.

"I begin with reason and logic, and I have virtually never argued FROM God/bible/belief."

I don't see that.

I see your belief in your bible based on your belief in your god, and your belief in your god based on your belief in the bible.

Your belief in one appears to be based on your belief in the other.

Can you specify the logic on which you base your belief in your god?

Can you specify the logic on which you base your belief in your bible?

"I have only defended them when others attack them with ignorant, uninformed argument."

Do you correlate my disbelief in both as an attack on both?

TW,

Hold the phones, man! I have just discovered that science has an evolutionary explanation of the "empty nest syndrome" that we are both experiencing!

This is RICH! Let me know when you're back in the 'hood, as I would love to kick this one around a little with you.

PSOLUS,

No. Who's not thinking HERE?

You guys are so busy trying to pin "circular logic" on me that you don't recognize when your own logic is flawed (i.e. "a fetus is not a child," "I believe nothing," etc. and Walter's arguments to which I was referring).

As for "my God" and "my bible" and "my beliefs," if you will go back and look you will find that those are never my entry-point into the discussion.

I begin with reason and logic, and I have virtually never argued FROM God/bible/belief. I have only defended them when others attack them with ignorant, uninformed argument.

psolus, to peter and rco, you said,
"You both believe in your god, and you believe that your bible was written by your god...."

if i believed the bible were true, i would be christian.

all these "fine points" we're discussing wouldn't matter. i'm pretty sure i would have to take a pretty liberal interpretation of the scientific assertions (biology, geology, astronomy) in there.

to explain the moral evolution captured in the bible, i might rationalize: "in the o.t., god was speaking to us on a level we could understand, guiding us to today's modern morals".

RCofield,

"And PSOLUS: Who's not "thinking" here?"

You and peterhuff.

You both believe in your god, and you believe that your bible was written by your god, because you believe that your bible tells you that it was written by your god, and you believe that your god tells you, in your bible, that he indeed wrote your bible.

You support your beliefs by quoting from your bible, and interpreting those quotes according to what you believe that the quotes mean, which invariable support your own beliefs.

Yours is a circular belief-system that is propped up by the beliefs that you believe are contained in your own belief-system.

You also believe that your beliefs are absolutely true, and you believe that anyone who doubts your beliefs are absolutely wrong.

WALTER,

WALT: "btw, while proof-texting yahweh's despotic, excessive use of the death penalty, i came across a verse that relates, accidentally, to polygamy. deut22:25 says that if a man rapes a virgin, he has to pay her father 50 shekels, and he has to marry (and never divorce) his rape victim.

aside from the obvious lack of regard for what the woman's thoughts on the matter, note that he must marry her - presumably whether or not he has other wives."

.....:-) So...are you now going to contend that God was "immoral" for "advocating" polygamy...even though the ink is not yet dry on your declaration that polygamy is NOT immoral?

This is exactly what you have done on the abortion issue. You declare God "immoral" for executing Divine judgment on those who sacrifice children...but murdering an innocent child in the womb is "Enlightened," superior morality.

And polygamy should be legal "just like prostitution?" All that's left for you now is to find a "proof-text" that God "advocates" prostitution and declare him "immoral" as a result. Then your absurdly obvious double-standard will be fully up-to-date.

Yes, Walter, the "superiority" of your "Enlightened" morality really is something to behold.

And PSOLUS: Who's not "thinking" here? This kind of "logic" is not going to change anyone's "beliefs."

WALTER,

WALT: "rco, what we have here is a failure to communicate, i guess.

if we can't (agree?) that the death penalty for disobeying your parents is excessive, we've no possible common ground or way of even comprehending each other. there's no point."

RCO: Walter, I think you may have forgotten the question you asked me. Here's how this discussion of Lev. 20:9 began:

I said: "God is all good in the passages that you think are “lovely” and He is all good in the passages that you think are “horrible.” Your rejection of God and your subjective moralism blind you to the greater good that exists in the so-called “horrible” passages.""

To which you responded: "uh...nope...not gonna fly - unless you can explain the "greater good" (hahahaha) in these verses:"

Do I agree that the death penalty is excessive for the occasional disobedience of a parent? Certainly. But these passages are not dealing with occasional disobedience--they are dealing with extreme rebellion within a national-community context. That is the point you have consistently missed.

So...how did I fail to explain the "greater good" of Lev. 20:9?

I'm not being "a semantic little bastard." I'm just keeping the discussion within the parameters that YOU established.

psolus, you said,
"they will hold on to their current beliefs just as NRA members hold on to their guns and rifles."

whatever you do, don't say they "cling" to these things - they hate that word.

dang it:

obviously, i hope, this post should have read:

rco,
what we have here is a failure to communicate, i guess.

if we can't AGREE that the death penalty for disobeying your parents is excessive, we've no possible common ground or way of even comprehending each other. there's no point.

rco, i did answer on polygamy:
i said, "i suppose it's up to consenting adults. seems weird to me, but that's probably because i've always been a monogamist. i personally can't imagine being one of 4 husbands of my wife..."

so, yes, between consenting adults it should be legal - just like prostitution should be.

i can't imagine people flocking to polygamy in droves or anything... being the way we all are, almost no one likes the idea of "sharing" a wife or husband.

as i hinted at, it would have to go "both ways": i.e., a wife could have 4 husbands. we'd have to make all sorts of new tax laws. would one wife and three husbands get 1 or 2 or 3 "marriage deductions" and so forth.

and then there's the resultant kids. i suppose each kid would be the responsibiblity of whichever pair created it.

btw, while proof-texting yahweh's despotic, excessive use of the death penalty, i came across a verse that relates, accidentally, to polygamy. deut22:25 says that if a man rapes a virgin, he has to pay her father 50 shekels, and he has to marry (and never divorce) his rape victim.

aside from the obvious lack of regard for what the woman's thoughts on the matter, note that he must marry her - presumably whether or not he has other wives.

"what we have here is a failure to communicate, i guess."

I disagree; what we have here is a failure on RCofield's and peterhuff's part to think.

They are believers, not thinkers.

Until they decide, or are instructed, to believe something differently, they will hold on to their current beliefs just as NRA members hold on to their guns and rifles.

You are not going to be able to change their beliefs using logic; that is a lost cause.

rco,
what we have here is a failure to communicate, i guess.

if we can't that the death penalty for disobeying your parents is excessive, we've no possible common ground or way of even comprehending each other. there's no point.

PETER, WALTER, TW,

PETER (to TW): You and Walter need to go to this site (below) and read it carefully and slowly before you go around throwing silly, baseless accusations at the most holy, living, loving Lord of glory that you know little about. Note when it is speaking of OT and NT slavery/servanthood.

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

************************************

Excellent links, Peter.

Walter, TW, if you will wade through this you will find that these documents deal with every objection you have raised here and he does so with copious footnote references to highly specialized and scholarly works dealing with the slavery issue.

He does a very thorough job explaining what I have been trying to point out on this issue. And you will also find that the Hebrew socio-economic system in relation to slavery was so remarkable that it makes your beloved "Enlightenment" morality look positively barbaric.

In the end, your castigation of God/ancient Israel is absurdly uninformed. If you are men of integrity I would expect apologies to be forthcoming.

TWM: "Would you agree that a world in which women not only can vote but can hold leadership positions is one that is better?"

It depends on the woman/women. Yes, of course I believe that women should be able to hold leadership positions and vote.

But I also believe that God created us with different roles in mind in the particular relationship to marriage.

TWM: "100 years ago, blacks were not allowed to marry whites in any town here in North Carolina. Would you agree that allowing people of different races to marry is an improvement over the past?"

Yes, for the same principles apply in Christ - all are one/love your neighbor as yourself.

God set apart Israel, as a special people that He would make Himself known to the world by. I was born and raised in Zambia, Africa. My mother was born in South Africa. Now in South Africa there was Apartheid, legal race separation, a belief that saw a hierarchical structure that they believed was biblical in separating the races based on Israel, but that was not God's intention.

TWM: "60 years ago, opposite gender couples were prevented from living together without being married. I'm assuming you believe that because unmarried couples can now live together that morals have declined (whereas freedom to live with whoever you want has certainly increased)."

When you say unmarried couples, this I see something wrong with for a number of reasons, some of which RCO has expanded on in previous posts. It is not biblical. The more sexual partners, the less likely a person will commit wholeheartedly to one in the kind of union that God intended. Just look a all the betrayal in Hollywood couples.

TWM: "Currently, you can't prevent a gay couple from living together but an openly gay person still cannot serve in the military."

They can serve in my country - Canada.

But you are blurring the line between what is morally right and what is morally permissible. What cultural taboo will be crossed next - condoning rape, polygamy, bestiality, incest, age distinctions? Will Father's soon be able to marry daughter's or a mother her sons? Where do you draw the line in a relative society? It all depends on who makes the rules. That is all you have to go by without God's objective standard.

TWM: "Virtually every issue raised about gays in the military were previously raised regarding women's suffrage and racial integration. And in most of these cases, conservative religious believers were on the wrong side the issue."

Either you go by God's standard that sees the consequences and the good/evil or you go by man as the measure of all things - but which one(s)?

Can you answer that? Which one(s)? And why? Because you say so? Because it is what you like? Because you are the one who calls 'good' good?

Hi TWMatthews,

TWM: "Any expectations are by definition, higher than those set by believers. The idea that God would abide by his own rules -- like "thou shall not kill" is contradicted by numerous ugly stories in the bible."

Easily said, but you have yet to show me what you measure your higher standard by, whose subjective ideal?

TWM: "Peter, there are no objective moral standards."

Is that so? Whose subjective standard(s) do you base that on? Are you the ultimate authority here, or is it someone greater than you? What subjective standard do you have to measure greatness by?

TWM: "There are cultural standards that evolve over time and generally, the arc of progress is for more equality and more freedom."

Ah, culture. Which one(s)?

If that is the case there are no morals, just preferences. Do you prefer Hitler's Germany or Obama's USA? In other words, don't call what Hitler did immoral because the standard changes ('evolves') from culture to culture, individual to individual, time to time, and it is just the individual/culture imposing his/her/their preference on you.

What you have done by this admission is blur the line/distinction so badly that it just becomes a fight to impose your preferences on someone else, the very thing that Hitler did, since what you prefer you like. Some cultures like to eat their neighbors, other to love them and treat them with dignity. What is your preference?

Since there is no objective standard in your world-view, why should what you believe be the accepted standard? Answer that one.

Let me guess your rationale - because you 'feel' it should be so. How do you make an 'ought' out of an 'is?'

TWM: "200 years ago, a woman had no say in government or business. These were primarily the result of Christian thinking regarding women's roles."

RCO pointed out very nicely that it was because of the Christian that this standard changed, not despite the Christian, for there is neither free nor slave, male nor female, but all are one in Christ. In other words equality. So the Christian has visited this issue long before you got here.

I'll be waiting for your answers to my questions.

Hi RCofield,

WALT: “wtf, rco?!?!.... jesus, semantic little bastard, aren't you?”

RCO: "My, my, Walter. The expletives are flying now, aren’t they? I must say this highly evolved modern morality of yours IS impressive….And what makes you think I am “little?” :-)"

It does seem that way. Impressive to cave mentality, dog eat dog style of ethics. (^8

I noticed TWMatthews rhetoric heating up also a while ago. These are touchy subjects, but I do not perceive ill will from RCO or myself. We are critiquing each others world-views here, the atheistic and Christian, those that come from inside subjective men's naturalistic philosophy as opposed to those that come from outside of man, from the objective Word of the Lord when correctly interpreted.

Hi TWMattthews, (also Walter with links below),

"There is NEITHER Jew nor Greek, SLAVE NOR FREE, MALE NOR FEMALE, for YOU ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESUS." Galatians 3:28

ME: "Since God is Spirit that image must have to do with the qualities possessed by God, for God being Spirit does not have a body, so I would contend it is not a physical image."

TWM: "Okay, but we/you talk as if God has human qualities

I would turn that around, we are the ones created in His image, not He in ours. There is such a thing as righteous anger, such as when great injustice is done.

TWM: "-- love, anger, all that stuff, right? Doesn't God even claim to be jealous? Does it get any more human than jealousy?"

There is a distinction between human jealous and godly jealous.

ME: "As RCofield said, the books of the Bible were written in a certain culture/time, and understanding context applies/relates to that culture."

TWM: "Yes that is true but I thought you were arguing that God's morals were universal and everlasting. Did I miss the point of your argument completely?"

God's moral laws are based on God's holy character which is good/perfect, but there are other factors that could apply such as already mentioned. You have to be aware of the audience being addressed and any time related/cultural related issues. For instance, when you look at covenants you also see some that he made with specific people, with if/then stipulations and others that apply for all times, like the everlasting covenant/New covenant.

The Ten Commandments, which Jesus summarized as love of God and love of neighbor sum up the law. Now that is God's eternal standard.

Some of the 613 Mosaic laws address specific issues, a specific culture and time. Deuteronomy 28 lays down the if/then promise to the Israelites so there are a number of factors to consider.

You and Walter need to go to this site (below) and read it carefully and slowly before you go around throwing silly, baseless accusations at the most holy, living, loving Lord of glory that you know little about. Note when it is speaking of OT and NT slavery/servanthood.

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslavent.html

As you can see, this is a very in-depth issues that we were just touching the surface of. The articles do a very thorough job of explaining the culture (both then and now) and the goodness of God.

I would hope this would make you shameful of your cutting remarks towards the Lord of Glory, but I fear you still have many bones to grind with Him in your ignorance of His goodness and hatred of His Being. Hopefully we can talk through them and pray that the Spirit of truth would open your heart to God, for without His mercy you are lost in you world-view rut.

RCofield,

"Have you ever noticed that there is no record of an Israelite child being stoned to death for disrespecting/disobeying/cursing their parents? Why do you think that is the case?"

Might be because so few people take what's been written in your bible seriously.

WALTER,

WALT: "polygamy: i suppose it's up to consenting adults. seems weird to me, but that's probably because i've always been a monogamist. i personally can't imagine being one of 4 husbands of my wife..."

So, in your opinion is it moral or immoral? Should it be legalized?

WALTER,

WALT: “wtf, rco?!?!.... jesus, semantic little bastard, aren't you?”

My, my, Walter. The expletives are flying now, aren’t they? I must say this highly evolved modern morality of yours IS impressive….And what makes you think I am “little?” :-)

You are still missing my point. I’ll take it a sentence at the time and supply explanatory commentary.

I said: "My point was that just as man should honor and submit to the authority of God, so children should honor and submit to the God-appointed authority of their parents…"

As I pointed out originally, the context of Lev. 20:9 reflects an emphasis on the necessity of the Israelites submitting to God’s authority and obeying him (vss. 7-8). Verse 9 extends this requirement to the parent/child relationship. Children must submit to and obey the authority God has placed over them—their parents.

I said: "...otherwise, absent submission to authorities, society unravels and CHAOS ensues.”

Parental and civil authorities exist (appointed by God) for the purpose of maintaining order and civility within the larger community. If children begin refusing to respect and obey the authority of parents, and/or citizens begin to ignore the civil authorities God has placed over us, anarchy sets in. One child (or citizen) refuses to respect/submit to authority, someone else say “hey, if he can do that I can to.” Then another, and another, and so on. If we simply ignore our civil laws and do whatever we want to do and then refuse to submit to those authorities established to enforce those laws, sooner or later chaos results. The fabric of society unravels and civility and order are lost. Blood runs in the streets (see “Reign of Terror”).

I said: “HENCE, the severity of the penalty was proportionate to the moral necessity of the standard God established. It served the “greater good” of helping to maintain the civility and order of the entire nation."

You are completely focused on the death penalty because it seems disproportionate to the offense. You don’t see the “greater evil” that can result from such a pattern of rebellion—chaos, incivility, and even death on a much larger scale. God does see, and prescribes a severe penalty to curb such rebellion. So, which is less destructive: The death of one individual rebel…or the death of dozens, or even hundreds or thousands? The severity of the penalty was proportionate to the moral necessity—said moral necessity being the maintenance of national order and civility.

Have you ever noticed that there is no record of an Israelite child being stoned to death for disrespecting/disobeying/cursing their parents? Why do you think that is the case?

WALT: “again...jesus, rco...from this statement i gather that you think kids SHOULD be killed for disobeying their parents?”

I won’t dignify that question with a response, but I will tell you this. I have seen rebellious children suffer fates worse than death.

rco,
do you really think ex21:16 prohibits slavery? almost all of ex 21 is all about the ins and outs of slavery...

and while i've been referencing lev25:44-46 as being the horrible part, i see what you mean about there being levels of servitude. if we go back a few verses and include verses 39-43 we get the full picture:

39 "If your brother*** becomes poor beside you and sells himself to you, you shall not make him serve as a slave: 40 he shall be with you as a hired servant and as a sojourner. He shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41 Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and go back to his own clan and return to the possession of his fathers. 42For they are my servants,[c] whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves. 43 You shall not rule over him ruthlessly but shall fear your God.

so this shows there's a difference btwn "slave" and "servant". they explain how this kind of worker, ones taken from among the israelites, are "servants" - and are to be released every "jubilee" (6 or 7 years?).

this next part says that you may buy actual full-blown "slaves" from among the non-israelites. you don't have to release these slaves and can even be PASSED ON to one's children (sons, that is...).

44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

note how at the end it re-emphasizes moral double-standard in how to treat "israelites" and other people.

***esv here says "brother" - i assume as in "neighbor". every other version says "countryman" or similar...in verse 46 they add "the people of israel" to clarify "brother". i'm starting to wonder about the esv.

rco, you said,
"So...I have only one final question for you on this issue: Are you willing to concede any part of your original position or any part of your argumentation on the bible's treatment of slavery?"

the old testament CLEARLY endorse SLAVERY. what do you call it when someone owns someone else? and/or owns their children...forever? and can will those people to their children?

i know you think ex21:16 absolves yahweh of endorsing slavery, but it doesn't - no matter how hard you wish it did. the verses i've quoted (repeatedly) showing that hebrews are allowed to "buy" foreigners and keep them and their children forever clearly endorse slavery.... at least the hebrews owning foreigner slaves.

again, that's ex21:4 and lev25:46.

so o.t. god is definitely pro-slavery of non-israelites.

the n.t. god never makes any anti-slavery comments. we are left to proof-text that one verse from that one translation of 1tim1:10. this is kind of shaky for reasons i've explained in previous posts. i'll give you 1/2 credit for this one.

however, if this is an anti-slavery verse, then we have a contradiction between the old and new testaments? what's up with that?

"My point was that just as man should honor and submit to the authority of God, so children should honor and submit to the God-appointed authority of their parents…"

omg...pardon me. it wasn't "symbolism" it was "simile"... jesus, semantic little bastard, aren't you? the man-god relationship is AS the child-parent relationship.

"...otherwise, absent submission to authorities, society unravels and CHAOS ensues. HENCE, the severity of the penalty was proportionate to the moral necessity of the standard God established. It served the “greater good” of helping to maintain the civility and order of the entire nation."

again...jesus, rco...from this statement i gather that you think kids SHOULD be killed for disobeying their parents?

polygamy:
i suppose it's up to consenting adults. seems weird to me, but that's probably because i've always been a monogamist. i personally can't imagine being one of 4 husbands of my wife...

rco, you said,
"Uh, Walter, my point was not about the “symbolism of the god-man adult/child relationship.” My point was that just as man should honor and submit to the authority of God, so children should honor and submit to the God-appointed authority of their parents…otherwise, absent submission to authorities, society unravels and CHAOS ensues. HENCE, the severity of the penalty was proportionate to the moral necessity of the standard God established. It served the “greater good” of helping to maintain the civility and order of the entire nation."

"Not sure how I could have said it more clearly. And yet you missed the point. Do you get it now, or do I need to break it down further?"

wtf, rco?!?!

kids

should

listen

to

their

parents,

but

if

they

don't,

the

penalty

should

NOT

be

death.

the

death

penalty

is

NOT

proportionate

to

disobeying

one's

parents.

RCofield,

"Further evidence that you (and TW) are choosing to ignore that clearly shows forced slavery was prohibited in scripture."

What does your scripture have to say about unforced slavery?

TW and WALTER,

Polygamy/Polygamist marriages. Moral or immoral? Should it/they be made legal? What think ye?

(Stand down, PSOLUS. Though Walt and TW are dragging their feet (hmmmmm), you already answered this one. I knew I could count on you.) :-)

WALTER,

RCO: You should slow down and read my posts more carefully. You have consistently missed the point so far on parts 1-5.

WALT: “that is such baloney. let's consider just the first topic:

Le 20:9
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

(Insert: blather, blather, miss the point, blather, miss the point again….)

so...how the heck is that missing your point. admittedly, i DISAGREED with your point about the god/man adult/child symbolism, but that's hardly "missing" your point.”

