Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[Subduction Zone]

Huh? I don't own slaves. My ancestors were both slaves in Egypt (and some of them, a very few if you read the Bible and history) owned some slaves. Jews aren't superior to Gentiles. That's racism. The chosen receive benefits others do not. That's sovereignty.

Am I a "racist" because I believe some go to Heaven and others Hell? That's a silly viewpoint.

How would you know if your ancestors were slaves in Egypt? The Exodus story is rather well debunked.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How would you know if your ancestors were slaves in Egypt? The Exodus story is rather well debunked.

I'm planning a visit to Cairo next year, to see the many ancient monuments there that weren't built by Egyptian slave labor, to help further debunk the Exodus story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm planning a visit to Cairo next year, to see the many ancient monuments there that weren't built by Egyptian slave labor, to help further debunk the Exodus story.

Good luck. I do not know of any ancient monuments built by slaves in Egypt. You have a very difficult task ahead of you. By the way you might want to talk to a real archaeologist first and find out what qualifies as evidence.

 

[night912]

Huh? I don't own slaves.

But you believe it is morally right to own slaves who are not the same "kind" of people as you.

My ancestors were both slaves in Egypt

How is that a defense for not being racist? It can actually be used to argue for racism.

My ancestors were both slaves in Egypt
(and some of them, a very few if you read the Bible and history) owned some slaves. Jews aren't superior to Gentiles. That's racism.

Yes, it is. Your ancestors being slaves in Egypt, is the reason for your racism. So after your ancestors were freed, your God repeatedly pointed out that slavery is immoral for Hebrew to enslave Hebrew, emphasizing that the reason why God forbid it is due to them once being slaves themselves. Hebrew on Hebrew slavery was so immoral that even God made it a commandment, separate from the ten, but a commandment none the less. And here comes the racist part, it is absolutely moral if slavery is done to other "kinds" of people.

Gentiles are considered as being inferior to Jews, therefore it's ok to commit the immoral act of slavery on inferior people, Gentiles.

"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."
- George Gordon Byron

The chosen receive benefits others do not. That's sovereignty.

You mean like in the episode of Roots, where the White Americans received benefits and the NEGROES did not. Yep, totally racist.

Am I a "racist" because I believe some go to Heaven and others Hell? That's a silly viewpoint.

Using a strawman to defend racism, how typical.

You're a racist because you believe that slavery is immoral if it is being used on your "kind" of people, but that's it's absolutely moral when it's being done to other kind of people.


"Every voice raised against racism chips away at its power. We can't afford to stay silent."
- Reni Eddo-Lodge

 

[BilliardsBall]

Good luck. I do not know of any ancient monuments built by slaves in Egypt. You have a very difficult task ahead of you. By the way you might want to talk to a real archaeologist first and find out what qualifies as evidence.

Archaeology theories evolve over time.

Archaeologists qualify as evidence certain documents. Archaeology has verified thousands of Bible details.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But you believe it is morally right to own slaves who are not the same "kind" of people as you.


How is that a defense for not being racist? It can actually be used to argue for racism.


Yes, it is. Your ancestors being slaves in Egypt, is the reason for your racism. So after your ancestors were freed, your God repeatedly pointed out that slavery is immoral for Hebrew to enslave Hebrew, emphasizing that the reason why God forbid it is due to them once being slaves themselves. Hebrew on Hebrew slavery was so immoral that even God made it a commandment, separate from the ten, but a commandment none the less. And here comes the racist part, it is absolutely moral if slavery is done to other "kinds" of people.

Gentiles are considered as being inferior to Jews, therefore it's ok to commit the immoral act of slavery on inferior people, Gentiles.

"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves."
- George Gordon Byron



You mean like in the episode of Roots, where the White Americans received benefits and the NEGROES did not. Yep, totally racist.



Using a strawman to defend racism, how typical.