RCO: Uh, Walter, my point was not about the “symbolism of the god-man adult/child relationship.” My point was that just as man should honor and submit to the authority of God, so children should honor and submit to the God-appointed authority of their parents…otherwise, absent submission to authorities, society unravels and CHAOS ensues. HENCE, the severity of the penalty was proportionate to the moral necessity of the standard God established. It served the “greater good” of helping to maintain the civility and order of the entire nation.

Not sure how I could have said it more clearly. And yet you missed the point. Do you get it now, or do I need to break it down further?

WALTER,

You said: "interesting because ex21:16 seems similar to that 1tim1:10 verse."

Yeah. What "law" do you think the I Tim. 1 passage is referring to? (Hint: read Exodus 21:16).

Further evidence that you (and TW) are choosing to ignore that clearly shows forced slavery was prohibited in scripture.

TW and WALTER,

Part 1 of 3

TW, did you see my posts to you @ October 12, 2010 11:06 PM, October 13, 2010 12:48 AM, and 1:04 AM?

Walter, did you see my post to you @ October 13, 2010 12:24 AM?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My, my, my. I’m away for a few hours and you boys wax sanctimonious. Problem with sanctimony is that it is usually accompanied by more than a few double-standards a good measure of hypocrisy. For example:

TW said: “RCO…Stop with the Dennett / Harris / Dawkins bashing. They represent many ideas that make sense to me…”

Let me see if I understand how this works. You are allowed to post as many blindly hateful, odious, mindless, imbecilic, vitriolic, loathsome, repulsive, repugnant, revolting, gross, hideous, vile, nauseating, venomous, acerbic, disgusting, idiotic, foolish, rash, reckless, rancorous, irresponsible, careless, malicious intolerant tirades as you like against God, the bible, and Jesus Christ….but you want me to stop criticizing the head clowns of the New Atheism Circus? You gotta be kidding me. The double standard here….aarrggghh….I’ve run out of adjectives….no wait….stinks to high-heavens.

And “they represent many ideas that make sense to me….”? You mean like Dawkins’ speculation that “extra-terrestrial beings may have seeded the first life forms on our planet”? These guys have over-reached themselves so many times that even many atheists are now viewing them as a liability. You know, Walter brought up the “extra-terrestrial life forms” thing awhile back. I thought he was joking, but he assured me he was not. And you guys want to make fun of people who believe that an infinitely wise, omnipotent God created the cosmos? Please.

TW and WALTER,

Part 2 of 3

WALTER said: “the acrobatics required to excuse "kill everyone in the infidel city" are…silly….”

Acrobatics? There are no “acrobatics” involved when God clearly says, 400 years in advance, that He is going to judge the Canaanites for their atrocities…and then does exactly that. The “acrobatics” are on your part when you try to declare God immoral for exercising Divine judgment against a people who were sacrificing their children. Of course, you apparently don’t have much of a problem with child-sacrifice, after all you think that a woman having the “right” to murder the child in her womb is “enlightened” morality, which is certainly superior to the “morality of God.”

You want to see what “acrobatics” looks like? How about this: “I am pro-choice RCO, why aren’t you?…got a problem with removing a blastocyst? hahahaha”….and then “I could become fed up with all the abortion talk RCO….” and then “well, I know abortion is a terrible thing, BUT….blah, blah, blah, (lame attempt at justifying)…blah, blah, blah….” And, “well, the high number of war casualties in the 20th century were due to technology BUT….blah, blah, (weak attempt at dismissing) and more blah.” Then you completely ignore the other half-dozen or so issues in that list that clearly demonstrate the mankind’s morality is certainly not “evolving.” Acrobatics indeed!

TW: “Sorry, slavery, like the treatment of women is one big moral shortcoming of most monotheistic religions and only through acrobatic interpretations can one try and talk around the issue.” --And then-- “There is no justification for slavery. It is immoral and yet nowhere does the bible or God or JC condemn the idea of slavery."

Really? “Treatment of women a big moral shortcoming…?” Tell ya what. Get your world map and spread it out on your desk. Make a list of all the countries that have, historically, been influenced by Christianity. Then list all the other countries. Now go look at the women’s/human rights records of all those countries and then come back on here and tell me who has the “shortcoming” on women’s rights. You guys have no idea how far off-base you are on this issue.

TW and WALTER,

Part 3 of 3

And “It (slavery) is immoral and yet nowhere does the bible or God or JC condemn the idea of slavery." Unbelievable.

Once again:

Ex 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

Mt 22:39 ....You shall love your neighbor as yourself....

Mt 7:12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

1Ti 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine...

Even if you can’t do the heavy intellectual lifting necessary to see that “love your neighbor” and “do unto others” precludes forced slavery, Exodus 21:16 and I Timothy 1:9-10 are clear enough that a child could understand them.

I have referred to these passages no less than a half-dozen times in our dialogue. Your continued insistence that God/the bible/Jesus "nowhere condemn the idea of slavery" lacks integrity. This is no longer a statement of ignorance on your part, but rather it now appears to be a purposeful dishonesty.

You boys are real pieces of work.

WALT: “rco, that's all i can do for now. i'll do parts 6-10 asap.”

RCO: You should slow down and read my posts more carefully. You have consistently missed the point so far on parts 1-5.

Posted by: RCofield | October 12, 2010 2:29 PM
--------------

that is such baloney. let's consider just the first topic:

Le 20:9
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

you suggested that if i think this is a bad rule, then i must think it's fine for kids to disobey. i said "no" they should obey their parents, but if they don't, the penalty should not be death. the death penalty is way to severe for this "crime".

part 2 of this topic was you saying that children obeying their parents is particularly important because the parent-child relationship is symbolic of the god-man relationship.

i said, the symbolism "doesn't matter". it's still excessive for parents to kill disobedient children. i further noted that modern enlightened society has special laws to protect children from "regular" laws as applied to adults.

so...how the heck is that missing your point. admittedly, i DISAGREED with your point about the god/man adult/child symbolism, but that's hardly "missing" your point.

Walter,

I think the verse you were talking about is the one where Jesus says if you have faith only as much as this mustard seed you can command a mountain to move from here to there. There are actually 5 different verses where JC says that "All you need is faith"....sung to John Lennon's song all you need is love.

Walter:"do unto others", "love your neighbor", the good samaritan etc... i kind of expected the whole thing to be like that. there's some good practical stuff like "you reap what you sow" too. i've often mused that half of our american "idiomatic expressions" can be traced to either the bible or shakespeare. so, i expected maybe pearls of wisdom, mixed in with ethical statements...i guess my expectations were too high.

Any expectations are by definition, higher than those set by believers. The idea that God would abide by his own rules -- like "thou shall not kill" is contradicted by numerous ugly stories in the bible.

Peter, there are no objective moral standards. There are cultural standards that evolve over time and generally, the arc of progress is for more equality and more freedom.

200 years ago, a woman had no say in government or business. These were primarily the result of Christian thinking regarding women's roles.

Would you agree that a world in which women not only can vote but can hold leadership positions is one that is better?

100 years ago, blacks were not allowed to marry whites in any town here in North Carolina. Would you agree that allowing people of different races to marry is an improvement over the past?

60 years ago, opposite gender couples were prevented from living together without being married. I'm assuming you believe that because unmarried couples can now live together that morals have declined (whereas freedom to live with whoever you want has certainly increased).

Currently, you can't prevent a gay couple from living together but an openly gay person still cannot serve in the military. When a person can join the service no matter what their sexual orientation, I will celebrate. You probably think it represents moral decline.

Virtually every issue raised about gays in the military were previously raised regarding women's suffrage and racial integration. And in most of these cases, conservative religious believers were on the wrong side the issue.

WALT: "when i first actually started reading the bible i was horrified by what i read. i did not come to the text expecting to find it was primitive and immoral. quite the contrary - i expected it to be morally uplifting.... "

Two questions:

First, did you find anything in your reading of the bible that was "morally uplifting?"

And second, if you did, did you make any attempt to reconcile the "horrible" verses with the "uplifting" verses?

Posted by: RCofield | October 13, 2010 1:04 AM
---------------

1)there are some good things in the bible - no doubt.

"do unto others", "love your neighbor", the good samaritan etc... i kind of expected the whole thing to be like that. there's some good practical stuff like "you reap what you sow" too. i've often mused that half of our american "idiomatic expressions" can be traced to either the bible or shakespeare. so, i expected maybe pearls of wisdom, mixed in with ethical statements...

i guess my expectations were too high.

instead, i got a cartoon story with a talking snake, global flood, superstition and revisionist history.

2)attempts to reconcile good/bad parts of bible:

well, i just figure that since people are sometimes good and sometimes bad, that it's not surprising that the bible they wrote was like that. it's the old "evolving morals" thing too. people 3000 years ago had worse morals than people 2000 years ago, so the general progression of morals in the bible makes sense from this perspective too.

walter-in-fallschurch,

What you are failing to see, because of your liberal atheistic prejudices, is that god does not have to heal amputees.

He gave each of them the gift of free will; if they do not use that gift of free will to regrow their limbs, well, that's their fault.

It's just part of his holey plan.

nothingisnew, you said,
"OK...I'll scale it down, why do horrible catastrophes happen, even to god fearing Christians? How could god let a church collapse during an earthquake and kill his followers?

"I don't need to know much about the history of Christianity to know that god doesn't care about the humans he created.
No matter how much we worship, sacrifice or kill for the Christian god, he seems rather disinterested."

indeed. or even more simply, "why won't god heal amputees?" now i know there's a verse, i'm sure rco/peter could quote it, that says something like "ask and you shall receive" and/or "if you pray for something it will happen".

so...why won't god heal amputees? not one...ever....no matter how hard or sincerely they pray?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm

i agree with this guy when he starts to talk about the "rationalizations" believers come up with to resolve the disconnect. i.e. "Everyone's life serves God in different ways. Perhaps God uses amputees to teach us something. God must have a higher purpose for amputees."

"god has a plan for amputees"...hahaha... how can they not see these "apologetics" as rationalization/excuse-making? - or indeed as "apologies" in the common sense of the word?

tw,
the acrobatics required to excuse "kill everyone in the infidel city" are as impressive and silly as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzf6E8TYsXU&feature=related

Sorry, slavery, like the treatment of women is one big moral shortcoming of most monotheistic religions and only through acrobatic interpretations can one try and talk around the issue.

Posted by: twmatthews | October 12, 2010 12:13 PM
------------------

"acrobatic". indeed. i call what peter and rco do "interpretive gymnastics" (like the silly olympic event). hard to believe it's possible to "excuse" yahweh's behavior...but there you have it.

frankly, in my view, o.t god comes off as kind of an insecure, attention-craving baby. commandments 1-4 are all about HIM. why is "blasphemy" as serious a crime as murder?

Hi RCofield,

RCO: "I know you addressed these to Peter, but I’ll be glad to reply to them (hope you don’t mind Peter)."

I never have an objection RCO. Actually I welcome your comments and insights. Sometimes there seem just too much to respond to, and I'm long winded.

Finally for the night TWMatthews,

TWM: "I don't know if you have children but I suspect that if you did, you wouldn't encourage them to kill others simply because they belonged to wrong tribe."

Again I don't know the reference.

TWM: "I'm actively trying to encourage you away from your belief. Should I be killed for that? Should I burn in hell for all eternity?"

What does your belief have to offer? Truth?
Truth is objective. What makes you think that you subjective mind, without any outside absolute, objective reference/source can know what truth is without borrowing from the Christian God?

Where does your meaning come from? How does random, chance, meaningless, purposely, matter produce meaning?

How does chance produce anything meaningful?

Nathan Busenitz, 'Reasons We Believe, p.43, quoting John Gerstner, "Reasons for Faith, p31,
"There is more in the universe than mere life. There is intelligent life. There is a kind of life which not only lives but also thinks about living...How could matter, which has no life in itself, actually produce a life which can reflect on matter and tell it that it has no life in itself."

What hope do you have for the future? If you died tomorrow what significance would your life have been from an atheist standpoint?

These are just a few of the many questions than your belief is hopelessly inadequate of giving meaning or sense to.

TWM: "The god of the bible, if he/it existed is unworthy of worship and should be cast out for all eternity. He/it is a vile creature."

You don't know Him, you have not experienced that priceless relationship that comes from abiding in Christ. You speak from the wisdom of this world which is foolish.

TWM: "And RCO: Your use of the Atheist-R-Us was cute the first time but tiresome the 4th. If you disagree with what Walter says, use the strength of your arguments to make the case. Stop with the Dennett / Harris / Dawkins bashing. They represent many ideas that make sense to me than killing my disobedient children.

These are your idols not ours. They make little sense to us. You belittle the Bible by expanding on ideas they have made popular. I have watched numerous debates by Dawkins and Hitchens. Their hatred of Christianity is obvious, and their misrepresentations have been well documented.

Hi TWMatthews,

TWM: "You also referenced Genesis to explain why God intended one man and one woman. Yet there are lots of examples of where God encourages adultery, God lays down the rules by which you should treat your first wife should you decide to take another."

God does not encourage adultery. Give me some verses in reference to your statements.

Yes, God sets this standard of A man and A woman at the very start of His dealings with His very first creatures and Jesus (who made all things and sustains all things) reaffirms this in Matthew 19:4-9.

Pay attention to verse 5,7, esp. 8,9

"Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because YOUR HEARTS WERE HARD. BUT IT WAS NOT THIS WAY FROM THE BEGINNING. I tell you that everyone who divorces his WIFE (singular), except for marital unfaithfulness, and MARRIES ANOTHER COMMITS ADULTERY."

Okay, now you make sense of these verses in accordance with your conjecture. Twist it to your hearts content. Read into it whatever you want to. BUT what does it say? Notice the capital text I supplied.

TWM: "Any reasonable person would take these at face value and reject them both since they are contradictory."

Show me the verses.

TWM: "America's secular laws have advanced far beyond those defined by God."

No they have not. They are deteriorating. Again you need to show me where your measure comes from.Whose subjective standard are you referencing? Or is it objective?

TWM: "And the problem is that there's an understanding among believers that God's laws are both moral and absolute."

Absolutely!

TWM: "And so God says thou shall not kill in one chapter and is commanding that an entire city of men, women and children be killed in another."

Yes, as an individual I have no right to murder. But I'm sure you have heard the term 'just war?' Although you again supply no Scriptural reference, just claim after claim, God in His justice is able to bring these people to justice, for He is the giver and taker of life. Everyone of us have broken His just and good standards.

TWM: "Are you so blinded by belief that you can't see the evil in this?"

Again you speak of evil, but evil cannot exist unless there is also a standard of good. Again, I ask you to point out where your standard of good comes from and is it objective? If not then what makes your 'good' anything but your preference?

The very thing you call evil comes from the sinful actions of men who suppress the truth of God. They don't recognize an objective standard so they supply their own subjective changing standards, or rather preferences, for that is what they are. They have nothing to measure or base them on.

Survival of the fittest means that whatever works becomes the rule.

You need to explain where evil comes from and what makes it evil before you criticize God. If it is just your subjective opinion then you prove my point that anything goes, because mine is different from yours. Please make sense of it.

TWM: "There is no justification for slavery. It is immoral and yet nowhere does the bible or God or JC condemn the idea of slavery. It's very specific about homosexuality but about slavery it provides rules to live by, rules of ownership if you will. But never a firm denouncement.

Okay, here is my take on it, although I agree with what RCO is expounding on and recognize that he has a better understanding on such matters than I do (1 Corinthians 12:12-31). I have not studied the matter to the same extent, to my shame, because it is a question that atheists always bring up, the same old tired argument in their beef against God.

AS RCO said to Walter, there are different types of slavery mentioned in the Bible. God called the Hebrews to be merciful to their servants/slaves and if the slave/servant was another Hebrew on the seventh year to let him go free (Ex. 21:2).

Hebrew slaves were in slavery to pay a debt. I look upon our modern example of employer/employee as a type of owner/slave relationship similar to that of the Hebrew, but not in all cases. It depends in who you work for.

If you are not self-employed you work for someone else. It is like an owner/slave relationship in that the owner/employer sets the rules, you follow them. During that work period you are under obligation to abide by his rules and by the tasks he sets. You are compensated by a wage in which you are able to live and eat off of, just as the Hebrew slave/servant was compensated by being able to pay off his debt and at the same time have a place to live and eat which he may not have otherwise been able to do.

In the same way, what I produce at work belongs to my employer. I have no right to claim it as my own because I produced it. The same applies to the slave/owner relationship. (Ex. 21:4)

Then there is the type of slavery that the Hebrews endured in Egypt, in which the Egyptians enslaved them and as owners were tough task masters. God looked upon the injustice to His people and rescued them.
He delivered them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac4GnpqXQAQ

There is a synopsis of the account of bondage written of in Exodus in the Book of Acts 7.

There is also a brief account of their bondage in Exodus 1:8-14 among other places. You should read both accounts.

God opposes this type of slavery.

Then there is the type of slavery I believe Paul referred to when he called Himself a bond servant of the Lord. (Ex. 21:5)

This type of slave/servant 'loved' his master and did not want to go free, for he recognized his master as a good man who provided well for him and his family. Out of love he wanted to do the will of his master for he knew it was good.

As for the Exodus 21:20 passage maybe RCO can provide the explanation? I need to think and pray about it.

WALTER,

WALT: "when i first actually started reading the bible i was horrified by what i read. i did not come to the text expecting to find it was primitive and immoral. quite the contrary - i expected it to be morally uplifting.... "

Two questions:

First, did you find anything in your reading of the bible that was "morally uplifting?"

And second, if you did, did you make any attempt to reconcile the "horrible" verses with the "uplifting" verses?

Correction:

The first line of the last paragraph of the previous post should read:

"I have referred to these passages no less than a HALF-dozen times in our dialogue."

TW,

TW: "There is no justification for slavery. It is immoral and yet nowhere does the bible or God or JC condemn the idea of slavery."

Once again:

Ex 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

Mt 22:39 ....You shall love your neighbor as yourself....

Mt 7:12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

1Ti 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,

1Ti 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine...

I have referred to these passages no less than a dozen times in our dialogue. Your continued insistence that God/the bible/Jesus "nowhere condemn the idea of slavery" lacks integrity. This is no longer a statement of ignorance on your part, but is now a purposeful dishonesty.

WALTER,

Congratulations. You finished the marathon on the slavery issue.

We began this epic with you contending that the bible said NOTHING that would prohibit forced slavery and me contending that you were wrong.

I think I have made a legitimate case for my position with a reasoned defense of the biblical text. Given your last round of posts, you obviously do not agree.

So...I have only one final question for you on this issue: Are you willing to concede any part of your original position or any part of your argumentation on the bible's treatment of slavery?

It is only reasonable that I tell you this in advance: I concede no part of my original position on this matter. I stand by my argumentation in its entirety.

TW,

TW: "Stop with the Dennett / Harris / Dawkins bashing. They represent many ideas that make sense to me..."

Ummm....You mean like Dawkins' speculation that "extra-terrestrial beings" may have seeded the first life-forms on this planet? Is this the kind of "idea that makes sense to you?"

Hi TWMatthews,

I see we are into a running commentary now.

TWM: "I think Peter, you suffer from the same illness that has infected RCO, bending and twisting, pulling a verse here and a verse there in order to justify your faith in what to me, is presented as a heinous excuse for morals."

Saying so does not make it so TWM.
RCO has challenged Walter and you to back up your statement by Scripture. Are you willing to do that? What makes you think your interpretation is 'right?'

Have you considered the possibility that it is your world-view that suffers from illness? Your world-view strains everything through its unbending distortion of God. You talk about moral good and evil and use yourself as the ultimate judge, the ultimate benchmark, the final say, definer of what is good, but what makes you so? This is the biggest problem with the atheist world-view. You want to persuade others that you have a valid view of life but cannot account for meaning and morals and the things that really matter. And you bring the moral argument into almost every blog when you judge and use qualitative language like 'good, justify, evil, right, wrong, should, must,' and all the rest.

Show me why your measure is ultimate, why it can be trusted, what makes it objective.

As Francis Collins said in 'The Language of God, p. 30&66 as stated by Nathan Busenitz in 'Reasons We Believe, p.54,

"I had started this journey of intellectual exploration to confirm my atheism. That now lay in ruins as the argument from the Moral Law (and many other issues) forced me to admit the plausibility of the God hypothesis. Agnosticism, which had seemed like a safe second-place haven, now loomed like the great cop-out it often is. Faith in God now seemed more rational than disbelief."

Later he concludes,

"After twenty-eight years as a believer, the Moral Law still stands out for me as the strongest signpost to God. More than that, it points to a God who cares about human beings, and a God who is infinitely good and holy."

peterhuff,

"Are you ready?"

To die? Not yet. Are you?

"Do you have hope?"

Hope for what?

"Do they have hope?"

Does who have hope?

"Have you thought about what happens when you die,..."

Yes I have; have you?

"...if you are wrong,..."

I've been wrong about a lot; have you ever been wrong?

"...if you chose the wrong path,...

I've often chosen the wrong path; have you ever chosen the wrong path?

"...you believed a lie rather than the truth?"

I believe nothing; do you know if you are believing a lie, or the truth?

"What reasons will you give when you stand before the living God for breaking His holy laws, for all the wrongs you have done in your lifetime?"

I'm not assuming that that will happen; are you?

What reasons will you give if you find yourself standing before something other than your imaginary god?

TW,

Just read your latest two posts to me, and I am just sitting here shaking my head in astonishment. Do you suffer from A.D.D.??!! I was responding to a specific question you asked me about homosexuals...and not ONE of your responses to what I wrote had ANYTHING to do with the subject at hand....Man! Your question to me was:

"So RCO, which is it in your mind? Is homosexuality a sin and people who engage in that should be ostracized, converted to non sinful ways, prevented from leadership positions (deacons, pastors). Or is it more important to treat someone as you would like to be treated?"

Did you completely forget what the question was? Good grief.

If you are going to become that irrational and incoherent I honestly don't see how we can have a productive dialogue. TW, I honestly thought, more than once, as I was reading your reply "he is not responding to me. There is something else going on here." Wow.

And this: I said "NO text of scripture is to be interpreted on the basis of subjective, personal belief, whether it be mine or yours. Scripture is the objective revelation of our Creator who is the Ultimate Moral Authority by the very right of His being our Creator. As such, it is without contradiction; else it would not be the Word of God. So it doesn’t really matter what I think it says or what you think it says. What matters is what God actually did say."

To which you responded: "Oh, it's without contradiction huh? And all those people burning witches, they just didn't have the proper channel tuning into God. Is that what happened?"

Proper channel tuning? TW, did you honestly not understand that my reference to what God has "actually said" was a reference to His WRITTEN Word...you know, the bible? One doesn't have to have "proper channel tuning" to understand "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is PLAINLY written and totally unambiguous, for heaven's sake. Did it ever occur to you that those who "burned witches" were doing so in willful disobedience of the clearly recorded teachings of Christ?

Also, several of your statements made me wonder if you read my posts to you @ 4:19 PM & 4:20 PM.

I've talked to lot of atheists in my time, but I have had very few exchanges that were that contextually disconnected.

I see only two possibilities here: We are either completely talking past one another or you just spazzed out. Which is it?

TWM, btw, the Mormons deny certain teachings of Jesus and preach a different gospel.

TWM: "Oh and speaking of polygamy, I could take the time to pull them up, but there are lots of instances where the bible sees no problem with more than one wife. Is this an example of a moral truth? Is it still valid."

God permitted it but it is not ideal. There are many things that God permits now that He will later judge, either in Christ or on the persons own merit. Man in not listening to God has done many things that go against the good that God has commanded. That is the nature of rebellion and sin.

I'd like you to point to the specific verses where God condones it if you would.

TWM: "And one last point. Didn't God encourage Abraham to impregnate his servant? Isn't that God encouraging adultery? What gives with that?..."

The LORD made a promise to Abraham that He did not break. He promised him an heir through his wife. It was Sarai/Sarah, Abram's/Abraham's who took matters into her own hands by supplying the maid-servant Hagar, for she thought the LORD had kept her from having children.

TWM: "And because God tells you to do it Peter, does that make it good?"

By His word?

Yes, for God has a reason, sees the whole picture, the end from the beginning, and knows the purpose and the good that will come from what He asks. He allowed Joseph to be sold into slavery in Egypt for a purpose that would unfold many years later in the saving of the Israelites. What the brothers meant as evil God allowed for the later good.

As Joseph said to his brothers, "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good, to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives." (Genesis 50:20)

He allows suffering and death for those we know and love(as the result of the Fall), and also for ourselves, for they teach us many things about life; its shortness, what really matters, compassion for others because we have been through the same kind of trials and it strengthens our faith, our reliance and dependence on Him.

America has had it really good, but even in your life and the life of those you love there will come a time and season of suffering and death. Are you ready? Do you have hope? Do they have hope? Have you thought about what happens when you die, if you are wrong, if you chose the wrong path, you believed a lie rather than the truth? What reasons will you give when you stand before the living God for breaking His holy laws, for all the wrongs you have done in your lifetime?

Correction from my last post:
Stop with the Dennett / Harris / Dawkins bashing. They represent many ideas that make more sense to me than killing my disobedient children.

Peter said, "These are just a couple of many Scriptural passages that give the Christian insight and into God's moral rights. He teachings in various ways, by analogy, by actual examples, by plan narrative, by figurative language through His Spirit."

TWM: I think Peter, you suffer from the same illness that has infected RCO, bending and twisting, pulling a verse here and a verse there in order to justify your faith in what to me, is presented as a heinous excuse for morals. There is no justification for slavery. It is immoral and yet nowhere does the bible or God or JC condemn the idea of slavery. It's very specific about homosexuality but about slavery it provides rules to live by, rules of ownership if you will. But never a firm denouncement.

You also referenced Genesis to explain why God intended one man and one woman. Yet there are lots of examples of where God encourages adultery, God lays down the rules by which you should treat your first wife should you decide to take another.

Any reasonable person would take these at face value and reject them both since they are contradictory. America's secular laws have advanced far beyond those defined by God. And the problem is that there's an understanding among believers that God's laws are both moral and absolute. And so God says thou shall not kill in one chapter and is commanding that an entire city of men, women and children be killed in another.

Are you so blinded by belief that you can't see the evil in this? I don't know if you have children but I suspect that if you did, you wouldn't encourage them to kill others simply because they belonged to wrong tribe. I'm actively trying to encourage you away from your belief. Should I be killed for that? Should I burn in hell for all eternity?

The god of the bible, if he/it existed is unworthy of worship and should be cast out for all eternity. He/it is a vile creature.

And RCO: Your use of the Atheist-R-Us was cute the first time but tiresome the 4th. If you disagree with what Walter says, use the strength of your arguments to make the case. Stop with the Dennett / Harris / Dawkins bashing. They represent many ideas that make sense to me than killing my disobedient children.

tw, you said,
"I actually liked the idea of passage on the ark. Very clever. It seems as if God is not particularly just. Many innocent bystanders seem to get caught up in all his holiness

re passage on the ark: why/how did god save gonorrhea?

http://paleo.cc/ce/ark-disease.htm

and
"Disease Germs
Humankind is the only known "reservoir" for numerous communicable diseases. That is, the germs or viruses which cause these diseases can survive only in living human bodies or well-equipped laboratories. Well-known examples include measles, pneumococcal pneumonia, leprosy, typhus, typhoid fever, small pox, poliomyelitis, syphilis, and gonorrhea. The scientific creationists insist on a completed creation, in which the creator worked but six days and has been resting ever since. Thus, between them, Adam and Eve had to have been created with every disease and had to have passed them all to their children. Later, somebody must have carried them onto Noah's ark.

Note that the argument covers every disease germ or virus which can survive only in a specific host. But even if the ark was a floating pesthouse, few of these diseases could have survived. In most cases, only two animals of each "kind" are supposed to have been on the ark. Suppose the male of such a pair came down with such a disease shortly after the ark embarked. He recovered but passed the disease to his mate. She recovered, too, but had no other animal to pass the disease to, for the male was now immune. Every disease for which this cycle lasts less than a year should therefore have become extinct. Furthermore, fatal diseases would have caused both the host animals and the diseases to disappear."

from http://ncse.com/book/export/html/3038 page 16

Hi TWMatthews,

Big surprise. Went to the doctor this afternoon and I get a reprieve from work until Friday, possibly Monday depending on how I feel so I have a chance to catch up to some extent if that is ever possible.

ME: "Do you not think that placing the man as head of the wife would give unity to a marriage in that there would be one head of the house so as not to divide the household with two different and divided opinions at times?"

TW: "Well, that reasoning has been used by Mormons for more than 100 years. Man is the head of the household whether that be with 1 wife or 4. Do you think that gives unity to marriage?"

First, for a godly man who has submitted himself to the leading of the Spirit and abiding in Christ, he will be led by the Spirit. That means one man one wife as per RCO's response citing Genesis 2:24.

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

This is God's intent for marriage because it is also a picture of what takes place in the life of the Christian. We were bought with a price when Christ died for us, we are His bride, united in love.

Look at all the times throughout the OT in which God is RIGHTEOUSLY jealous for his people Israel. The same is true for His bride. He calls us to be faithful, not to commit spiritual adultery, just like the Israelites committed adultery by worshiping other gods and putting all kinds of idols above Him, so too He calls His bride to be faithful in their love for Him and putting Him first.

Just as the actual historical tabernacle in the desert and its implements, the actual physical sacrifices, shedding of blood, atonement for sin in the OT, the priesthood, etc., are a lesson, a picture, a copy, a typology of a spiritual truth in Christ (see Hebrews 7-10), in the same way marriage as intended by God is a picture of a bride (the church) who is faithful to her betrothed (the Lord Jesus Christ).

As the Lord Jesus Christ explained to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, "And beginning with Moses and all the Phrophets, He explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself" or to the eleven in the upper room, "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." (Luke 24:24, 44b)

These are just a couple of many Scriptural passages that give the Christian insight and into God's moral rights. He teachings in various ways, by analogy, by actual examples, by plan narrative, by figurative language through His Spirit.

more (part 10 of 10)

so...IF i concede discussion that 1tim1:10 prohibits slave ownership, THEN there's a bible contradiction:

the old testament approves of it (lev25:46 and ex21:4 and others) and the new testament doesn't? why the change of heart?
-----------------

wow... holy moly... i think that's all i can respond to... your turn, rco.

I Timothy 1:8 “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, ENSLAVERS, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine…

WALTER,

(Part 10 of 10)

you said,
"Did you catch that? ENSLAVERS. The Greek word here translated “enslavers” is “andrapodistes,” literally meaning “a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer; ONE WHO UNJUSTLY REDUCES FREE MEN TO SLAVERY.” Well, how about that? Don’t you feel juuuust a little silly? "

like i said earlier, congrats on your proof-text. you found the one verse in the one verion of the bible (esv) that translates it with part of the word "slavery" in it. "enslaved". i really didn't know that was in there. and i wasn't, for me, or almost anyone else. the esv bible translation is the only one i can find with "enslaver". i'm not saying it's wrong translation. also, note that your explanation of "andrapodistes" includes the word "unjustly". as in "unjustly reduces a man to slavery". like there's a "just" and "unjust" slavery. anyway, it really seems to be dealing with slave traders - like the business of buying/selling/transporting slaves - not so much garden-variety owners.

and it really does seem like these verses approve of and regulate SLAVERY:

lev25:46 "You can will them [slaves] to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life..."

and ex21:4 "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

if you step back and consider it w/o the idea that god (supposedly) wrote it, it's clearly regulating owning people.

more (part 9 of 10)

you said,
"So why all of your posturing and chest-thumping about God being pro-slavery? Why do you posit all of these absurd declarations about “modern society’s morality” being “better” than the morality of God because “we know slavery is bad?” Well, you probably got a whiff of this straw-man argument from reading one of the books by the New Atheism apostles, “googled” it and found all kinds of pontification on this issue on the Atheists-R-Us websites, and then it was off to the races. (I’ve read the books and visited the websites, and your arguments are virtually verbatim regurgitations of what I have read.) Then, armed with this pseudo-knowledge, you turn to the bible (or just cut-and-pasted the passages from Atheists-R-Us….?). With the erroneous presupposition that God “condoned” forced slavery you begin “proof-texting” passages that seem to “prove” what you had already determined. Problem is, your anti-theistic approach to the bible precludes your being able to understand what is actually being said in the text."

"Every one of the passages you have offered yields a more accurate and sensible interpretation when filtered through what I have presented above. If you doubt this, re-examine them, and if there are any that you have doubts about I will be happy to exposit them for you."

no not at all. your trying to excuse these sexist, primitive , race/religionist verses only shows how your presuppositions about the goodness of god causes you to rationalize how they could possibly mean god is good. believe me. when i first actually started reading the bible i was horrified by what i read. i did not come to the text expecting to find it was primitive and immoral. quite the contrary - i expected it to be morally uplifting.... and came across things like

(beginning with) deut20:13
When the LORD your God delivers it [a city] into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

and, of course i use google to get info. you don't? a person would be stupid not to. i love my google machine.

(Part 9 of 10)

And deliver them He did, bringing severe judgment on the nation that had enslaved them. Now Walter does this sound like God “condones” and “advocates” forced slavery? I think the answer is obvious. Now here is the kicker. Consider this passage: Ex 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Pretty clear, huh? Not only was the one who “stole” a person and forced them into slavery to be put to death, but anyone found in possession of such a “forced” slave was to be put to death. God didn’t deliver the Israelites out of the bondage of forced slavery to then turn around and “condone” and “advocate” them forcing others into slavery.

interesting because ex21:16 seems similar to that 1tim1:10 verse. they seem to be talking about slave traders. i know by implication, that would include slave owners, but what about slaves bought from among local temporary residents? why don't these verses say "slave-owners"? (granted "your" version of the bible (esv) does say "enslavers" - but then has an explanatory note saying this means "people in the slave trade".)

more (part 8 of 10)

you said,
"First, it must be pointed out that God delivered the nation of Israel FROM this form of slavery. Exodus 1:13 So they (the Egyptians) ruthlessly made the people of Israel work as slaves 14 and made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and brick, and in all kinds of work in the field. In all their work they ruthlessly made them work as slaves. Exodus 2:23 During those many days….the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. 24 And God heard their groaning…Exodus 3:7 Then the LORD said, “I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters. I know their sufferings, 8 and I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey…

yes, yes. slavery is always bad when it's imposed on you. but those slavery verses i just referenced discriminated between hebrews and aliens/foreigners etc... "the rules are different for us." those verses they plainly regulated good-old-fashioned humans-are-property slavery.

(Part 8 of 10)

you said,
"I asked you to define what, exactly, that you found “immoral” about slavery to which you responded that slavery was immoral because it deprived individuals of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Subsequently, I pointed out that this type of “forced” slavery to which you were objecting was not the only category of slavery that existed during biblical times....Additionally there was the common practice of the “bondservant” in which one who sold themselves into slavery would, after fulfilling their obligation to their master, desired to continue serving him for the remainder of their lives. This was often the case when a “slave” had become so much a part of his “master’s” family that he was willing to subject himself to his master for life. Both of these types of slavery were simple economic and cultural realities of biblical times.

i understand the difference between "slave" and "employee". that lovely scenario you describe where, after his debt is paid, the slave and family chooses to stick around may be because the women and children slaves are the slaveowners PROPERTY forever. sure...they say to the male slave, "you're free to go. but your wife and child remain here."

god instructs israelites to take slaves:
lev25:44-46

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

ex21:2-4

2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

that is sexist and slavist! so honestly i don't know the nuances of the word each translation chooses to use in each instance. if there is even one "pro-slavery" verse in the bible, it's one too many for the perfection. those verses above are about a person owning another person's descendents. it's about people owning people - and not in the servant/employee way.

(Part 7 of 10)

you said,
"I think you owe me a reasonable response to a particular issue that I raised earlier (to which you never responded). You insist that modern morality is more “evolved” and “superior” to the morality of previous centuries and even the morality of the bible. I think this is an utterly indefensible position. If you do not agree, how do you deal with this:

"Fifty million recorded abortions in America since 1973, roughly 800 million worldwide since 1920...200 million war casualties during the 20 century alone, myriad cold-blooded genocides, shameless eugenics, underground sex-slave trade worldwide involving hundreds of thousands of children, rampant pedophilia, mass sterilization of the "unfit", encroaching euthanasia....Yes, Walter, our "evolved" morality is really something to behold, isn't it? Dear God, man. You can't POSSIBLY be THAT disconnected from reality.

abortion is a horrible realitye. while abortions are terrible, they are not human sacrifice at the alter of someone's god. your equating abortion and ritual religious child sacrifice is a bit of a stretch. i see where you're going with it, but it seems extreme. but if you're right then shouldn't good christians and jews kill everyone else living in cities today where abortions are legal? or do you advocate, contra-scripture, killing just the mother, father, doctor (and maybe nurses and assistants)? would you kill the person who drove the mother to/from the abortion clinic as an accomplice?

but back to the real world for a moment. i presume you think abortion should be illegal. i wonder, totally seriously, how many abortions that would prevent? probably quite a few. maybe 1/2? i think, intuitively, that if abortions go "underground" that they'll become much more dangerous to the mother. how much more dangerous? i suppose you'll say that's her risk. god may take mom too...as punishment. (isn't eternal life in hell enough punishment...?)

is there some kind of compromise here? how about abortions only before one month old? or the morning after pill? stem cell research? i imagine you want none of those things, right?

the war casualties are not a product of any declining (anymore than in the old days) morality. the big numbers you can cite are a product of technology. i think the numbers put up by hitler and stalin were because they had better means of killing people. i bet if ivan the terrible or genghis khan came along in the 20th century they could have killed like stalin and hitler.

Excuse me for butting in Walter. You're doing admirably well on your own. But I need to stick my 2 cents into RCO's discussion on abortion and his apologies for God killing men, women and children.

RCO said,
"Of course, Israel eventually did begin to adopt Canaanite worship practices, even sacrificing their children to Molech…and God cast them out of Palestine as well. How immoral of Him…right? And btw, what do you think the implications are here when we have aborted 50 million of our own children (sacrificing them on the “alter” of women’s “rights”)? I’m sure God will just turn a blind eye to such atrocities, I mean, after all, our moral standards are so much “higher” than His, right? Excuse me for a moment while I go and be sick."

TWM: Science estimates that about 25% of all conceptions lead to miscarriage, most not even knowing they were pregnant. Who caused these miscarriages in your mind RCO? Is it just sh*t happens or is this all part of God's plan? If it's God's plan then God is the greatest abortionist of all time.

And when does a fertilized egg become human? Does god implant a soul at conception? And what happens when the egg splits post conception? Does God have to make a follow-up call (quick, one soul to go and stat)?

even more (part 6 of 10)

you said,
"Of course, Israel eventually did begin to adopt Canaanite worship practices, even sacrificing their children to Molech…and God cast them out of Palestine as well. How immoral of Him…right? And btw, what do you think the implications are here when we have aborted 50 million of our own children (sacrificing them on the “alter” of women’s “rights”)? I’m sure God will just turn a blind eye to such atrocities, I mean, after all, our moral standards are so much “higher” than His, right? Excuse me for a moment while I go and be sick."

yes, well, i'm sure no society today would endorse a religion where child sacrifice was practiced. or where the death penalty is prescribed for breaking ANY of the 10 commandments or many many other "laws" of moses. this illustrates man's (and woman's) moral evolution.

RCO: Well, if you and your gay friend are Jewish and living under God’s theocratic rule of Israel 3500 years ago (maybe a time warp?), and you are absolutely certain (and have witnesses) that your friend is practicing homosexuality, I’d say you probably need to break out the stones (no…not THOSE stones!).

TWM: Well said, except for god calls for them to be stoned (maybe they will also need some Fritos).

Look, if you want to, you can throw the entire old testament away but that would certainly be a blow to the idea that God wrote these rules to be forever. And the idea that JC rewrote the rules would be believable except for he didn't really say which rules he was replacing.

TW: What is evil? Is it evil to kill all of humanity and most of the animals except for one family or is that "love"?

RCO: No, that is severe but just judgment dispensed by an infinitely holy and omniscient God as a result of humanity’s utter rebellion. And don’t forget, He DID offer them passage on the Ark.

TWM: I actually liked the idea of passage on the ark. Very clever. It seems as if God is not particularly just. Many innocent bystanders seem to get caught up in all his holiness. When you are completely innocent and you get killed while God is demonstrating his wrath (think of first born Egyptians caught in Pharaoh's cross fire), what do you call that "friendly fire" or maybe "holy fire"?

more (part 6 of 10)

De. 13:12 “If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God is giving you to dwell there, 13 that certain worthless fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, 14 then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently. And behold, if it be true and certain that such an abomination has been done among you, 15 you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword."

you said,
"As I have elsewhere pointed out to you the atrocities commonly committed by the Canaanites, I’ll be brief here. The Canaanite practices of infanticide (sacrificing their children to the pagan god “Molech”), and temple prostitution were abominable practices. When the passage above cites those who say “let us go and serve other gods,” this is the kind of “gods” that are in view. The God of Israel warned them repeatedly that it was for just such practices as this that He was “casting out” the Canaanites from the land, and that Israel was to avoid such wicked practices. The stringent penalty served the “greater good” of preserving the nation of Israel from participating in the infanticidal practices of their atrocity-committing “neighbors.” You do agree that the practice of infanticide is immoral…don’t you?"

oh, come on... this verse is not about protecting children. it's about putting people of the wrong religion "to the sword".

were the israelites told to save all children of sacrificing age...? nope. they were told the go in an kill EVERYBODY...INCLUDING THE CHILDREN you're supposing they were concerned about. it's just bad math to go in and kill everybody to make sure a few aren't killed...and not even save those few...bad plan, bad plan. it's just god over-reacting again.