You're a racist because you believe that slavery is immoral if it is being used on your "kind" of people, but that's it's absolutely moral when it's being done to other kind of people.


"Every voice raised against racism chips away at its power. We can't afford to stay silent."
- Reni Eddo-Lodge

God separates people throughout the NT into two groups--clean and unclean, aka holy and unholy. Holy people go to Heaven--perfectly moral people, therefore, I wanted to discuss morality with you.

I see that you're upset that God will favor some people and allow other people to suffer. A lot of people feel that way. However, when we meet God, I can affirm you understand clearly that God separates people and that you were warned based on my understanding of the warnings found in the Bible.

But I'm not wanting to have an argument with you like "God separates lepers and quarantines them based on the skin color" or "God is a mysogynist because only men can be priests."

I am glad we're past the basics. This is about Heaven and Hell. I agree in that sense with the Eddo-Lodge quote you posted, however, I still don't see what telling me about an ANE practice ended over two millennia ago accomplishes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Archaeology theories evolve over time.

Archaeologists qualify as evidence certain documents. Archaeology has verified thousands of Bible details.

And refuted even more.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And refuted even more.

I know you to be a highly logical person.

Is it logical to say the Bible has thousands of historical details verified through archaeology plus thousands of myths added to it? For example, we can read about architecture details that are true to the periods in which conservatives think the Bible was written, which in turn emphasizes that contemporaneous readers/hearers would know whether myths were added.

Is it logical to say Egypt was the sole culture in the region, indeed, around Africa/Asia/Europe, where a massive empire did not employ slaves for building?

Isn't it logical to consider counter-evidence in archaeology, for example: In ancient mass graves, archaeologists find child slaves of biblical Egypt | The Times of Israel

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know you to be a highly logical person.

Is it logical to say the Bible has thousands of historical details verified through archaeology plus thousands of myths added to it? For example, we can read about architecture details that are true to the periods in which conservatives think the Bible was written, which in turn emphasizes that contemporaneous readers/hearers would know whether myths were added.

Is it logical to say Egypt was the sole culture in the region, indeed, around Africa/Asia/Europe, where a massive empire did not employ slaves for building?

Isn't it logical to consider counter-evidence in archaeology, for example: In ancient mass graves, archaeologists find child slaves of biblical Egypt | The Times of Israel

What makes you think that it has thousands of historical details verified?

 

[BilliardsBall]

What makes you think that it has thousands of historical details verified?

I'll tell you if you address any of my other points:


I know you to be a highly logical person.

Is it logical to say the Bible has thousands of historical details verified through archaeology plus thousands of myths added to it? For example, we can read about architecture details that are true to the periods in which conservatives think the Bible was written, which in turn emphasizes that contemporaneous readers/hearers would know whether myths were added.

Is it logical to say Egypt was the sole culture in the region, indeed, around Africa/Asia/Europe, where a massive empire did not employ slaves for building?

Isn't it logical to consider counter-evidence in archaeology, for example: In ancient mass graves, archaeologists find child slaves of biblical Egypt | The Times of Israel

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll tell you if you address any of my other points:


I know you to be a highly logical person.

Is it logical to say the Bible has thousands of historical details verified through archaeology plus thousands of myths added to it? For example, we can read about architecture details that are true to the periods in which conservatives think the Bible was written, which in turn emphasizes that contemporaneous readers/hearers would know whether myths were added.

Since we now that the Bible is full of myth, yes it is logical. Why do you think that there cannot be some factual matters and some myths in the Bible?

Is it logical to say Egypt was the sole culture in the region, indeed, around Africa/Asia/Europe, where a massive empire did not employ slaves for building?

No one is saying that. Now you are trying t change what others claim and that is not proper debating. And you are also using a black and white fallacy. There probably were some slaves in Egypt. But that does not help your case. Have your read the Exodus? Have you understood it?

Isn't it logical to consider counter-evidence in archaeology, for example: In ancient mass graves, archaeologists find child slaves of biblical Egypt | The Times of Israel

This is called grasping at straws. One ruler of Egypt. One held in not very high regard. May have had slaves. During his brief reign. This did not appear to be the norm. That is shown somewhat by the fact that this is the first find of this sort. Of course your own article answers your questions for you:

"When it comes to the question of whether they could have been the children of ancient Hebrew slaves, academics generally have little doubt the answer is no."

You might want to look into why their answer is no. Trust me, it is not due to a hatred of the Bible as so many literalists will falsely claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I didn't say indentured servitude is only moral for Israelites to use. I said most westerners conflate both ANE slavery and ANE indentured servitude with antebellum slavery.

Economic exchange for servants on property or in a castle, etc. continued until at least the Enlightenment.

Both are immoral.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Slavery is sometimes moral. The Bible contains absolute morality, so for example, Gentiles may be Israelite slaves, Jews may not. Again, sometimes it is moral in the Bible. Or if you like it is absolutely moral to have a Gentile slave (based on certain conditions) and etc.

"Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act."
Moral absolutism - Wikipedia


If something is "sometimes moral" and "sometimes immoral" then you are not arguing for moral absolutism and you've demonstrated that the Bible does not support absolute morality.
In fact, you are now arguing for my position, which is ethical consequentialism.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Since we now that the Bible is full of myth, yes it is logical. Why do you think that there cannot be some factual matters and some myths in the Bible?



No one is saying that. Now you are trying t change what others claim and that is not proper debating. And you are also using a black and white fallacy. There probably were some slaves in Egypt. But that does not help your case. Have your read the Exodus? Have you understood it?


This is called grasping at straws. One ruler of Egypt. One held in not very high regard. May have had slaves. During his brief reign. This did not appear to be the norm. That is shown somewhat by the fact that this is the first find of this sort. Of course your own article answers your questions for you:

"When it comes to the question of whether they could have been the children of ancient Hebrew slaves, academics generally have little doubt the answer is no."

You might want to look into why their answer is no. Trust me, it is not due to a hatred of the Bible as so many literalists will falsely claim.

Thank you for your responses:

The Bible is univocal and proven true via fulfilled prophecy/prescience.

I've read Exodus multiple times in multiple Bible versions. I believe I've understood it.

I'm aware of the arguments against the Exodus and against slave labor for the many monuments in Egypt.

To answer your other inquiry, you may recall where I posted over 80 facts verified by archaeology from just a few chapters of Luke. The Bible contains thousands of such historic, architectural, etc. facts. Liberal scholars have mocked the Bible many times, falsely and for centuries now, I've heard arguments over the years like "Moses isn't an Egyptian name" despite the near-contemporaneous ThutMOSES, "King David and King Solomon didn't exist" (I've visited the remains of both their palaces several times now), etc., etc.

We both have biases we are aware of. I'm biased to trust the Bible both because of fulfilled prophecy (verifiable in history and recent, modern history) and because of encounters with the supernatural.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Both are immoral.

Is it a problem for you that all of our ancestors were immoral. These kinds of economic exchanges were prevalent worldwide for millennia.

You have to choose whether morals have thus evolved, which makes them a slippery slope for you as a relativist, or whether some morals are absolute, for example, your claim that all such ancestor practices were strictly immoral, which basically condemns every ancient culture as immoral--which points to the need for the Savior's redemption IMHO.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act."
Moral absolutism - Wikipedia


If something is "sometimes moral" and "sometimes immoral" then you are not arguing for moral absolutism and you've demonstrated that the Bible does not support absolute morality.
In fact, you are now arguing for my position, which is ethical consequentialism.

I never said any particular something is "sometimes moral". However, there are multiple factors in quantifying a given moral act. For example, you claim following order is amoral, I say the degree to which you follow them quantifies a level of morality (per the Bible). In that instance, you are making an absolutist statement!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for your responses:

The Bible is univocal and proven true via fulfilled prophecy/prescience.