RCO: Whoops, wrong again TW. Not even close, and no cigar for you. The bible nowhere teaches that polygamy is God’s purpose for marriage. If you will go look at the passages you are referring to you will find that every one of these men who had multiple wives had major problems in their households and God nowhere approved polygamy. God was very clear on this “one man/one woman” marriage thing right out of the chute in Genesis 2. Nothing’s changed.

TWM: Well, I'm sorry to disagree with you RCO but apparently when I read the bible and it doesn't criticize something but provides the rules under which that something operates, I think that's approval. In the case of the following bible passage, what we have here is a twofer. It contains more rules regarding slavery and multiple wives. And God seems pretty accepting of it.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.

TWM: Maybe the shoe is on the other foot. Rather than criticize our understanding of the words, just step back and read some of these awful verses. If you didn't believe so much, I'm sure you'd come around to a reasonable understanding that (1) selling your daughter into slavery is wrong, (2) slavery itself is wrong.

This virus that Walter and I suffer from is called reason. You should try it sometime instead of making excuses for a few thousand year old myth and stop trying to turn that lead of the bible into gold.

rco,
(Part 6 of 10)

you said,
"Now, let me show you what “sexism” really looks like. You champion the “right” of a woman to murder the child in her womb. In China there is a “one child per family” policy. Given the Oriental emphasis on male children, this has lead to the Draconian family planning practice of ABORTING MOST FEMALE CHILDREN. This has resulted in such a radical genocide of females that the vast majority of Chinese men have no hope of ever marrying….because teenage Chinese males now out-number teenage Chinese women 2-1! That, my friend, is sexism. And keep in mind that it is you who contends that “modern morality” is more “evolved” and “superior.” Give me a break."

well, in a way, you're right. this is sexism. this is NOT about abortion, it's about sexism. abortion is the means to getting boy babies. it's actually more of a throwback to the same sexism promoted in the bible that values a woman at 3/5 a man - for labor purposes...- and requires twice the "post birth purification" after a girl as a boy. it's just a fact that ancient societies were all about the boys. and still today in china people do prefer boy children. given the population disparity, it's obvious there's lot's of sexist girl-killing going on.

the fact that it's happening is not a "modern enlightened" sentiment. it's old fashioned sexism. they really wanted boy babies... modern technology just makes pre-birth sex determination and abortion possible. in the old days, had the govt. made that one-baby rule, people would have killed girls as as newborns (and maybe ate them in soup!) instead of abortions. surely the rural chinese today who have no sonograms etc..wait until after their girl is born to kill her.

Hey RCO, I ran out of space and have to continue here.

RCO: Now, why do you correct/instruct/teach and discipline your child thus? Because you love him, right?

TWM: Right, you correct them to teach them better next time. And how exactly does hell teach them anything? In fact, Jesus was pretty emphatic about the existence of hell. But there's not much chance of correction is there? Hell doesn't really provide much of a teaching opportunity, does it? There's no early parole. There's no get out of hell free card, at least not once you're in there. No, eternity is kind of permanent so if you didn't get the message or you believed in the wrong "holy books" that's too bad.

This is nothing like the love I experience.

RCO: I know when I was growing up I often thought my father was as mean as the devil. Mr. Cofield didn’t tolerate foolishness. Now, 30 + years after the fact, I look back and sometimes wonder if he was not the wisest, most loving, caring man I have ever known. And I thank God that I had a father who loved me enough to not allow me to destroy myself.

TWM: I won't pretend to understand you and your father's relationship. The God described in the bible is anything but loving. There's a big difference between teaching something to help them and being mean. You used the word mean. I wouldn't call that loving.

RCO: I think the mistake you are making here is that you are insisting on a false “either/or” dichotomy based largely on a misunderstanding of both sets of texts and sheer subjectivism. Notice:

TW: Hmmmm. Is that a word subjectivism? Oh well. You might be right. I don't have the advantage of have the holy spirit/ghost interpreting the text for me. And you need to be careful of the word sheer. You'll get Psolus starting to covet again.

RCO: NO text of scripture is to be interpreted on the basis of subjective, personal belief, whether it be mine or yours. Scripture is the objective revelation of our Creator who is the Ultimate Moral Authority by the very right of His being our Creator. As such, it is without contradiction; else it would not be the Word of God. So it doesn’t really matter what I think it says or what you think it says. What matters is what God actually did say.

TWM: Oh, it's without contradiction huh? And all those people burning witches, they just didn't have the proper channel tuning into God. Is that what happened? Why doesn't God the father use cell phones? I bet he could get a real deal on an extended family plan.

TWM: Notice the section I highlighted above. And just how exactly do you know that you're "hearing" God and it's not just some voice that you want to hear?

RCO: Do you “ostracize” your child if they steal something? No. You correct them sternly and expect them to stop stealing. If your child lies, do you reject them altogether? Certainly not!

TWM: Yes, but if your daughter commits adultery and you stone them as sanctioned in the bible, there really is nothing else is there? I mean stoning someone means never having to say I forgive you, right? (Cultural reference "Love Story" right before he killed her because she was not a virgin).

RCO: If your child cheats on an exam and is caught, do you ban them from ever sitting at the dinner table with the rest of the family?

TWM: Okay, so the story I was referring to before that you indicated was nonexistent, can be found in Numbers 21:5-9. Here's what happened. People were hungry. They complained. God, being the perfect every loving and patient being, sent fiery serpents and much people of Israel died.

If you want an analogy. You're driving along with your children (I'll use my family so as not to offend you). The 3 boys are 2 1/2 years apart. They've always been fed but about 3 hours into the trip they start complaining. If I were to handle this like God, I'd pull over, beat them to a pulp and admonish them never to doubt me again.

This your idea of a perfect God?

WALTER,

WALT: "rco, please let me get all 10 posts of yours addressed before you comment on my comments to "the horrible verses". thanks."

.... :-) Certainly, my dear Watson.

TW,

Part 1 of 3

RCO: No sore back here, TW. I think you are the one “bending and leaning” if you think one can “love neighbor as self” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and still force their neighbor into slavery. And who said anything about “excluding” gays?

TW: “As you are careful to remind Walter with every one of your posts, you are picking only certain sections and not reading it holistically :-) The point I was making is that a good part of the Anglican denomination is being split….”

RCO: Hey! Wait a minute here. I read your whole post. Even went back and read it a second time. You didn’t say anything about the Anglicans….. :-) Nah. Just pulling your leg. I knew what you were referring to, I just wanted you to articulate something concrete for me to deal with.

TW: “The point I was making is that a good part of the Anglican denomination is being split because of the difference between how you interpret men sleeping with men versus treat people as you want to be treated. In my own church, a number of families are threatening to leave because our denomination has recently decided to accept committed, gay couples as full members to be embraced into the body of the church. The difference between those families leaving and those staying is the same issue that I accuse you and Peter of doing; cherry picking scripture to support to your personal moral standards.

RCO: I think the mistake you are making here is that you are insisting on a false “either/or” dichotomy based largely on a misunderstanding of both sets of texts and sheer subjectivism. Notice:

TW: “What Peter doesn't seem to realize is that the choice of which scripture you cite to make a point is a judgment and it's based on your personal morals. If those revealed in scripture were so clear, why is it that so many people get it so wrong, so often?

RCO: NO text of scripture is to be interpreted on the basis of subjective, personal belief, whether it be mine or yours. Scripture is the objective revelation of our Creator who is the Ultimate Moral Authority by the very right of His being our Creator. As such, it is without contradiction; else it would not be the Word of God. So it doesn’t really matter what I think it says or what you think it says. What matters is what God actually did say.

TW,

Part 2 of 3

TW: So RCO, which is it in your mind? Is homosexuality a sin and people who engage in that should be ostracized, converted to non sinful ways, prevented from leadership positions (deacons, pastors). Or is it more important to treat someone as you would like to be treated?

RCO: Both. Here is how.

Scripture is clear and unambiguous that homosexuality is sin that destroys people’s lives. Anyone, (Anglicans included), who contends that it is not and does not is being dishonest with the text. Anyone who has actually read the bible in its entirety knows this.

Scripture teaches with equal clarity that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. As virtually no one disagrees with that one I will not elaborate.

Are these two sets of passages in contradiction to each other? Well, to hear the average atheist tell it they certainly are. You asked “should homosexuals be ostracized?” And then, “Or is it more important to treat someone as you would like to be treated?” This is absurd on the face of it if one stops and thinks for moment.

Do you “ostracize” your child if they steal something? No. You correct them sternly and expect them to stop stealing. If your child lies, do you reject them altogether? Certainly not! If your child cheats on an exam and is caught, do you ban them from ever sitting at the dinner table with the rest of the family? Not at all. In all of these cases you patiently teach, instruct, discipline (even severely if necessary), etc. until the child learns not to steal/lie/cheat. Does the child get promoted to “Eagle Scout” and is he held up as an example of moral rectitude while he is lying/cheating/stealing? Well, no! Hold on to that paragraph in your mind for a moment.

TW,

Part 3 of 3

Now, why do you correct/instruct/teach and discipline your child thus? Because you love him, right? I mean, if you just turned a blind eye to his aberrant, self-destructive behavior, how could you possibly claim to love him? After all, if you don’t discipline him he will destroy himself.

I know when I was growing up I often thought my father was as mean as the devil. Mr. Cofield didn’t tolerate foolishness. Now, 30 + years after the fact, I look back and sometimes wonder if he was not the wisest, most loving, caring man I have ever known. And I thank God that I had a father who loved me enough to not allow me to destroy myself.

You see, my father both disciplined me and loved me at the same time. In fact, looking back over the years, I can’t separate the two.

Apply the lesson.

I’m going to take a walk and spend a little time remembering and honoring my father.

rco, please let me get all 10 posts of yours addressed before you comment on my comments to "the horrible verses". thanks.

RCofield,

"What is your position on polygamy?"

Top, bottom, middle, side; I have no problem with it.

"Moral or immoral?"

Neither.

"Should it be made legal in all 50 states?"

That's up the individual states (and DC).

WALTER, TW, PSOLUS,

BTW: What is your position on polygamy? Moral or immoral? Should it be made legal in all 50 states?

(I know, PSOLUS. I can see you warming up in the bullpen on this one.)

TW,

TW (to Peter): And one last point. Didn't God encourage Abraham to impregnate his servant? Isn't that God encouraging adultery? What gives with that? (By the way, if I got the name wrong I'm sorry. I didn't get a chance to look up which one of those fictitious guys it was where God told him to have at it with his slave / servant).

RCO: TW, TW, TW. You are in rare form today. You got the “name” right, but you sure butchered the facts. I’ll let you sort that one out. (This is my covert way of getting atheists [or agnostics such as yourself and Walter] to read their bibles…..Oh my goodness! Did I say that out loud? I guess the proverbial cat is out of the bag now, isn’t it?) :-)

You really do need to try reading through the bible at least once without the reading glasses you purchased at “Atheists-R-Us.”

TW, (Walter, you need to read this as well)

TW (to Peter): “Oh and speaking of polygamy, I could take the time to pull them up, but there are lots of instances where the bible sees no problem with more than one wife. Is this an example of a moral truth? Is it still valid?”

Whoops, wrong again TW. Not even close, and no cigar for you. The bible nowhere teaches that polygamy is God’s purpose for marriage. If you will go look at the passages you are referring to you will find that every one of these men who had multiple wives had major problems in their households and God nowhere approved polygamy. God was very clear on this “one man/one woman” marriage thing right out of the chute in Genesis 2. Nothing’s changed.

I know that if the bible did put its stamp of approval on polygamy it would fit very nicely with your agenda, but the mere fact that you want this to be the case does not make it so.

You and Walter are suffering from the same virus when it comes to your interpretation of scripture. That is the virus of “proof-texting,” and its distinguishing symptom is eisegesis--forcing your own meaning into the text—the exact opposite of sound exegesis. I’ll send you a bill for the “clinical diagnosis.” You already have the cure—the bible. Just read it and let it speak for itself.

TW, (Walter, you need to read this as well)

TW (to Peter): “Oh and speaking of polygamy, I could take the time to pull them up, but there are lots of instances where the bible sees no problem with more than one wife. Is this an example of a moral truth? Is it still valid?”

Whoops, wrong again TW. Not even close, and no cigar for you. The bible nowhere teaches that polygamy is God’s purpose for marriage. If you will go look at the passages you are referring to you will find that every one of these men who had multiple wives had major problems in their households and God nowhere approved polygamy. God was very clear on this “one man/one woman” marriage thing right out of the chute in Genesis 2. Nothing’s changed.

I know that if the bible did put its stamp of approval on polygamy it would fit very nicely with your agenda, but the mere fact that you want this to be the case does not make it so.

You and Walter are suffering from the same virus when it comes to your interpretation of scripture. That is the virus of “proof-texting,” and its distinguishing symptom is eisegesis--forcing your own meaning into the text—the exact opposite of sound exegesis. I’ll send you a bill for the “clinical diagnosis.” You already have the cure—the bible. Just read it and let it speak for itself.

Hey TW,

Part 1 of 2

I know you addressed these to Peter, but I’ll be glad to reply to them (hope you don’t mind Peter).

TW: “How do you judge which moral laws that God presents in the bible, you are to follow-- especially since they are often times contradictory? Shall I stone my gay friend for (presumably) having sex with his partner or shall I welcome him into my house like Jesus said we should do?”

RCO: Well, if you and your gay friend are Jewish and living under God’s theocratic rule of Israel 3500 years ago (maybe a time warp?), and you are absolutely certain (and have witnesses) that your friend is practicing homosexuality, I’d say you probably need to break out the stones (no…not THOSE stones!).

If not, you should welcome him into your home and do everything you can to convince him of the destructive nature of his lifestyle. Just don’t turn your back on him when you bend over….(Oh, my goodness…that was really ugly, wasn’t it?...I’m so sorry. But you do get the point…..OH NO! I did it again….I really shouldn’t poke fun….aaaarrrrrggghhhh!)

TW: “Shall I stone my wife for working for my company for 6 days and then working on the house and yard on the Sabbath?”

Well, if you and your wife are Jewish, living in Israel 3500 years ago, etc., and she is working on the house and yard on SATURDAY (you do know that the Jewish Sabbath was on Saturday, right?)….you get the point.

If, however, you live in, say, North Carolina, present day, you had better get your sorry behind out there and help her in the yard. And then take her out for a nice dinner afterward, express your undying love and devotion to her, and then…..well, I shouldn’t have to tell you what to do then.

Hey TW,

Part 2 of 2

Quoting Peter: "Do you think a good judge would allow evil to go unpunished?"
TW: What is evil? Is it evil to kill all of humanity and most of the animals except for one family or is that "love"?

RCO: No, that is severe but just judgment dispensed by an infinitely holy and omniscient God as a result of humanity’s utter rebellion. And don’t forget, He DID offer them passage on the Ark. Of course they, much like yourself, mocked Him….. Not quite as funny as the above, is it?

TW: Is it evil to kill every man, woman and child in a city because it didn't belong to a favored tribe or is that too love?

RCO: No, that is equitable justice dispensed by God for centuries of child-sacrifice to pagan gods and other such unmentionable atrocities.

TW: “Is it evil to call up snakes and kill thousands of people for complaining about being hungry or is that your revealed understanding of love?”

RCO: I think I’ll wait until you get your facts straight on this one before responding.

TW: Is it possible for two people to read the bible and come away with markedly different definitions of good and evil? How is that possible?

RCO: Possible? Yes. How is that possible? It is possible when one brings their own presuppositions and prejudices to the scripture and the try to find “proof-texts” that they can twist to fit their own ideas. Who is responsible for that person’s “mis-understanding” of good and evil?

TW: And if they contradict one another, should God correct the one in error?

RCO: Certainly. And He does. History testifies to nothing if not to that very point.

TW: Shouldn't God have put a stop to burning women alive to get them to admit to being witches?

RCO: Uh…I think He did. At least I am not aware of any “admitted” witches being burned recently.

TW: “Shouldn't God have updated his revelations?”

RCO: No need to. He is Omniscient God. He got it right the first time. Even had it written down for us so that we could never claim ignorance.

See, TW? It’s not quit as easy as Martin Sheen made it look in that little clip from “West Wing.” Oh…wait. I forgot. That was staged, choreographed acting. Fantasy, actually.

And you atheists think we Christians are the ones who live in a world of “make-believe.”

TW: “But neither God in the OT or Jesus in the NT ever said slavery itself is wrong….etc.”

RCO said, "Wrong on both counts."

RCO further stated, "God in the OT: Ex 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Christ in the NT: See above. AND, Paul, writing as an apostle of Jesus Christ:".....I won't repeat it.

Okay, RCO are you equating everything Paul said as interchangeable with JC? So I guess that means that JC didn't say anything criticizing slavery, right (bending...bending.....bending...)

Now, as far as the OT verse are you concluding that everything God said is punishable by death is the same as coming out against it?

TW: Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1:

Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

So how do you account for the rules of owning slaves and their children? I don't see any prohibitions against owning them unless you hold onto them for more than 6 years.

God is not particularly shy about telling how he abhors eating shellfish; how you should stone your daughter if she is not a virgin, how you should stone anyone picking up sticks to make a fire on the sabbath. But you're trying to make me believe that when it comes to slavery, he beats around the bush?

RCO: No sore back here, TW. I think you are the one “bending and leaning” if you think one can “love neighbor as self” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and still force their neighbor into slavery. And who said anything about “excluding” gays?

TW: As you are careful to remind Walter with every one of your posts, you are picking only certain sections and not reading it holistically :-)

The point I was making is that a good part of the Anglican denomination is being split because of the difference between how you interpret men sleeping with men versus treat people as you want to be treated. In my own church, a number of families are threatening to leave because our denomination has recently decided to accept committed, gay couples as full members to be embraced into the body of the church. The difference between those families leaving and those staying is the same issue that I accuse you and Peter of doing; cherry picking scripture to support to your personal moral standards.

What Peter doesn't seem to realize is that the choice of which scripture you cite to make a point is a judgment and it's based on your personal morals. If those revealed in scripture were so clear, why is it that so many people get it so wrong, so often?

So RCO, which is it in your mind? Is homosexuality a sin and people who engage in that should be ostracized, converted to non sinful ways, prevented from leadership positions (deacons, pastors). Or is it more important to treat someone as you would like to be treated?

I don't think you can have it both ways even though the bible clearly states both positions. That was my point about loving thy neighbor in word and treating thy gay neighbor as a sinner in practice.

RCofield,

"Psolus, its “judgEST thou.” You really should invest in a good King James bible if you are going to start spouting old English…"

I'm waiting for the Queen Latifah version to be published.

Peter, more comments on your posts:

Peter said, "Since God is Spirit that image must have to do with the qualities possessed by God, for God being Spirit does not have a body, so I would contend it is not a physical image."

Okay, but we/you talk as if God has human qualities -- love, anger, all that stuff, right? Doesn't God even claim to be jealous? Does it get any more human than jealousy?

Peter, you also said;
"As RCofield said, the books of the Bible were written in a certain culture/time, and understanding context applies/relates to that culture."

Yes that is true but I thought you were arguing that God's morals were universal and everlasting. Did I miss the point of your argument completely?

Peter,

I'm getting around to answering your questions.

Peter: Do you not think that placing the man as head of the wife would give unity to a marriage in that there would be one head of the house so as not to divide the household with two different and divided opinions at times?

TW: Well, that reasoning has been used by Mormons for more than 100 years. Man is the head of the household whether that be with 1 wife or 4. Do you think that gives unity to marriage?

Oh and speaking of polygamy, I could take the time to pull them up, but there are lots of instances where the bible sees no problem with more than one wife. Is this an example of a moral truth? Is it still valid?

And one last point. Didn't God encourage Abraham to impregnate his servant? Isn't that God encouraging adultery? What gives with that? (By the way, if I got the name wrong I'm sorry. I didn't get a chance to look up which one of those fictitious guys it was where God told him to have at it with his slave / servant). And because God tells you to do it Peter, does that make it good?