Amazing fail right at the start. I thought that you were being serious. Any proper study of prophecy in the Bible only finds failure after failure. In fact the ability to acknowledge failed prophecy tells us if we are dealing with a Christian that can treat his Bible honestly or not.




[

I've read Exodus multiple times in multiple Bible versions. I believe I've understood it.

I'm aware of the arguments against the Exodus and against slave labor for the many monuments in Egypt.

Then you should know that your interpretation is almost certainly wrong. The problem is that far too many Christians do not understand the first thing about studying the Bible.

To answer your other inquiry, you may recall where I posted over 80 facts verified by archaeology from just a few chapters of Luke. The Bible contains thousands of such historic, architectural, etc. facts. Liberal scholars have mocked the Bible many times, falsely and for centuries now, I've heard arguments over the years like "Moses isn't an Egyptian name" despite the near-contemporaneous ThutMOSES, "King David and King Solomon didn't exist" (I've visited the remains of both their palaces several times now), etc., etc.

That was 80 claims of fact, if I remember correctly. And the vast majority were not historical facts, they were geographic ones. When it came to history the author of Luke made some really big ones. But again I doubt if you will be able to answer that without prejudice.

When you cherry pick only the hits and close hits and ignore all of the failures you lose all credibility.

We both have biases we are aware of. I'm biased to trust the Bible both because of fulfilled prophecy (verifiable in history and recent, modern history) and because of encounters with the supernatural.

This is a huge Tu Quo Que fallacy on your part. My biases are almost nonexistent compared to yours. And this can be demonstrated in how you test your own personal beliefs and the Bible. Do you even know how to begin to.do that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is it a problem for you that all of our ancestors were immoral. These kinds of economic exchanges were prevalent worldwide for millennia.

Yes, it is. What I am happy about is that human beings have evolved beyond Iron Age thinking and have progressed far beyond that.

You have to choose whether morals have thus evolved, which makes them a slippery slope for you as a relativist, or whether some morals are absolute, for example, your claim that all such ancestor practices were strictly immoral, which basically condemns every ancient culture as immoral--which points to the need for the Savior's redemption IMHO.

The slippery slope is all yours, my friend. Please don't try pawning it off onto me. You're the one stating that the Bible contains proclamations about absolute morality while simultaneously saying that morality has changed over time.

And for about the 12th time, I am not a moral relativist. Please write that down or something so you can remember it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I never said any particular something is "sometimes moral". However, there are multiple factors in quantifying a given moral act. For example, you claim following order is amoral, I say the degree to which you follow them quantifies a level of morality (per the Bible). In that instance, you are making an absolutist statement!

You literally said exactly that:

'Slavery is sometimes moral. The Bible contains absolute morality, so for example, Gentiles may be Israelite slaves, Jews may not. Again, sometimes it is moral in the Bible. Or if you like it is absolutely moral to have a Gentile slave (based on certain conditions) and etc."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Amazing fail right at the start. I thought that you were being serious. Any proper study of prophecy in the Bible only finds failure after failure. In fact the ability to acknowledge failed prophecy tells us if we are dealing with a Christian that can treat his Bible honestly or not.




[

Then you should know that your interpretation is almost certainly wrong. The problem is that far too many Christians do not understand the first thing about studying the Bible.



That was 80 claims of fact, if I remember correctly. And the vast majority were not historical facts, they were geographic ones. When it came to history the author of Luke made some really big ones. But again I doubt if you will be able to answer that without prejudice.

When you cherry pick only the hits and close hits and ignore all of the failures you lose all credibility.



This is a huge Tu Quo Que fallacy on your part. My biases are almost nonexistent compared to yours. And this can be demonstrated in how you test your own personal beliefs and the Bible. Do you even know how to begin to.do that?

What would be an example of a huge error Luke made--excluding your bias about supernatural things--he made errors of geography, of history?