Hi TWMatthews,

I noticed you didn't answer the questions, you just put the ball back in my court. Try answering them from your world-view stance also. I'm interested to see how you make sense of them.

I'll have to answer these one by one since I am pushed for time until Wednesday/Thursday.

TWM: "ME: How do you judge which moral laws that God presents in the bible, you are to follow-- especially since they are often times contradictory? Shall I stone my gay friend for (presumably) having sex with his partner or shall I welcome him into my house like Jesus said we should do?

By studying to show oneself approved, a workman who correctly handles the word of truth. But studying the context and related Scripture. By considering the context and grammatical construction/subject/object relationship. By considering the culture of the times and what it means for me today. By considering whom the audience is/who is being addressed. By trying to understand the Author's intended meaning (exegesis) instead of putting my own meaning (eisegesis) into the text.

Sorry, I have run out of time.

PSOLUS,

PSO: “RCofield, peterhuff, how judgeth thou (or should that be "thee"?)?”

RCO: ….Sigh…. Psolus, its “judgEST thou.” You really should invest in a good King James bible if you are going to start spouting old English…. :-)

TW,

RCO: “Christ, in His Sermon on the Mount, (where the Beatitudes were stated), also said: Mt 5:7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. Mt 7:12 So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Don't miss the fact that Christ here says that "do unto others" is the whole point of the "Law and Prophets," a clear reference to the entirety of OT.) Anyone who lives in obedience to these teachings of Christ could not possibly justify forcing slavery on another human being.”

TW: “I would be surprised RCO if you didn't have a really sore back. You are bending and leaning and interpreting. Sure, you can say treating others like you want to be treated can be interpreted to mean don't enslave people, but you can also interpret it to mean you shouldn't exclude gays or anything else for that matter.

RCO: No sore back here, TW. I think you are the one “bending and leaning” if you think one can “love neighbor as self” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and still force their neighbor into slavery. And who said anything about “excluding” gays?

TW: “But neither God in the OT or Jesus in the NT ever said slavery itself is wrong….etc.”

Wrong on both counts.

God in the OT: Ex 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”

Christ in the NT: See above. AND, Paul, writing as an apostle of Jesus Christ: I Timothy 1:8 “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, ENSLAVERS, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine..” AND the entire little book of Philemon. AND...well, the entire tenor and scope of the New Testament.

TW: “….and we know that there are lots of references to rules about how long they should be held and who has "ownership" of the children of slaves.”

RCO: You are ignoring the distinction between “willing/bondservant” slaves and forced slavery. Additionally, these passages should be interpreted in accordance with the clearer passages (i.e. Exodus 21:6). This is a commonly accepted and oft-used principle of textual interpretation. You do the same thing when you read the owner’s manual to your automobile.

If atheists read their automobile owner’s manual the same way they read the bible they would be reduced to being perpetual pedestrians.

Walter, do you not think that you belong to your wife and your wife to you? Do you not think that when God said that we should be united/one flesh, that His purpose would be that there would be unity there? Do you not think that placing the man as head of the wife would give unity to a marriage in that there would be one head of the house so as not to divide the household with two different and divided opinions at times?

One of the things that kills me about you atheists is that although you deny the God of the Bible you are always willing to say what He IS and what He ISN'T (how can He be if He isn't and yet you argue as if He is), what He should and what He shouldn't do, as if your relative, subjective, self supplied meaning is the right one, and that with no objective means to verify it.

As RCofield said, the books of the Bible were written in a certain culture/time, and understanding context applies/relates to that culture.

When God uses the word 'man' woman is also included in many verses, signifying mankind.

"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created Him; male and female He created them." (Genesis 1:27)

Since God is Spirit that image must have to do with the qualities possessed by God, for God being Spirit does not have a body, so I would contend it is not a physical image.

And woman was taken out of man. He made man first and then created the woman.

The man recognized this by his statement,
'This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman' because she was taken out of man.' (Genesis 2:23)

But there are differences between man and woman. We were made for compatibility, to fit together, not like man with man. God did not make man to be with man, but man united with woman in covenant or marriage. That is the natural and intended relationship, just as the natural and intended relationship is for man to be head of the house, but also to love his wife and put her first. But they both have different roles. And God said to be fruitful and multiply. Multiplication does not happen with man and man. That is unnatural, it is perverting what God intended and since He is our Creator and designed us for specific purposes He knows what is best for us.

All these things you can deduce from His word. It is plain. And as I said, without His objective standard you can't make sense of ethics/morals. It becomes you, the subject, make the meaning, or the State/culture/society that you are a part of makes the meaning which when boiled down becomes the leader(s) in their subjective opinions and feelings. But in such a circumstance don't call their or your opinion/feelings/preferences good, because you need an objective reference/measure/standard/value base/ideal for anything to be good and YOU cannot supply one from your world-view. It is 'good' because you say its good, but I say its bad, so it boils down to might makes right.

So who are you to talk back to God is the question God asks?

PSOLUS,

LOL. Man, you are a hoot.

RCO: "Sure it is. Which of your neighbor's wives are you coveting when you masturbate?"

PSO: “Are you assuming that I have a polygamist neighbor?”

RCO: Oh no! Ya got me, pardner. I misplace one little apostrophe and my whole argument unravels…. :-) Touché.

PSO: For all you know, I'm coveting one of my neighbors' unmarried daughters (one of legal age, of course). I'm pretty sure that they are not mentioned in the "thou shalt not" top 10 list - therefore, they are fair game for coveting. Are you saying that masturbation is cool as long as the masturbator does not covet any of his or her neighbors' wives? How about if the masturbator covets one of his or her neighbors' husbands?

RCO: Aw….shucks. Now I am left to wonder why God left all of those loopholes for clever fellows like yourself….

PSO: “Shouldn't this be spelled out explicitly in your "magical book of verses."? Does your god not have a competent legal department?”

RCO: Nah. Doesn’t need one. He doesn’t allow loopholes to fly in His courtroom.

RCO (to Walter): "First, you need to try and look at what I am saying without presupposing that I am wrong. This presupposition is keeping you from seeing what I am saying. In other words, analyze what I am saying objectively, without subjecting it to your pre-established prejudices."

PSO: “Perhaps you should attempt to follow your own advise with what Walter writes.”

RCO: Hmmm. Grooming your mate, eh? I’m sure he appreciates it. And why would I follow my own “advise.” See? The grammatical error thing can work both ways.

I know....I know.... You came back and corrected it. Just couldn't resist.

Peace.

TW,

Glad you found us again. I see you and Walter have been playing softball over on the other thread in your absence. :-) Just kidding.

TW: “Just getting around to enjoying your most recent exchanges. I've got to side with Walter on the interpretation of those verses talking about slavery. Later translations now use other words -- servant, kidnap -- but that's just an attempt to plug a stunningly large hole in the "god gives good morals" argument.”

RCO: Uh… what are you talking about? I stated: “The reason I prefer the ESV is because it seems to be more in line with the original Hebrew/Greek in its translation. We have literally thousands of transcripts of the Greek New Testament, dating as far back as early second century A.D. These ancient transcripts (should have read “manuscripts”) clearly use the Greek word "andrapodistes,” (in I Timothy 1:10) literally meaning (in its original usage) “a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer; one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery.”

Many of these early manuscripts are less than one century removed from the originals. This means it is virtually certain Paul used the Greek word “andrapodistes” when he wrote I Timothy 1:10. How is this “just an attempt to plug a stunningly large hole in the ‘god gives good morals’ argument?” I’m not using “later translations” here. I went back to as near the original as we can get.

Anyway, you are isolating a single point in what was an argument from the whole of scripture (both Old and New Testaments). If you are going to actually unravel my argument you will need to deal with it in its entirety (a point that seems to utterly escape Walter).

WALTER,

WALT: “rco, that's all i can do for now. i'll do parts 6-10 asap.”

RCO: You should slow down and read my posts more carefully. You have consistently missed the point so far on parts 1-5.

twmatthews,

"It seems to me that you are into "coveting"."

I'm not too proud to admit that I have done my share of "coveting".

In fact, I'm "coveting" as I type this comment.

"My personal preference is graven images. I'm a sucker for a good graven image. Every flea market, every yard sale I've got to see what kind of cool graven images they have."

Graven images are just not my thing; mind you, I'm not judging you, I just don't ride that pony.

"Is it a sin to masturbate while thinking of graven images?"

As far as I'm concerned: No.

Having said that, I'm not sure that I'm the one to answer that question.

RCofield, peterhuff, how judgeth thou (or should that be "thee"?)?

Psolus,

It seems to me that you are into "coveting".

My personal preference is graven images. I'm a sucker for a good graven image. Every flea market, every yard sale I've got to see what kind of cool graven images they have.

Is it a sin to masturbate while thinking of graven images?

RCO: Christ, in His Sermon on the Mount, (where the Beatitudes were stated), also said: Mt 5:7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. Mt 7:12 So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Don't miss the fact that Christ here says that "do unto others" is the whole point of the "Law and Prophets," a clear reference to the entirety of OT.) Anyone who lives in obedience to these teachings of Christ could not possibly justify forcing slavery on another human being.

Me: I would be surprised RCO if you didn't have a really sore back. You are bending and leaning and interpreting. Sure, you can say treating others like you want to be treated can be interpreted to mean don't enslave people, but you can also interpret it to mean you shouldn't exclude gays or anything else for that matter.

But neither God in the OT or Jesus in the NT ever said slavery itself is wrong and we know that there are lots of references to rules about how long they should be held and who has "ownership" of the children of slaves.

Sorry, slavery, like the treatment of women is one big moral shortcoming of most monotheistic religions and only through acrobatic interpretations can one try and talk around the issue.

c/advise/advice/* *

Peter,

These questions are a variation of those you asked Nothingisnew.

Peter: "How do you judge what is evil in a world of subjective shifting standards,..."

ME: How do you judge which moral laws that God presents in the bible, you are to follow-- especially since they are often times contradictory? Shall I stone my gay friend for (presumably) having sex with his partner or shall I welcome him into my house like Jesus said we should do?

Shall I stone my wife for working for my company for 6 days and then working on the house and yard on the Sabbath?

Peter: "Do you think a good judge would allow evil to go unpunished?"

ME: What is evil? Is it evil to kill all of humanity and most of the animals except for one family or is that "love"?

Is it evil to kill every man, woman and child in a city because it didn't belong to a favored tribe or is that too love?

Is it evil to call up snakes and kill thousands of people for complaining about being hungry or is that your revealed understanding of love?

Peter: If you think you do (have an objective standard of good/evil), where does it come from/how do you measure it?"

ME: Is it possible for two people to read the bible and come away with markedly different definitions of good and evil? How is that possible? And if they contradict one another, should God correct the one in error? Shouldn't God have put a stop to burning women alive to get them to admit to being witches? Shouldn't God have updated his revelations?

RCofield,

"First, you need to try and look at what I am saying without presupposing that I am wrong. This presupposition is keeping you from seeing what I am saying. In other words, analyze what I am saying objectively, without subjecting it to your pre-established prejudices."

Perhaps you should attempt to follow your own advise with what Walter writes.

RCofield,

"PSO: "BTW, what is the book of magic lyric that specifies that masturbation is verboten; I'm pretty sure that it's not in the "thou shalt not" top 10 list.""

"Sure it is. Which of your neighbor's wives are you coveting when you masturbate?"

Are you assuming that I have a polygamist neighbor?

What makes you think that I am coveting one of my neighbors' wives while I am masturbating?

Have you even seen my neighbors' wives?

For all you know, I'm coveting one of my neighbors' unmarried daughters (one of legal age, of course).

I'm pretty sure that they are not mentioned in the "thou shalt not" top 10 list - therefore, they are fair game for coveting.

Are you saying that masturbation is cool as long as the masturbator does not covet any of his or her neighbors' wives?

How about if the masturbator covets one of his or her neighbors' husbands?

Shouldn't this be spelled out explicitly in your "magical book of verses."?

Does your god not have a competent legal department?

RCofield,

"Peter asked you: "How well have you looked into the writings of the Bible?""

"You responded: "Not at all.""

"Yet you refer to it as a "magical book of verses.""

"Hmmmmm..."

Yeah, I'm a regular enigma, ain't I.

Peter, RC, Walter, Psolus:

I'm back after 5 days. I know, it took JC only 3 days to come back (actually, if you think about it, it took him only 2 days) but I'm a tad slower.

Just getting around to enjoying your most recent exchanges. I've got to side with Walter on the interpretation of those verses talking about slavery. Later translations now use other words -- servant, kidnap -- but that's just an attempt to plug a stunningly large hole in the "god gives good morals" argument.

I think it was Peter who spoke about the need for Psolus to "feel" the holy spirit (why isn't it called the holy ghost anymore? Is a spirit more credible than a ghost?). Peter, isn't it the interpretation of what so many people thought the spirit was telling them to do at the heart of many atrocities committed in God's name?

There are lots of things that would convince me of a higher power and one that was loving. Maybe if anyone genuinely interested in reading the bible could pick up a copy, in any language and the holy ghost/spirit would translate it for them into their native tongue. (According to the bible, this happened a few times in the NT). I've yet to see this. The common man had to wait 1,500 years after JC to get the bible translated into a common language.

So explain it to me Peter. Why did Pope Innocent III start the Inquisition? Was he not praying enough? Did his direct line to God have static?

This all gives rise to an even bigger question: If God wants to talk to us and there are inherent dangers of miscommunication relying on the holy spirit and revealed truth; why doesn't God send text messages or at least email?

rco,
that's all i can do for now. i'll do parts 6-10 asap.

more from
(part 5 of 10)

you said,
"While we are on the subject of “sexism” I want to point out yet another glaring inconsistency in your position. You point out that in the 10th Commandment that God “lists ‘wife’ along with ‘house’ and ‘ox’ as a man's possessions.” In your view this is “sexism.” C’mon Walter, this is absurd. What is the prohibition in this commandment? We are not to covet that which belongs to someone else. ..."

this is a good illustration. not only does it list women as possessions, it ONLY lists women. there are other verses, even in the old testament that are directed at a man or a wonam, but this one isn't. it's not, "...don't covet your neighbor's wife or husband..." it's all from the man's point of view. women are scenery - created for man. there are rules about multiple wives, but not multiple husbands. paul describes the hierarchy as something like "god is to men as men are to women". a clear hierarchy. that makes it pretty clear that god values men above women...it's not the biblical author's fault. that's just the way people thought back then. it's ultimately probably because men are physically stronger... society's trying to get better about this. women have equal rights (at least on theory) across the board in modern enlightened secular society. (i have to say "secular" because as i noted earlier, my wife can't vote in congregational meetings at our cute little church up the street.)

(Part 5 of 10)

Le 27:3 then the valuation of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. 4 If the person is a female, the valuation shall be thirty shekels.

"You declare this passage “sexist” because a female is here “valued” at “3/5” the value of a male....These “valuations” are being made on the basis of the individuals “worth” in the work associated with Tabernacle/Temple worship. Given the physical demands of labor related to the transport and erection of the tabernacle, the sacrifice of animals, etc., a male would by nature be more capable of doing the work than a female. Hence, for the purpose of hard labor, a man was valued higher than a woman. This passage has nothing whatsoever to do with the person’s worth as an individual, and you only bring it to the table because of your radical, anti-theistic agenda. Consider it dismissed."

yes i think it's sexist. if you claim this is only for physical labor only (what there's no parchment work to be done?) and have studied ancient jewish temple maintenance and so forth...them ok. i'll pick another sexist verse:

le 12:1-5 (esv)
"1The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2"Speak to the people of Israel, saying, 'If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then(A) she shall be unclean seven days.(B) As at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. 3And on the(C) eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying. She shall not touch anything holy, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. 5But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days."

why is there twice as much "purifying" to be done after a girl? (shouldn't the ration be 5/3...)

(Part 4 of 10)

Le 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by whoring, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.

"First, it should be noted that the above penalty for prostitution was required only of the daughters of priests. You have repeatedly and erroneously characterized this as a requirement for all Israelites."

no i haven't meant to say i tapplies to everyone, but just that it happened and was (supposed) ordered by god.

"Secondly, you again are reacting to this passage because God has set the moral standard TOO HIGH for your taste. Your focus is on the penalty, and you ignore the abhorrence of the offense. You do this because you are “proof-texting”, so you bring your presupposition that “modern morals” are superior to the “morality of the bible.” Hence, you force your presupposition into the passage and declare God “immoral” (with the effeminate exclamation “yuk!” for effect). In doing so, you ignore the high moral standard being established by God."

yes...death by fire is "too high" a penalty for prostitution.

(and i don't know where'why you get that "yuk" is effeminate, but that's your thing. yuk was only meant to convey disgust. how 'but "ugh"?) i understand it's a priest's daughter, and i understand that the "church" has a right to require higher standards for priests and so forth. (admit that the penalty for prostitution in general must have been death. i bet i could proof-text a verse showing prostitution being punishable by death (or possibly "marriage" to the john...). maybe the "extra" punishment here is the "by fire" part. regular prostitutes get stoned, but priests' daughters get fire.

.....The greater good served by this moral standard was the avoidance of the devastating national consequences of the practice of prostitution—destroyed lives of precious daughters, “fatherless” children, STDs, broken homes, etc. The penalty was proportionate to the necessity of the moral standard. Ultimately, your problem with the strictness of the penalty here blinds you to the horror of that which is prohibited by the penalty.

yes. the penalty is over-the-top excessive and immoral by today's standards. the greater good is...lesser... unless you're suggesting we should still use the death penalty for all these things.

(Part 3 of 10)

...[you describing christian doctrine/rationalization]...

"In the end, your problem with this passage is that God sets the standard of morality TOO HIGH for your “evolved” moral palate. Is the penalty for violation of this standard stringent? You bet. Am I thankful that this penalty is no longer required because of the redemptive work of Christ? Absolutely. .....

yes. that's my problem with it. it's too severe. we don't do that anymore, and i'm proud of that. aren't you? i understand that children have to obey parents and parents have a right to discipline their kids. but DEATH? it's over-the-top cartoonishly severe. if you want to characterize yahweh's barbaric o.t. laws as "high moral standards", well...then, you win. and i understand how "jesus's redemptive" something or other means we can pick and choose our old testament laws these days. thank god for jesus in that regard. can you imagine the animal sacrifices required for a population of what 2,000,000,000(?) christians?

rco,
(Part 2 of 10)

Le 20:9 For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

you said,
"First, you contend that it is “immoral” for God to command that a child be put to death for cursing their father or , but I will presume that you DO NOT think it is a GOOD thing for a child to curse their parents. I’ve seen children do this before, and if you have not, I can assure you that it is a chilling thing to behold......had I cursed my father the penalty would have been something similar to death!

similar to death"...puleeeeze....the bible prescribes ACTUAL death. and i'm not saying there shouldn't be a rule about sassing your parents. i'm saying the punishment is way out of whack - at least by today's standards. it's CRAZY. DEATH for sassing your parents?! holy moly... that's not proportional.

Secondly, it must be noted what this offense signified. The conjunction “for” in verse 9 points us back to verses 7 & 8: “Consecrate yourselves….be holy….obey my statutes—for I am the LORD your God.” What is God asserting here? His rightful authority over the nation of Israel.....[blah blah blah...rationalization....blah blah blah...rationalization.....]"

doesn't matter. by today's standards, death for "cursing" and disobeying parents is considered immoral. even when there are actual crimes like murder, stealing, etc...modern rules bend over backward to protect children from the same penalties adults might receive. in the modern enlightened world we say ground them, take away facebook, whatever. but DEATH?!?! (you now, THAT would have been great wouldn't it? if god had banned "facebook" and no one knew what that was...until now...oh the prophesy!) o.t. god uses the death peanalty way way too often. countries are moving away from the death penalty these days, which i guess you take as a bad thing? and i sure don't know of a country, save possibly parts of the islamic world, that anything like "anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death" in effect.

PSOLUS,

PSO: "BTW, what is the book of magic lyric that specifies that masturbation is verboten; I'm pretty sure that it's not in the "thou shalt not" top 10 list."

Sure it is. Which of your neighbor's wives are you coveting when you masturbate?

PSOLUS,

Peter asked you: "How well have you looked into the writings of the Bible?"

You responded: "Not at all."

Yet you refer to it as a "magical book of verses."

Hmmmmm...

NOTHINGISNEW,

NOTHINGISNEW: "Please don't think that I'm being childish or condescending. I've read many of your posts(not just on this thread), and you seem like one of the few apologists on aboutfaith who can rationally argue(although sometimes in circles) about your faith.

If you wish to not answer my simple questions, I understand."

RCO: Hi, NOTHINGISNEW. Thanks for your questions, and I would love to address them at some point. These are good questions, and, having suffered a great deal of personal loss and tragedy in my own life, I have had to wrestle meaningfully with them myself. Needless to say, I have come to far different conclusions than yourself, and would consider it a privilege to share those conclusions with you.

However, I am dealing with severe constraints on my time right now. May I suggest that you "fall in" on the discussion Peter and I are having with WALTER, TWMATTHEWS, and PSOLUS. I am sure we would all enjoy having you involved, and this discussion will eventually lead to considerations of the questions you have raised. What do you think?

"NOTHINGISNEW." Interesting handle. Are you aware of this passage from the bible?

ECCLESIASTES 1:9 What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new"? It has been already in the ages before us.

WALTER,

In looking at your initial response to my last string of posts, a couple of things occurred to me.

First, you need to try and look at what I am saying without presupposing that I am wrong. This presupposition is keeping you from seeing what I am saying. In other words, analyze what I am saying objectively, without subjecting it to your pre-established prejudices.

And secondly, re-read those posts thoroughly so that you can respond the the whole of my argument, not just the occasional point.

WALTER,

WALT: "esv: enslavers (that is, those who take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery)

there's no doubt to me that "kidnappers" sounds best. king james always does... which is a more faithful translation?"

RCO: I don't have a lot of time to get into this right now, but this is precisely where the study of the original language of scripture is useful.

The various translations that interpret "enslavers" as "man-stealers"/"kidnapers", etc. are hardly translating this as something other than slave-traders or "enslavers". There is, in principle, no distinguishable difference between these translations.

The reason I prefer the ESV is because it seems to be more in line with the original Hebrew/Greek in its translation. We have literally thousands of transcripts of the Greek New Testament, dating as far back as early second century A.D. These ancient transcripts clearly use the Greek word "andrapodistes,” literally meaning (in its original usage) “a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer; one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery.”

WALT: "all those other versions seem to be aimed at dealer/sellers/traders of men, not so much owners."

RCO: One who "owns" forced slaves is just as guilty as "dealers/traders." Exodus 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”

WALT: "small point, but, jesus didn't say this. this is paul. but if it's meant to ban slavery it sounds like jesus...too bad they didn't get an actual quote. and wouldn't it be GREAT if he mentioned slavery amongst the beatitudes.... "

RCO: Christ, in His Sermon on the Mount, (where the Beatitudes were stated), also said: Mt 5:7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. Mt 7:12 So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Don't miss the fact that Christ here says that "do unto others" is the whole point of the "Law and Prophets," a clear reference to the entirety of OT.) Anyone who lives in obedience to these teachings of Christ could not possibly justify forcing slavery on another human being.

Christ did not come to "right" all the social/cultural ills of mankind by establishing all kinds of specific prohibitive "laws." His teaching (as with the whole of the NT) strikes at the root of the problem--man's heart. Consider: Mt. 2:39 "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Again, note reference to OT)

If one loves God with all their heart...and their neighbor as themselves...one will not lie, steal, cheat, perjure himself, OR ENSLAVE others etc. (I Ti. 1:8-11).

In the end, the good news of the Gospel is that men's hearts can be changed...no "evolving" morality necessary.

I don't believe that I just wrote "I am not neither"...

peterhuff,

I am not neither nothingisnew nor an atheist, but here is a little something to get your day started.

You're welcome.

"Hi Nothingisnew,
I have some questions that I would like you, as an atheist, to answer as well."

"Do you think a good judge would allow evil to go unpunished?"

I don't know that a good judge would have a choice.

"How do you judge what is evil in a world of subjective shifting standards,..."

I don't judge what is "evil".

"...or do you have an ultimate, objective standard after all?"

No.

"If you think you do, where does it come from/how do you measure it?"

Not applicable; I have no "ultimate, objective standard".

"How do values originate from impersonal matter?"

I don't know that they do.

"How does intent originate from impersonal matter?"

I don't know that it does.

"How does life originate from non-living impersonal matter?"

I don't know that it does.

"How does random chance biological reactions create repeated order and design?"

I don't know that they do.

"In an impersonal universe why are there laws?"

I don't know that there are "laws" in an "impersonal universe".

"How can you be certain of anything in life?"

I can't.

"There seems to be as many opinions as there are ideas."

They may be the same thing.

"Science is a tough benchmark because it is always being subjected to falsification."

That may well be the idea.

"How do you know that the scientist has finally got it right?"

I don't.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Is there something?

peterhuff,

"Anyway PSolus, I'm off to bed."

Nighty night.

"Here is a passage of Scripture for you to read."

I'll pass.

"It has a warning as well as a blessing with it."

Sounds sinister.

"If you don't have a Bible and have any inclination to look it up, you can find a Bible to read from on the Internet."

Again, I'll pass.

"If not, continue in your ways."

That, I can do.

peterhuff,

"Then you are getting what you want."

Actually, I'm not getting everything I want, but that's an entirely other story.

"Yes."

Well, I'll be darned.

"How would you know of God unless He revealed Himself to you in some way?"

Assuming, of course, that he even exists.

"Yes. I would ask you the same for I feel you play dumb well. Great act!"

What makes you think that I'm playing; maybe I am just dumb.

Wait...

"Then what is your basis to form an opinion?"

I hear stuff.

"Why do you think what you believe is right then?"

What makes you think that I believe anything?

Have I not already told you, on several occasions, that I believe nothing?

"Do you have a Bible?"

Nope.

"Try reading it."

I can't - I don't have one.

"By the way your answers are very predictable."

Ouch, you cut me to the quick.

"The nature of a skeptic."

I'm not so sure about that.

Anyway PSolus, I'm off to bed. Here is a passage of Scripture for you to read. It has a warning as well as a blessing with it. Proverbs 1:20-2:15. If you don't have a Bible and have any inclination to look it up, you can find a Bible to read from on the Internet. Just goggle. If not, continue in your ways.

Hi PSolus,

ME: "How do you expect to hear the message if you do not believe that God exists and that He has spoken to you?"

PSOLUS: "I don't."

Then you are getting what you want.

ME: "You are trying to figure this out on your own accord and in the process are calling God a liar."

PSOLUS: "I am?"

Yes.

ME: "What makes you think that your mind can grasp an understanding of God outside of Him revealing Himself to you?"

PSOLUS: "That question does not make sense."

How would you know of God unless He revealed Himself to you in some way?

ME: "God does not have to explain Himself to you, but He has chosen to reveal Himself in His Word, by His Son and through the Spirit. He has also given many convincing evidences that attest to His word as truth."

PSOLUS: "Are you serious?"

Yes. I would ask you the same for I feel you play dumb well. Great act!

ME: "How well have you looked into the writings of the Bible?"

PSOLUS: "Not at all."

Then what is your basis to form an opinion?

Why do you think what you believe is right then? Do you have a Bible? Try reading it.

By the way your answers are very predictable. The nature of a skeptic.

peterhuff,

"Here is a lesson in life."

Can't wait.

"You reap what you sow."

But, if I don't sow...

Oh, I get it.

"Go figure."

Yes, indeed.

Hi PSolus,

Here is a lesson in life. You reap what you sow. Go figure.

peterhuff,

"What are you doing watching two hours of Christian TV then?"

It's PBS.

"Or was that just a figment of your imagination?"

No, it's PBS.

"There seems to be a lot of inconsistency in your answers."

Perhaps the inconsistencies are in your inferences from my answers.

"My guess is that you are really hurting, that you need love but can't find it because you are looking in the wrong places."

Wow!

TWMatthews, are you still around? I was going to take a stab at your questions on the OT later this week after I finish working on Wednesday.

peterhuff,

"How do you expect to hear the message if you do not believe that God exists and that He has spoken to you?"

I don't.

"You are trying to figure this out on your own accord and in the process are calling God a liar."

I am?

"What makes you think that your mind can grasp an understanding of God outside of Him revealing Himself to you?"

That question does not make sense.

"God does not have to explain Himself to you, but He has chosen to reveal Himself in His Word, by His Son and through the Spirit. He has also given many convincing evidences that attest to His word as truth."

Are you serious?

"How well have you looked into the writings of the Bible?"

Not at all.

"But even above that His Spirit confirms and testifies His truth in the believers life in certainty."

Say what?

"He makes the wisdom of this world foolish."

Huh?

Hi Psolus,

ME: ""Are you searching for Him?"

PSOLUS: "No, I'm searching for a nice Chardonnay that doesn't have too much oakiness."

What are you doing watching two hours of Christian TV then? Or was that just a figment of your imagination?

There seems to be a lot of inconsistency in your answers. My guess is that you are really hurting, that you need love but can't find it because you are looking in the wrong places. (Matthew 11:27-30)

Hi PSolus,

ME: ""Do you hear the message?"

PSOLUS: "No, but I do hear a lot of belief-based interpretations of selected two-to-five-or-more-thousand-year-old writings by any number of men, that were found in various places over a long period of time."

How do you expect to hear the message if you do not believe that God exists and that He has spoken to you? You are trying to figure this out on your own accord and in the process are calling God a liar. What makes you think that your mind can grasp an understanding of God outside of Him revealing Himself to you? (1 Corinthians 2:14)

God does not have to explain Himself to you, but He has chosen to reveal Himself in His Word, by His Son and through the Spirit. He has also given many convincing evidences that attest to His word as truth.

How well have you looked into the writings of the Bible? But even above that His Spirit confirms and testifies His truth in the believers life in certainty. He makes the wisdom of this world foolish.

rco,
of course i'm referencing 1tim1:10 in my most recent post.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1tim1:10&version=NIV;ESV;NKJV;ASV

peterhuff,

"Are you searching for Him?"

No, I'm searching for a nice Chardonnay that doesn't have too much oakiness.

"Do you have...?"

No.

[Random magical lyrics.]

"RCofield has...."

You know, you almost had me there - I was this close to folding.

For future reference, a talking burning bush might have pulled me over the hump.

Yeah, I know, it's been done, but, who, really, can resist a talking burning bush?

Hi Nothingisnew,

I have some questions that I would like you, as an atheist, to answer as well.

Do you think a good judge would allow evil to go unpunished?

How do you judge what is evil in a world of subjective shifting standards, or do you have an ultimate, objective standard after all? If you think you do, where does it come from/how do you measure it?

How do values originate from impersonal matter?

How does intent originate from impersonal matter?

How does life originate from non-living impersonal matter?

How does random chance biological reactions create repeated order and design?

In an impersonal universe why are there laws?

How can you be certain of anything in life? There seems to be as many opinions as there are ideas. Science is a tough benchmark because it is always being subjected to falsification. How do you know that the scientist has finally got it right?

Why is there something rather than nothing?

rco,
i'll get to your responses to "the horrible verses".

on slavery verses:
you know, i thought i'd read the whole n.t. and i'd didn't remember anything prohibiting slavery.

1. "my" bible version is "new king james"... it says "kidnappers". i'm open to other versions being better translations, but i'm wary of agenda-driven translations. and i don't know greek or whatever it's in.

i can see why you like the "english standard version" over the "american standard version" or the "niv".

nkjv: kidnappers

niv; slave traders

asv: menstealers (whatever that is...)

wycliffe: doesn't mention it in the text, but has a long footnote alternate translation which includes "sellers or stealers of men"

esv: enslavers (that is, those who take someone captive in order to sell him into slavery)

there's no doubt to me that "kidnappers" sounds best. king james always does... which is a more faithful translation?

all those other versions seem to be aimed at dealer/sellers/traders of men, not so much owners.

2. small point, but, jesus didn't say this. this is paul. but if it's meant to ban slavery it sounds like jesus...too bad they didn't get an actual quote. and wouldn't it be GREAT if he mentioned slavery amongst the beatitudes.... we wouldn't have had slavery all throughout he middle ages until the enlightenment mentality (including enlightened christians) came along and abolished it.

3. IF this truly bans slavery, and slavery is immoral, the why the o.t. slavery? why moral then but not now.

it's not objective.... i guess you'll deny god sanctioned slavery in the o.t., but i'm thinking of those "own your slaves children" verses like lev25:46 where speaking of people they've "purchased" from foreign lands:

"You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,

and ex21:4

"If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

those verses are not about any voluntary or "indentured servant" kind of arrangement.

peterhuff,

"No, not the vices mentioned."

So, occasional boxer/briefs are OK?

You are aware that they kind of... accentuate... you know... uh... never mind.

"Not magic, supernatural - big difference."

Not to me.

"Do you hear the message?"

No, but I do hear a lot of belief-based interpretations of selected two-to-five-or-more-thousand-year-old writings by any number of men, that were found in various places over a long period of time.

Hi PSolus,

PSOLUS: "For the past two hours I have been exposed to "God in America" on WETA; rest assured that I will survive that unscathed as well."

Are you searching for Him?

Do you have the faith to believe, to put your trust in Him, and in the merit of Jesus Christ and His perfectly lived life as a perfect man, whom God has sent, to die the death that should have been yours, to take upon Himself the wrath for wrongdoing that should have been yours, that He may guide you in what is right and descent and good?

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6 - see 11:1 too if you are interested)

RCofield has a good knowledge of God. Neither one of us are here to mislead you but to point you to the truth that IS Jesus Christ. What we say is not meant for your harm but to help you and give you true hope. I sense from your views that that is what you need. Our intentions are first to point you to the realization that outside of Christ you cannot make sense of anything of ultimate meaning in life, to bring you to the realization that by your own merit or good intentions/good works you cannot earn God's favor, for He is a good and just and perfect Judge and you have already broken His laws, and finally our hope for you is that you too will put your trust and reliance in Christ and what He says and has done.

Hi PSolus,

PSOLUS: "Does your god not want me to have "Hollywood style values"?

No, not the vices mentioned.

PSOLUS: "Is that specified somewhere in your magical book of verses?"

Not magic, supernatural - big difference.

Many places.

"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.....Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers." Galatians 5:19-21, 6:7-10)

As Christians Paul instruction is to live by the fruit of the Spirit and those belonging to Christ have (past tense) crucified the desires of the sinful nature. That is because by recognizing sin, confessing it and turning from it to Christ and believing/trusting/abiding in Christ through the grace of God, the penalty for sin has been met, the Christian has been given a new nature that is no longer hostile to God, but loves God, is receptive to Him and His will. The desire for someone you love is to please them and in Christ the Christian lives by the mercy and grace that God supplies.

Do you hear the message?

peterhuff,

"PSolus, just by scanning the previews for an average night of TV you will be exposed to..."

For the past two hours I have been exposed to "God in America" on WETA; rest assured that I will survive that unscathed as well.

peterhuff,

"PSolus, just by scanning the previews for an average night of TV you will be exposed to..."

[Long list of what I'm guessing are "Hollywood style values".]

"After allowing yourself such a diet, day-in-day-out for a period of numerous years how are you going to be unscathed, or how desensitized do you get to anything violent or wrong?"

Well, I still get teary eyed when Rick lets Victor Laszlo conduct the band in playing "La Marseillaise" to drown out the Germans singing "Die Wacht Am Rhein", I get choked up when I attempt to quote George Orwell: "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm", and I get downright maudlin when I read "Curfew Must Not Ring Tonight", so I guess I must be able to resist at least some of the "Hollywood style values" to which I am subjected.

"With so many different opinions and outlooks how do you make sense of anything moral or meaningful?"

I think.

peterhuff,

"Since you have already admitted on another post that you have never read the Bible, pray tell, what would that be?"

One story that I read was from his days in Turkey... a gang of Hungarians come to his home in the afternoon looking for his business... they find his wife and kids in the house and decide to wait for him... he comes home to find his wife raped and children screaming... he looks over the faces of his family, and then he shows these men of will, what will really was... he tells them that he would rather see his family dead than live another day after this...

Oh, wait, you're right, I was thinking about Keyser Soze, not your god. My bad.

Now, back to these "Hollywood style values"...

I buy and hand grate Parmigiano-Reggiano whenever I cook pasta; is that a "Hollywood style value"?

PSolus, just by scanning the previews for an average night of TV you will be exposed to numerous murders, rapes, adultery, brutality, crimes of all kinds, irreverence, mockery, vulgarity, exploitive humor, sexual immorality, cheating, lying and bearing false witness, promotion of greed and egotism of every kind, gambling, drinking, drugs and a lust for entertainment of ever kind at any cost on the fifty to one fifty or more channels of choice.

Most dramas and situation comedies sell sex in some form or another with provocatively dressed/looking women and all kinds of sexual innuendo.

Many educational channels promote the Darwinian evolutionary world-view.

Many talk shows promote an anti-Christian sentiment as well as a postmodern, relativistic, pluralistic outlook where everything of meaning is ridiculed.

Most sports channels promote winning as the prime objective, not how the game is played. I watched a hockey game on Saturday night in which three fights broke out. Look at the doping scandals of past Olympic Games.

After allowing yourself such a diet, day-in-day-out for a period of numerous years how are you going to be unscathed, or how desensitized do you get to anything violent or wrong? With so many different opinions and outlooks how do you make sense of anything moral or meaningful?

PSolus, you said on 'The Spirited Atheist' forum,

"From what I've read about him, I really would not want to be in debt to him."

Since you have already admitted on another post that you have never read the Bible, pray tell, what would that be?

peterhuff,

"We are saturated with Hollywood style values."

What, exactly, are "Hollywood style values"?

I sometimes wear boxer/briefs; is that a "Hollywood style value"?

Does your god not want me to have "Hollywood style values"?

Is that specified somewhere in your magical book of verses?

Hi RCofield,

RCO: "Good point on the entertainment/sports industry and the decline of modern morality. It is degenerate to the point of being stupefying."

We are saturated with Hollywood style values. Does Walter sees this?

And now the Internet.

I appreciate your ten posts to Walter. I have learned some good points in apologetics from you in handling some of the most common objections of atheists, such as slavery and the 'angry OT God.' It seems Walter is not hearing what you are saying. I credit my last statement to not answering your points. He would quickly find that his answers do not/can not suffice. He quickly dismisses them or wants to go onto other areas.

I had that problem with Pam a while back, not because I thought her world-view was true (I know it is false), just because I had not researched or thought through a lot of the points she was bringing up. But I still know where to turn for the truth! She gave me much to think about.

Did you notice Onofrio was back on Susan's 'The Spirited Atheist? Unfortunately a smart but foolish man, if you understand my reference? His bitterness towards God has made him this way.

Take care my brother and friend in Christ!

rco,

Please don't think that I'm being childish or condescending. I've read many of your posts(not just on this thread), and you seem like one of the few apologists on aboutfaith who can rationally argue(although sometimes in circles) about your faith.

If you wish to not answer my simple questions, I understand.

rco

If a gigantic asteroid hits earth tomorrow and wipes out all of humanity, would that be god's will?

If we are god's special project, why are we subject to extinction? Surely god can keep us from suffering such events?

OK...I'll scale it down, why do horrible catastrophes happen, even to god fearing Christians? How could god let a church collapse during an earthquake and kill his followers?

I don't need to know much about the history of Christianity to know that god doesn't care about the humans he created.
No matter how much we worship, sacrifice or kill for the Christian god, he seems rather disinterested.

rco, I know you won't be able to answer these questions rationally, because there is no rational answer without admitting god's indifference to us. But I would love to see you try.

Hi Walter,

We argued over the very issues you bring up here in earlier posts, and that is that America was founded on Christian principles and was a Christian nation. You argued at that time that it was not and now you say:

WALTER: "well, this is harder because back then practically everyone in america ('cept the natives...) was christian. (this fact makes jefferson, madison, paine, franklin et. al. all the more amazing.) nonetheless, there's the "society for the friends of blacks", an abolitionist movement in france from the late 1700s."

Did you get that?

WALTER: "...practically everyone in america ('cept the natives...) was christian."

And your point on Lincoln is weak too. Regardless of Lincoln's beliefs he was greatly influenced by the Christian God, for he is found quoting the Christian God on numerous occasions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6ibe9wn3ps&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfcKtrRofQk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGFjeQs16xA

test

rco,
very busy here. i've read your decapost. i think your answers to those horrible verses was extremely lacking. but how could it be otherwise? there's no way to cast "go kill non-yahwehists" in a positive light. on the other had good job on the proof-texting with that 1tim1 verse.

anyway, 'preciate youir efforts. i'll have a more detailed response to come in a day or two.

RCofield,

"Ummmm....We actually do have ministries and outreach that address and deal with every issue that you listed....including masturbation."

Do you supply people with some sort of strap-on device to prevent them from masturbating?

"I don't think you do understand."

I don't understand your book of magic claiming that masturbation is "immoral" or "evil"; in my experience, it is quite enjoyable, though not quite as satisfying as fornication.

BTW, what is the book of magic lyric that specifies that masturbation is verboten; I'm pretty sure that it's not in the "thou shalt not" top 10 list.

Hey Peter,

Good to have you back. Yeah I remembered the Susan Jacoby default meeting place.

Good point on the entertainment/sports industry and the decline of modern morality. It is degenerate to the point of being stupefying.

God's plan for Congress is described in my new book http://congressionalbiblestudy.org which everyone should buy to learn what to expect of candidates they vote for. It has a Christian contract with America, it shows how the first Amendment really ought to be read by the Supreme Court, and it details a new kind of church which can escape the establishment clause and may help your own personal walk.

If we can convert Congress back to respecting Jesus Christ daily, we can save America and the world. Just think if Congress returned to having Bible study and praying for 3 hours daily before getting to the nation's business, there would be far more reliance on Divine Providence, far less partisan disagreements, and less time wasted on legislating unimportant matters resulting in reducing the size of government for all.

PSOLUS,

"I understand.

It's so much easier to simply quote from you book of magic than it is to actually try to do what your book of magic tells you that you are supposed to do."

Ummmm....We actually do have ministries and outreach that address and deal with every issue that you listed....including masturbation.

I don't think you do understand.

Hi Walter, RCofield,

WALTER: "my premise is that human's morals have evolved over the eons to get to where they are are now. therefore it makes perfect sense to me that modern morals are better than biblical morals. and by "better" i mean "kinder, gentler, more respectful of individual rights" - i.e., more conducive to getting along in society."

RCO: "Fifty million recorded abortions in America since 1973, roughly 800 million worldwide since 1920...200 million war casualties during the 20 century alone, cold-blooded geonocides, shameless eugenics, underground sex-slave trade worldwide involving hundreds of thousands of children, mass sterilization of the "unfit", encroaching euthanasia....Yes, Walter, our "evolved" morality is really something to behold, isn't it? Dear God, man. You can't POSSIBLY be THAT disconnected from reality."

WALTER: "i do think the average person in the world today is "better off" than 200 and 500 and 1000 etc...years ago...." in terms of this, society's morals are improving."
-------------------------------------------

Good points RCofield.

Hitler understood the power of the media. Now we have TV/MTV. Holywood is promoting and exporting its brand of morality to almost every part of the globe. I'd say that morality is taking a gigantic nose dive. Pluralism, relativism, subjectivism, tolerance, anything goes. The guilty are the victims and the victims guilty. Adults and children exposed to every kind of depravity in mass doses every night. Brutality, crime, murder, sexual immorality, adultery, alternative lifestyles, greed, horror, egotism, selfishness, loose moral conduct, lying, betrayal, oneupmanship, drugs, and a massive dose of entertainment to the point of imbecility.

Great roll models are endless. Tiger Woods, Ben Johnson, Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton, but the real unsung hero goes unnoticed. Stars and pro-athletes getting paid exorbitant amounts of money. Servants of humanity - doctors, lawyers, politicians cashing in for their ten minutes of fame. They’ve lost their sense of servanthood, of being a humanitarian.

As one Christian author put it, Who switched the price tags?

Come on Walter. Your world-view does not even have a best to compare better to.

Hi RCofield, Walter,

Good posts RCofield. I'm anxiously waiting to see Walter tackle any of these verses he laid out after your ten part (Decalogue) response.

You points are well taken by me. A perfect God who has made a covenant relationship with these people, and them with Him, establishes the ground rules. The One of greater authority and higher ways shows more of who is He really is - holy, pure, the perfect standard. How could a good God allow sin in His presence?

How could He compromise His standards and allow evil and still be considered good or just? These are questions Walter needs to consider.

RCofield, your points on children disrespecting parents is well noted. If a person (other than Jesus, and the Christian who abides in Christ) were capable of constantly following such standards of honoring their parents, being honest, not coveting or taking things that do not belong to him, and most importantly of all, honoring and loving God (for in such all these begin and find there completion and fulfillment) the world would certainly be a better place to live in.

The point is the the law is a school teacher to lead us to Christ. It shows us that we are not capable in and of ourselves of keeping these commandments. They are to high for a fallen nature. They show the flaws of that corrupted human nature.

Walter, look around the world at all the different subjective standards, all the different evils perpetrated by man. Why do you think that the standard that you agree upon is more evolved and thus better? I find it interesting too that what you seem to agree upon as good (to some extent in the UDHR) is exactly what the Bible says as such - love of neighbor and treating those around you as you would like to be treated - but the Bible even goes a step further to treat others even better than yourselves.

And the points we disagree on, such as abortion, and possibly same-sex marriage, you cannot justify as to why you believe them to be good for your moral system keeps evolving, keeps changing, and sometimes it swings back and forth and wobbles about all over the place.

RCofield,

"Ummmm. OK...but you will have to come visit our community and church for me to "show" you these things. And...you would have to have personal contact with lowly people of faith... You sure you are up to such condescension? Of course, I'm sure you would find it all quite "amusing," so it might be worth the trip for you."

I understand.

It's so much easier to simply quote from you book of magic than it is to actually try to do what your book of magic tells you that you are supposed to do.

Hello everyone,

I forgot one of our cardinal rules, that if a forum closed down before we agreed on another to go to Susan Jacoby's for the next link. Anyway, I have a lot of reading to do.
RCofield, did you go to Susan's 'The Spirited Atheist' to find this link?

PSOLUS,

"Show us your works to stop abortions.

Show us your works to feed the hungry.

Show us your works to house the homeless.

Show us your works to "cure" homosexuals.

Show us your works to stop people from fornicating.

Show us your works to stop people from masturbating.

Show us your works to stop people from doing "evil"."

RCO: Ummmm. OK...but you will have to come visit our community and church for me to "show" you these things. And...you would have to have personal contact with lowly people of faith... You sure you are up to such condescension? Of course, I'm sure you would find it all quite "amusing," so it might be worth the trip for you.

RCofield,

"You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith APART from your works, and I will show you my faith BY my works.....20 Do you have to be shown, you foolish person, that FAITH APART FROM WORKS IS USELESS?"

Show us your works to stop abortions.

Show us your works to feed the hungry.

Show us your works to house the homeless.

Show us your works to "cure" homosexuals.

Show us your works to stop people from fornicating.

Show us your works to stop people from masturbating.

Show us your works to stop people from doing "evil".

WALTER,

RCO: "Could you give me a reasonably comprehensive list of notable Atheistic/ Enlightenment advocates who were ACTIVE (not just "criticizing" from the sidelines) in abolishing slavery?"

WALT: "first, many enlightenment thinkers were not necessarily atheist. some were i suppose, "liberal" christians, lapsed christians, deists and who knows what else."

So...Walter, did it ever occur to you that if all these men on your list were "liberal chrisitans," "lapsed christians," and "deists" I can argue that it could just as easily have been the residual influence of christianity that prompted them to oppose slavery?

Now to your list:

Robert G. Ingersoll--Though his father (a devout christian) is said to have had "abolitionist leanings", I can find no evidence that Robert G. Ingersoll was personally active in the abolitionist movement. Please supply.

Henry David Thoreau: Mmmmm. Maybe. Seems that his only significant contribution was a public defense of the Harper's Ferry incident. Hardly an "active" involvement.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau--Active in the abolitionist movement? Can't find anything to support that. Evidence please.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham (all philosophers--can't find evidence of active involvement--please provide) Thomas Paine? Revolutionary, not abolitionist. Different issue.

Jaques Pierre Brissot: Ah! Finally someone who actually started an elitist "Society of the Friends of the Blacks." Printed a bunch of pamphlets and such. Doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence that this small society ever got their hands dirty with any active participation in freeing slaves, but hey, they were French. What more could we possibly expect?

Well, not a very impressive list, unless, of course, you can provide some actual evidence that these individuals were actively involved the the freeing of slaves....instead of just "criticizing" from the sidelines. We have a passage of scripture in christianity that address these kinds of "convictions" that aren't backed up by any real action:

James 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith APART from your works, and I will show you my faith BY my works.....20 Do you have to be shown, you foolish person, that FAITH APART FROM WORKS IS USELESS?

C'mon Walter. If you are going to claim the emancipation of slaves as an accomplishment of the "Enlightenment" you are going to have to come up with a more convincing list than this.

WALTER,

WALT: "...if one takes the bible at its word, then god invented slavery, he instructed the israelites to take slaves, and jesus did nothing to correct yahweh. the fact is christian have, for centuries, used biblical quotes to justify slavery. those are facts..... you can obfuscate about different kinds of slavery, or how slavery was good for the slaves or whatever tack you choose - and you'll find yourself in the good company of those christian pro-slavery people i mentioned above."

LOL. You obviously haven't yet read parts 8, 9, and 10 of my response below. No "obfuscation" there OR in the bible on this issue.

WALT: "btw, here's where you hedged on god's moral perfection:
"Aside from the fact that I have not (yet) tried to claim perfection for the morality laid out in the bible...."

Now you are proof-texting what I have written. How is saying that I have not YET tried to claim perfection, etc. "hedging" on God's moral perfection? If you read that statement in context, it is obvious I was merely pointing out the fact that you were jumping to conclusions about my position that I had not yet revealed.

rco, you said,
"And secondly, could you provide ONE historical example of an abolition movement prior to the 20th century (where something was ACTUALLY DONE) that was NOT founded on Christian convictions?"

well, this is harder because back then practically everyone in america ('cept the natives...) was christian. (this fact makes jefferson, madison, paine, franklin et. al. all the more amazing.) nonetheless, there's the "society for the friends of blacks", an abolitionist movement in france from the late 1700s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Friends_of_the_Blacks and france (your favorite enlightenment country...) banned slavery around 1791.

on the other hand, the list of christians in support of slavery is much easier to assemble, and this is by no means comprehensive. here's a list i "googled up" (but not made up) from just one page:

Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, pope Gregory I, pope Nicholas V, pope Gregory IX, Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, Reverend Dr. Richard Furman - President of the Baptist State Convention, George Fitzhugh, Reverend James Warley Miles, Baptist Minister Thomas F. Dixon, Jr.. surely there were many more.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Religion/slavery.htm
http://churchslavery.blogspot.com/

now, my point here is not to say christians weren't involved in the abolition movement. of course they were - they were squarely ON BOTH SIDES of the issue. it's understandable, because slavery is repulsive to basic humanistic sensibilities, but, if one takes the bible at its word, then god invented slavery, he instructed the israelites to take slaves, and jesus did nothing to correct yahweh. the fact is christian have, for centuries, used biblical quotes to justify slavery. those are facts..... you can obfuscate about different kinds of slavery, or how slavery was good for the slaves or whatever tack you choose - and you'll find yourself in the good company of those christian pro-slavery people i mentioned above.
--------------------------------
btw, here's where you hedged on god's moral perfection:
"Aside from the fact that I have not (yet) tried to claim perfection for the morality laid out in the bible...."

rco, thanks for your response to those horrible bible verses. i'll read over your response today and/or tomorrow and respons as time permits. meanwhile, to address one of your earlier questions:

"Could you give me a reasonably comprehensive list of notable Atheistic/ Enlightenment advocates who were ACTIVE (not just "criticizing" from the sidelines) in abolishing slavery?

first, many enlightenment thinkers were not necessarily atheist. some were i suppose, "liberal" christians, lapsed christians, deists and who knows what else. anyway, here's a few who i don't think are christian or who didn't much reference christianity: robert ingersol, thoreau, rouseau, r.w.emerson (does unitarian count? i know most "serious" christians don't think of unitarians as christians), j.s.mill, j.bentham, thomas paine, jacques pierre brissot.

and you'd have a hard time finding writings from abraham lincoln indicating he was "christian" in the "jesus is/was resurrected god" and "original sin" kind of way. i think most people count him as deist. he was never a member of a church. to be sure lincoln was religious - often speaking of "god" and "providence" and "creator" and so forth - but i don't think he was christian. he was also a politician and surely then, as now, christians being as afraid of non-christians as they are, it would have been political suicide for a politician to be overtly anything other than christian.

WALTER,

(Part 1 of 10)

Following are my responses to your straw-man bible verses. To remind you of the context in which you are offering these, you have stated:

1) You contend that modern society’s moral standards are more “evolved” and superior to those stated in the bible.

2) You have stated that the bible was no doubt a “good” moral standard “back then.”

3) You then, in contradiction to your above stated premise, cite (proof-text) the following passages as evidence of “horrible” morality, even claiming that they constitute “atrocities.”

4) And then you claim that YOUR moral standard is “better” than God’s. (Sheesh! If humility can be considered a moral virtue….you may have just established an unprecedented standard of immorality)

5) When I pointed out a number of high-moral-standard passages from the book of Leviticus (which book, you agree, with TW, should be torn out of the bible), you responded that these were “lovely,” but could not be squared with your so-called “horrible” citations.

I then responded:

RCO: “"God is all good in the passages that you think are “lovely” and He is all good in the passages that you think are “horrible.” Your rejection of God and your subjective moralism blind you to the greater good that exists in the so-called “horrible” passages."

To which you responded:

WALT: “uh...nope...not gonna fly - unless you can explain the "greater good" (hahahaha) in these verses:”

Ironically, in most of these passages you offer, the root of your problem with them is that GOD HAS SET THE STANDARD OF MORALITY TOO HIGH, in your not-so-humble opinion. You boast of your (and “modern society’s”) moral standards, yet when you come to the moral standards of God, well, His standards are just “atrocious.” The extent to which the absurdity of this is lost on you is of biblical proportions.

Here we go.

WALTER,

(Part 2 of 10)

Le 20:9 For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

First, you contend that it is “immoral” for God to command that a child be put to death for cursing their father or , but I will presume that you DO NOT think it is a GOOD thing for a child to curse their parents. I’ve seen children do this before, and if you have not, I can assure you that it is a chilling thing to behold. It is a particularly heinous form of rebellion, and it utterly disregards all the sacrifices that the parent makes to give life to, love, feed, clothe, house, and educate said child. Further, I would presume that you would agree that some form of punishment would be requisite for such an offense. I don’t know what your father would have done had you cursed him, but I am fairly certain that had I cursed my father the penalty would have been something similar to death!

Secondly, it must be noted what this offense signified. The conjunction “for” in verse 9 points us back to verses 7 & 8: “Consecrate yourselves….be holy….obey my statutes—for I am the LORD your God.” What is God asserting here? His rightful authority over the nation of Israel. What is He calling for them to do? Submit themselves to that authority. How does this relate to the parent child relationship? Parents have a God-appointed authority over their children. What is the moral standard being emphasized in verse 9? The necessity of children submitting too and respecting the authority of their parents.

When this verse is coupled with the other passages of the OT concerning the parent-child relationship (prohibitions against “striking” a parent/respect for one’s elders/honor father and mother, etc.), you would have to agree that the “OT God” set a higher standard of morality than is common in our day on this issue. Your argument of a “better” and “more evolved” morality in modern society is laughable when one considers the extent to which we no longer see respect and reverence for one’s parents/elders. Given the severe penalty for rebellion against parents prescribed by God, I doubt this was a problem in ancient Israel.

WALTER,

(Part 3 of 10)

Why does God place such emphasis on this issue of submission to and respect for authority? (this permeates the entire bible). Because the fabric of society begins unraveling when respect for authority is lost. If children do not respect the authority of parents, if citizens do not respect the authority of governments, and if cultures in general do not respect the authority of God….CHAOS eventually ensues. There is the “greater good” in this supposedly “terrible” passage. I would say “surely you can see this,” but at this point in our dialogue I am beginning to wonder….

Note also that closing statement of verse 9: If a child curses a parent…they are to be put to death…and his “blood is upon him.” If an Israelite child, knowing the penalty, chose to curse their father/mother, the responsibility for bearing the penalty is laid at the child’s feet. I don’t think the average parent in that day would bring their child to the elders for stoning in the event of that child cursing their parents in a one-time fit of anger, do you? If you consider the tenor of these passages through-out the OT, they seem to speak of behavior that has become habitual, repetitive. Any reasonable parent would have done all within their power to curb such aberrant behavior, repeatedly disciplining and warning the child of the ultimate consequence should they continue such disrespect for authority. The execution of the penalty of death would have been a last resort for a child who had become so uncontrollable that they were a threat to society at-large. Given the clear penalty for such conduct and the parental effort to turn the heart of the child from rebellion, such a child would then be solely responsible for their own demise—their blood would be upon them.

In the end, your problem with this passage is that God sets the standard of morality TOO HIGH for your “evolved” moral palate. Is the penalty for violation of this standard stringent? You bet. Am I thankful that this penalty is no longer required because of the redemptive work of Christ? Absolutely. But the penalty was proportionate to the moral necessity of the standard…the greater good of order and civility in the national community. And you think your moral standards are higher than God’s? Please.

WALTER,

(Part 4 of 10)

Le 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by whoring, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.
First, it should be noted that the above penalty for prostitution was required only of the daughters of priests. You have repeatedly and erroneously characterized this as a requirement for all Israelites.

Secondly, you again are reacting to this passage because God has set the moral standard TOO HIGH for your taste. Your focus is on the penalty, and you ignore the abhorrence of the offense. You do this because you are “proof-texting”, so you bring your presupposition that “modern morals” are superior to the “morality of the bible.” Hence, you force your presupposition into the passage and declare God “immoral” (with the effeminate exclamation “yuk!” for effect). In doing so, you ignore the high moral standard being established by God.

The priests (and their families) were held to a higher standard of moral rectitude than the population at large. Their labor and ministry in the tabernacle/temple required a more stringent level of moral purity because they ministered before an infinitely holy God who would not allow uncleanness in His presence. Given that they were entering into a land (Canaan) where temple prostitution was part of the pagan worship of deities, God’s purpose in this prohibition was intended to distinguish His worship from that of the pagans. Keep in mind that the Canaanites employed child sacrifice, temple prostitution, bestiality, etc. as forms of worship. Surely, with your “highly evolved” sense of morality, you wouldn’t view such debauched behavior as acceptable. Consequently, if a daughter of an Israelite priest engaged in a persistent life of prostitution, such aberrant behavior defiled her, her father, and the worship of God. Additionally, the Levitical priests were expected to set a high standard of morality because the rest of the nation would have been affected had the daughters of their priests become prostitutes.

Again, as with the penalty for cursing parents, the penalty for such behavior was stringent—death by fire. I doubt there many daughters of priests who became prostitutes in ancient Israel, and there appear to be no recorded instances of such in scripture. The greater good served by this moral standard was the avoidance of the devastating national consequences of the practice of prostitution—destroyed lives of precious daughters, “fatherless” children, STDs, broken homes, etc. The penalty was proportionate to the necessity of the moral standard. Ultimately, your problem with the strictness of the penalty here blinds you to the horror of that which is prohibited by the penalty.

WALTER,

(Part 5 of 10)

Le 27:3 then the valuation of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. 4 If the person is a female, the valuation shall be thirty shekels.

You declare this passage “sexist” because a female is here “valued” at “3/5” the value of a male. One can only shake one’s head at your interpretation. This is classic proof-texting, for there is not a hint of “sexism” in what is said here. You are forcing that meaning into the text because that is what you want it to mean—and that lacks integrity. As there is no moral standard being established by this passage, your misinterpretation is especially forced.

These “valuations” are being made on the basis of the individuals “worth” in the work associated with Tabernacle/Temple worship. Given the physical demands of labor related to the transport and erection of the tabernacle, the sacrifice of animals, etc., a male would by nature be more capable of doing the work than a female. Hence, for the purpose of hard labor, a man was valued higher than a woman. This passage has nothing whatsoever to do with the person’s worth as an individual, and you only bring it to the table because of your radical, anti-theistic agenda. Consider it dismissed.

While we are on the subject of “sexism” I want to point out yet another glaring inconsistency in your position. You point out that in the 10th Commandment that God “lists ‘wife’ along with ‘house’ and ‘ox’ as a man's possessions.” In your view this is “sexism.” C’mon Walter, this is absurd. What is the prohibition in this commandment? We are not to covet that which belongs to someone else. You are not to “covet” my wife and I am not to “covet” yours. She is YOUR wife, is she not? I mean, you did have wedding vows in which you BOTH agreed to “have and to hold” one another, right? You are her “possession” and she is your “possession.” Only when one is rabidly anti-theistic can one force such an absurd interpretation into that passage. And yet again, you completely miss the “standard of morality” here posited—don’t screw around with your neighbor’s wife. Of course, you probably don’t view adultery as immoral though, do you?

WALTER,

(Part 6 of 10)

Now, let me show you what “sexism” really looks like. You champion the “right” of a woman to murder the child in her womb. In China there is a “one child per family” policy. Given the Oriental emphasis on male children, this has lead to the Draconian family planning practice of ABORTING MOST FEMALE CHILDREN. This has resulted in such a radical genocide of females that the vast majority of Chinese men have no hope of ever marrying….because teenage Chinese males now out-number teenage Chinese women 2-1! That, my friend, is sexism. And keep in mind that it is you who contends that “modern morality” is more “evolved” and “superior.” Give me a break.

De. 13:12 ¶ “If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God is giving you to dwell there, 13 that certain worthless fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, 14 then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently. And behold, if it be true and certain that such an abomination has been done among you, 15 you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, devoting it to destruction, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword.

As I have elsewhere pointed out to you the atrocities commonly committed by the Canaanites, I’ll be brief here. The Canaanite practices of infanticide (sacrificing their children to the pagan god “Molech”), and temple prostitution were abominable practices. When the passage above cites those who say “let us go and serve other gods,” this is the kind of “gods” that are in view. The God of Israel warned them repeatedly that it was for just such practices as this that He was “casting out” the Canaanites from the land, and that Israel was to avoid such wicked practices. The stringent penalty served the “greater good” of preserving the nation of Israel from participating in the infanticidal practices of their atrocity-committing “neighbors.” You do agree that the practice of infanticide is immoral…don’t you?

Of course, Israel eventually did begin to adopt Canaanite worship practices, even sacrificing their children to Molech…and God cast them out of Palestine as well. How immoral of Him…right? And btw, what do you think the implications are here when we have aborted 50 million of our own children (sacrificing them on the “alter” of women’s “rights”)? I’m sure God will just turn a blind eye to such atrocities, I mean, after all, our moral standards are so much “higher” than His, right? Excuse me for a moment while I go and be sick.

WALTER,

(Part 7 of 10)

Now, I think that deals with most of your straw-man passages with the exception of the slavery issue. I want to deal with that separately. See? No “dancing,” no “nuances,” no claiming “well, it’s complicated,” no cherry picking what I respond to and avoiding the tougher questions, no veiled threats that I “may become fed up” with all the God-is-immoral talk. Just straight-forward, no-nonsense answers. That’s what objectivism looks like.
I stated earlier that "God is all good in the passages that you think are ‘lovely’ and He is all good in the passages that you think are ‘horrible.’ Your rejection of God and your subjective moralism blind you to the greater good that exists in the so-called ‘horrible’ passages. To which you responded:

WALT: “uh...nope...not gonna fly - unless you can explain the "greater good" (hahahaha) in these verses:”

“Not gonna fly?” Indeed. Your pity little response (replete with forced humor) notwithstanding, I stand by my statement. And I have supported it with reasonable, cogent, well thought-out argument. Unless you can refute my arguments (all of them), you need to concede that your vitriol against the God of scripture is groundless.

I think you owe me a reasonable response to a particular issue that I raised earlier (to which you never responded). You insist that modern morality is more “evolved” and “superior” to the morality of previous centuries and even the morality of the bible. I think this is an utterly indefensible position. If you do not agree, how do you deal with this:

Fifty million recorded abortions in America since 1973, roughly 800 million worldwide since 1920...200 million war casualties during the 20 century alone, myriad cold-blooded genocides, shameless eugenics, underground sex-slave trade worldwide involving hundreds of thousands of children, rampant pedophilia, mass sterilization of the "unfit", encroaching euthanasia....Yes, Walter, our "evolved" morality is really something to behold, isn't it? Dear God, man. You can't POSSIBLY be THAT disconnected from reality.

WALTER,

(Part 8 of 10)

Now to the issue of slavery.

You have been rather derisive of the bible’s position on slavery, even claiming that God “condones” and “advocates” slavery, that the bible nowhere condemns slavery, that Christ “missed” His “opportunity” to condemn slavery, that the apostle Paul condoned slavery, etc. ad nauseum.

I asked you to define what, exactly, that you found “immoral” about slavery to which you responded that slavery was immoral because it deprived individuals of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Subsequently, I pointed out that this type of “forced” slavery to which you were objecting was not the only category of slavery that existed during biblical times. It was common practice during biblical times for individuals to willingly “sell” themselves to a “master” for financial/material considerations. This is not unlike (and was even a precursor to) the modern practice of individuals borrowing money from a lending institution and “binding” themselves to repayment with interest. Proverbs 22:7 “The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender.”

Additionally there was the common practice of the “bondservant” in which one who sold themselves into slavery would, after fulfilling their obligation to their master, desired to continue serving him for the remainder of their lives. This was often the case when a “slave” had become so much a part of his “master’s” family that he was willing to subject himself to his master for life. Both of these types of slavery were simple economic and cultural realities of biblical times.

You have contended that God/Scripture condone and advocate slavery AS YOU HAVE DEFINED IT: The deprivation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is “forced” slavery in which the will of the individual enslaved is violated. So…what does scripture actually have to say about this form of slavery? Well, a great deal, actually.

First, it must be pointed out that God delivered the nation of Israel FROM this form of slavery. Exodus 1:13 So they (the Egyptians) ruthlessly made the people of Israel work as slaves 14 and made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and brick, and in all kinds of work in the field. In all their work they ruthlessly made them work as slaves. Exodus 2:23 During those many days….the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. 24 And God heard their groaning…Exodus 3:7 Then the LORD said, “I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters. I know their sufferings, 8 and I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey…

WALTER,

(Part 9 of 10)

And deliver them He did, bringing severe judgment on the nation that had enslaved them. Now Walter does this sound like God “condones” and “advocates” forced slavery? I think the answer is obvious. Now here is the kicker. Consider this passage: Ex 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Pretty clear, huh? Not only was the one who “stole” a person and forced them into slavery to be put to death, but anyone found in possession of such a “forced” slave was to be put to death. God didn’t deliver the Israelites out of the bondage of forced slavery to then turn around and “condone” and “advocate” them forcing others into slavery.

So why all of your posturing and chest-thumping about God being pro-slavery? Why do you posit all of these absurd declarations about “modern society’s morality” being “better” than the morality of God because “we know slavery is bad?” Well, you probably got a whiff of this straw-man argument from reading one of the books by the New Atheism apostles, “googled” it and found all kinds of pontification on this issue on the Atheists-R-Us websites, and then it was off to the races. (I’ve read the books and visited the websites, and your arguments are virtually verbatim regurgitations of what I have read.) Then, armed with this pseudo-knowledge, you turn to the bible (or just cut-and-pasted the passages from Atheists-R-Us….?). With the erroneous presupposition that God “condoned” forced slavery you begin “proof-texting” passages that seem to “prove” what you had already determined. Problem is, your anti-theistic approach to the bible precludes your being able to understand what is actually being said in the text.

Every one of the passages you have offered yields a more accurate and sensible interpretation when filtered through what I have presented above. If you doubt this, re-examine them, and if there are any that you have doubts about I will be happy to exposit them for you.

So…what of the New Testament on forced slavery, you ask? Consider: I Timothy 1:8 “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, ENSLAVERS, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine…”

WALTER,

(Part 10 of 10)

Did you catch that? ENSLAVERS. The Greek word here translated “enslavers” is “andrapodistes,” literally meaning “a slave-dealer, kidnapper, man-stealer; ONE WHO UNJUSTLY REDUCES FREE MEN TO SLAVERY.” Well, how about that? Don’t you feel juuuust a little silly? Quite contrary to your absurd assertions about the bible’s stance on slavery, this passage puts forced slavery in the same category of immorality as dishonoring parents (you know—that OT moral standard that is so inferior to “modern” moral standards), murderers, sexual deviants, homosexuality, liars, and perjurers.

Additionally, there is the little book of Philemon, in which the apostle Paul commands Philemon to receive again the AWOL slave Onesimus, not as a slave, but as a brother. Further, I earlier stated that a number of Christ’s teachings would necessarily have precluded the practice of forced slavery, to which you responded derisively. Well, try these on for size: Mt 5:7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. Mt 7:12 ¶ “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Mr 12:31 ….You shall love your neighbor as yourself…. Any one of these principles practically lived out precludes one from forcing another into slavery.

Finally, you said: “of course the reality is it was christians and others involved in abolition. but i think christians like wilberforce could not have come along before the enlightenment. or if they did, no one would have listened to them. but it seems to me like wilberforce must have been influenced by enlightenment thinking. there's nothing in the christian books(s) that says "no slavery". and christians had had 1500 years to "do something" about slavery. it only took humanist/renaissance/enlightenment thinkers a few hundred years to abolish it.”

How utterly absurd. The abolitionist landscape is replete with well-known christians who were actively involved in these movements due to their biblical convictions. I've done a little digging, and, unless I have just overlooked something, I have made a startling discovery. I am having a REALLY hard time finding all these "Enlightenment Abolitionists" you keep referring to.

Could you give me a reasonably comprehensive list of notable Atheistic/ Enlightenment advocates who were ACTIVE (not just "criticizing" from the sidelines) in abolishing slavery?

And secondly, could you provide ONE historical example of an abolition movement prior to the 20th century (where something was ACTUALLY DONE) that was NOT founded on Christian convictions?

You see, Walter, the biblical prohibition against forced slavery preceded your beloved “Enlightenment” by 3,000 years. Your claim of “evolved” modern morality being superior to the morality of the bible on the basis of your contentions about slavery is patently absurd. You should concede this point and retract your statements.

If you are a mean-spirited, overly-religious, dull-witted politician wannabee then God's Great Plan for You obviously, as you hope, puts you over the top at election time. God's Great Plan for Me forecasts too few votes for that to happen. My God can beat up Your God.

RCofield,

"You are certainly entitled to your yet-unsupported opinion."

As is everyone.

"You may have seen evidence of belief based on poor thinking."

Yes, I have; fitting that you should bring that up.

"My bitter disappointment at not meeting your high standard of excellence in apologetic construction may destroy my self-esteem."

That's just one of the dangers of having to seek the approval of others.

"Do you mean I am no longer providing mindless amusement for you?"

What makes you think that you ever did?

Boy are you deluded and foolish. You cheapen God and degrade him to a political ad - you know nothing

PSOLUS,

"Faulty logic is faulty logic, irrespective of my pointing it out."

RCO: You are certainly entitled to your yet-unsupported opinion.

RCO: "And yet it is not possible to believe without thinking..."

PSO: "I have seen evidence to the contrary."

RCO: You may have seen evidence of belief based on poor thinking. I would say think about it, but...that might jeapordize your hard-fought position of believing nothing.

PSO: "And, I wrote that the meanings of words evolve."

RCO: I was wondering, do the meanings of words evolve due to the Darwinian Maxim of the Survival of the Fittest?

PSO: "All you really need is a current dictionary."

RCO: But...what if etymologists discover a new species of word meanings before the next "current" dictionary is published?

RCO: "Well constructed, no?"

PSO: "No."

RCO: My bitter disappointment at not meeting your high standard of excellence in apologetic construction may destroy my self-esteem. Do you think the Argument Clinic may be able to help me?

RCO: "Isn't this just jocularly delightful?"

PSO: "For you, perhaps."

RCO: Aw...PSOLUS! Do you mean I am no longer providing mindless amusement for you? How shall I go on....my life no longer has meaning...

Peace, brother

RCofield,

"It may well be, but your merely stating that it is faulty does not make it faulty."

Faulty logic is faulty logic, irrespective of my pointing it out.

"And yet it is not possible to believe without thinking..."

I have seen evidence to the contrary.

"I was wondering, does an "evolving" word carry its own personal "selfish gene?""

Words do not have genes.

And, I wrote that the meanings of words evolve.

"Could you direct me to an "evolutionary tree of words" so that I won't be so easily confused?"

All you really need is a current dictionary.

"Well constructed, no?"

No.

"Isn't this just jocularly delightful?"

For you, perhaps.

At some point and time throughout history as christians have learned it God have had his chosen involved in politics and being in the leadership positions even of non-believers. Joseph of the book of Genesis fame, was given power by God to be positioned to be the prime minister of Egypt. He was the second most powerful man in the land of the living outside of the non-believer pharoar. So God can have given his authority to an obedient believer that preach abstaining until marriage and that confess about how the world challenge her decision to be obedient to the will of God. Some people are deceived to the fact Paul challenged the homosexual Caesar to become a believer since he was already condemned. paul did not worry that Caesar had the authority to end his life on that spot which he spoke. Faith covers more than the traditions of the world or the practices of some religions no matter what they call themselves. I do not know if God called O'Donnell to run for office, but we know it ws not any political party nor any of it's backers.

PSOLUS,

The fact that I keep engaging you is probably indicative of my own depravity, but I do enjoy it occasionally in a diabolic sort of way. So, here we go:

PSO: "I am doing no "etymological research"."

RCO: Yet you recommend it.

RCO: "Ok. I'll do it for you. "Fetus" is of Latin origin, referring to the pre-birth life of a child, and, by extension, was even often used to refer to the early post-birth years of a child. Hence, your opinion that a "fetus is not a child" is contradictory within itself."

PSO: "Your attempt at logic is as faulty as ever."

RCO: It may well be, but your merely stating that it is faulty does not make it faulty.

RCO: "You said that you find "the very idea of God"..."amusing." Interesting. To "muse" means to think. The prefix "a" negates that which it precedes, rendering "a-musing" to mean the absence of careful thought. Hence, your absence of thought about God may have something to do with your unbelief."

PSO: "Again, your attempt at logic is faulty."

RCO: I am not offended because I know you don't actually believe that. It is merely your yet-unsupported opinion.

PSO: "You, however, may want to do some 'etymological research' on the word 'opinion.'"

RCO: "Ok. The word (opinion) originally meant "conjecture" (to guess)...LOL!, or "to judge" (which presumes some form of basis for said judgment), to suppose. See? That's not difficult at all."

PSO: "Believing has never been difficult; that is why so many people choose to believe rather than to think."

RCO: And yet it is not possible to believe without thinking...and you believe nothing...hence,....Nah! That one's too easy.

RCO: "Words have meaning."

PSO: Actually, many words have many meanings.

RCO: And yet no word can have just any meaning we wish to ascribe to it.

PSO: "And the meanings of the words evolve as our knowledge increases."

RCO: I was wondering, does an "evolving" word carry its own personal "selfish gene?"

PSO: "If one does not keep up with the evolution of the meanings of words, one can easily become confused,..."

RCO: Could you direct me to an "evolutionary tree of words" so that I won't be so easily confused?

PSO: "...one can easily become confused, especially if one depends on faith at the expense of intelligence."

RCO: I agree completely, without reservation.

RCO: "If you really thought those meanings were inconsequential you would not be posting your opinions on these threads."

PSO: "Who are you, the comment posting police?"

RCO: Easy there, big fella! (credit to Walter 8^)). That was merely an observation, not a "cyber-posting citation."

Well constructed, no? Isn't this just jocularly delightful?

RCofield,

"Ok. I'll do it for you. "Fetus" is of Latin origin, referring to the pre-birth life of a child, and, by extension, was even often used to refer to the early post-birth years of a child. Hence, your opinion that a "fetus is not a child" is contradictory within itself."

Your attempt at logic is as faulty as ever.

"Ok. The word originally meant "conjecture" (to guess)...LOL!, or "to judge (which presumes some form of basis for said judgment), to suppose."

See? That's not difficult at all."

Believing has never been difficult; that is why so many people choose to believe rather than to think.

"You said that you find "the very idea of God"..."amusing." Interesting. To "muse" means to think. The prefix "a" negates that which it precedes, rendering "a-musing" to mean the absence of careful thought. Hence, your absence of thought about God may have something to do with your unbelief."

Again, your attempt at logic is faulty.

"Words have meaning."

Actually, many words have many meanings.

And the meanings of the words evolve as our knowledge increases.

If one does not keep up with the evolution of the meanings of words, one can easily become confused, especially if one depends on faith at the expense of intelligence.

"If you really thought those meanings were inconsequential you would not be posting your opinions on these threads."

Who are you, the comment posting police?

Good Grief, people! Do you seriously think a god, any God, especially your Jesus God, would actually care 1 bit about who would hold some grubby little political job in some arbitrary geographical area on some nondescript planet surrounding a remote star in 1 of a billion galaxies in an universe which might be just 1 of infinite number which itself may be just a mote in eternity itself? And stop quoting the ridiculous Christian book as some sort of basis for anything! With thousands of sects and thousands of interpretations, this book has no authority at all except to bludgeon its sects people to blindly follow their chosen priests!

PSOLUS,

PSO said: "I am doing no "etymological research"."

Ok. I'll do it for you. "Fetus" is of Latin origin, referring to the pre-birth life of a child, and, by extension, was even often used to refer to the early post-birth years of a child. Hence, your opinion that a "fetus is not a child" is contradictory within itself.

PSO: "You, however, may want to do some 'etymological research' on the word 'opinion.'"

Ok. The word originally meant "conjecture" (to guess)...LOL!, or "to judge (which presumes some form of basis for said judgment), to suppose."

See? That's not difficult at all.

You said that you find "the very idea of God"..."amusing." Interesting. To "muse" means to think. The prefix "a" negates that which it precedes, rendering "a-musing" to mean the absence of careful thought. Hence, your absence of thought about God may have something to do with your unbelief.

Words have meaning. If you really thought those meanings were inconsequential you would not be posting your opinions on these threads.

RCofield,

"Peter and I would probably pitch in to get you into the "Argument Clinic" if they could help you formulate a few cogent arguments to support your "opinions."

Any progress on your etymological research?"

I am doing no "etymological research".

You, however, may want to do some "etymological research" on the word "opinion".

rco, re lev27,
it's my understanding these people are being "offered to the lord" - sort of like being put in the collection plate. apparently, families could give people to the "church" - hopefully to serve as temple caretakers or something - or give money or animals.

i use this as an example of a sexist verse. if that's not sexist enough i can proof-text ya a few others - as this verse is just one of hundreds of sexist verses in the bible. this one was "nice" because it's so specific: a woman is worth 3/5 of a man.

when i get to human sacrifice and/or god killing innocents, i'll mention verses like judges11:29-40 (sacrifice of daughter to win a battle), 2sam12:14 (god kills david's baby for david's sin) and 2sam12:14 (god takes the sacrifice of 7 israelites to end a drought).

actually, rco, tw found one of my jacoby posts.

i never realized how close we were to the end of that other post. i guess it had been active for a while before we got there.

btw, here is that old thread.:
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2010/09/would_you_like_some_values_with_that_tea.html

PSOLUS,

"The very idea of a "god" is amusing to me."

And a much less expensive amusement option than the "Argument Clinic," right?...Although....Peter and I would probably pitch in to get you into the "Argument Clinic" if they could help you formulate a few cogent arguments to support your "opinions." 8^)

Any progress on your etymological research?

WALTER,

Found you. I recalled Peter saying the Susan Jacoby blog was the default meeting point, but I doubt TW knows that. I'll try to post our location for him on all the threads if he doesn't show up in a day or two.

WALT: "i'm not even going to respond to all of your 'dancing around, cackling, and crowing to the top of his lungs'"

That's ok. I wouldn't want you distracted by that little observation when you are seemingly having difficulty responding to my actual consequential arguments.

I'll post tomorrow night or Saturday on the list of passages you posted below (as well as the earlier ones), but I need a little clarification on Lev. 27:3-4. What exactly is it that is so "horrible" about that one in your estimation? Do you understand why these valutions were being designated?

"the idea of "god's plan" is amusing to me."

The very idea of a "god" is amusing to me.

the idea of "god's plan" is amusing to me. if he has a plan, it must have gone horribly wrong given the disease, starvation and suffering in the world....
--------------

hi peter, rco, tw, (psolus?)

rco,
i'm not even going to respond to all of your "dancing around, cackling, and crowing to the top of his lungs" - 'cept to say thanks for teaching me the word "banny", and, project much?
----------------

in response to my saying,
"the abundant HORRIBLE verses prove either:
1)leviticus was not written/inspired by god
or
2)god is not all good

which is it?"

you said,
"God is all good in the passages that you think are “lovely” and He is all good in the passages that you think are “horrible.” Your rejection of God and your subjective moralism blind you to the greater good that exists in the so-called “horrible” passages."

uh...nope...not gonna fly - unless you can explain the "greater good" (hahahaha) in these verses:

lev20:9
For(A) anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother;(B) his blood is upon him.

lev21:9
And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by whoring, profanes her father;(A) she shall be burned with fire.

lev25:46
You may bequeath them [people you own] to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel(B) you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

lev27:3-4
then the valuation of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old shall be fifty shekels[a] of silver, according to the(A) shekel of the sanctuary. 4If the person is a female, the valuation shall be thirty shekels.

deut13:12-15 (really, all of deut 13)
If you hear in one of your cities...that certain worthless fellows [are] saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,'...if it be true...you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword..."

(oh...earlier i said something like "i can't wait to hear you address ex13." i actually meant deut13. i was not lying when i said "ex13", it was a mistake.)

please address each of these verses - w/o dancing or cackling etc...