There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[suncowiam]

If you reqoire proof I suggest a career in math or making alcohol

Your comments are very short. I'm not sure how to discuss things with you so far. Not sure if you're implying anything, being sarcastic or just simply a person with few words. I'm an engineer so no need for career advice.

 

[suncowiam]

Well, that is honest enough. It will never happen so I guess you will always be an atheist, which is fine as long as you do not turn into an obnoxious one, as many here are.

I've read through some of this thread.

I think it boils down to how athiests and theists communicate. What you found as obnoxious I found as typical. I wouldn't have been annoyed by their responses if I was in a similar debate about something else. Its like one could be annoyed by loud rock music while others love it.

 

[Shad]

Bingo!

He did the same thing with the word create instead of "begins to exist". He is trying to steer the conversation in a certain direction for the inevitable gotcha comment if you play his word games.

 

[cottage]

I did source it as a dictionary definition. I didn't link it as it is within most posters ability to use a search engine to find it, but, here it is, if you feel that I cannot be trusted to deliver the truth.

religion - definition of religion by The Free Dictionary

Blimey, it’s the old inferiority complex showing through again. I think you know what I meant by “careful selection”. You chose the definition that was at the very bottom of the list. Why? It was because the most popular definition, at #1 wouldn’t have suited your argument.

Neither does a research scientists but he does go through certain protocols, as praying is.

How can prayer be a protocol? (!) A scientist, for example, cannot become a professor if unpublished, but what exactly is the protocol concerning prayer in the case of a theist. I’m aware of Muslims being called to prayer, but there are an untold number of theists that never pray.

Or X is a scientist, therefore, there is a 95% chance that he is an atheist. As soon as the concentration of scientists exceed 50% there is a necessary connection. One might not equal the other, but nobody said that it did, apart from you.

Absolutely not! I see you misunderstand the modal principle of possibility and necessity. There is no necessary connection, for example, if at some point every scientist in the world presented as an atheist without a single exception. Why? Well that’s because at some point in the future the opposite could logically obtain. A necessary connection means if X is a scientist then X will necessarily be an atheist; and to state otherwise would imply a contradiction. And that’s ridiculous of course because no argument from the present or past can be an argument to the future.

Are you trying to say that it is self contradictory for a scientist to be a member of Christianity and science. That is what this sounds like.

No I’m not. I’m saying that it is contradictory for a Christian to be an ardent believer in science as a religion where it stands in opposition to that faith, for example, that no God is required as a cause, or where evolution challenges Bible literalism.

I am not portraying myself as a victim. I am portraying atheists as aggressors.

Of course you are! Almost every one of your posts is reactionary and displays a loathing of atheists. You made that quite evident in your OP, which wasn’t really the best way to start a thread.

I am never offended. My faith is sufficient that I see the whole story and know why there are aggressive atheists here. If you are walking on egg shells then how much more aggressive could you be. One single offensive remark is a unnecessary remark to make. It induces me to retaliate and before we know it we are in a full scale war. Do not start it then nobody will feel they have to finish it. It is called decorum.

I have to say you are the most over-sensitive poster, of any belief or none, that I’ve ever come across on any forum. Of course there is a certain amount of rough and tumble on the forums, that is expected, but I bear you no ill will for being a theist even though you have a deep seated dislike for atheists. But I don’t think you’re in any position to speak of decorum; there’s certainly no evidence of Christian love and humility in your posts! And btw retaliation is certainly not decorous.

We’re all here for a bit of sport, so why don’t you just relax and enjoy the debate?

It is not a religion but like a religion or a living organism. But your argument is still flawed. You are suggesting that two religions cannot be followed together. I would say that my personal religion is a mixture of many different belief systems. A religion is something like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Budism and Scientology. It is the combination of all denominations, cults and creeds.

What I’m saying is that according to your extraordinary argument almost ever belief is a religion, and in that case you have to acknowledge that your Christian faith will be contradicted many times over by all the other religions, or what you claim to be religions, which you must also believe in.

You are taking my words far to literally. I was using the concept of saints to demonstrate reverence in those more knowledgeable then most who work in the same field, much like my own insignificance in comparison to St. Peter.

But the point is all scientists and philosophers can be wrong, and have been proved wrong, whether that be Plato or Newton.

Then wait no longer. Browse through the many posts where atheists defend there scientific beliefs with fervency like they are set in stone. I said:

Read some of the post on here to see a science that can never be faulted by those who support it, especially when Christians critique it as they are thick because they believe in God. Science bears the same characteristics as God. Omnipotent and Omniscient. It hold all the keys to our chance existence and can demonstrate that our existence is a chance happening having no cause or reason. That we are massively more intelligent then our nearest counterpart in the animal Kingdom is by unmitigated coincidence.

Why are you referring me to third parties? (!) I am not responsible for what others say. And I am still waiting to hear of this Christian truth “that can never be faulted”.

I am as sure that the world exists as I am that God exists. Neither is a perfect knowledge but is equally true. That you do not possess that knowledge is nobodies fault other then your own. 2.2 billion members of the human race claim to have that knowledge and live their lives accordingly. That you do not want it does not mean that God does not exist or that we are all deluded in our belief. It is your freedom to choose, you must allow others the same privilege, I claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of my own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

The point here is that everyone agrees that the sun rises in the morning and goes down in the evening; everyone believes that we cannot survive without oxygen; everyone believes in gravity; everyone believes that they will die some day; everyone believes that injuries cause pain; everyone believes that fire gives warmth and ice chills; everyone believes that a leaden object will sink when placed in water while an object made of cork will float; everybody believes that the universe exists, but not everybody believes in God. So how can you say that both are equally “true”?

 

[metis]

Science is no more a religion than I am George Clooney. The basic approaches of science and religion are very different.

So, why is it that we have some in the theistic camp who claim otherwise? Essentially by putting science and religion on the same plane, as disingenuous as that is, they can then come back and claim that religion has as much objective validity for its base as science does.

By taking such a bogus stance on science they inadvertently skewer their own religious beliefs because, since both religion and science try to ascertain truth, if their basic science is wrong-headed then so must be their basic theology. Truth, whatever it may be, is not reliant on how we may ascertain it-- it is what it is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He did the same thing with the word create instead of "begins to exist". He is trying to steer the conversation in a certain direction for the inevitable gotcha comment if you play his word games.

All of this done while accusing dirty atheists of playing word games!

 

[viole]

All the Christians I know fully believe in evolution, BUT they believe it needed God to keep tweaking it to keep it on track..
What they don't like is the way evolutionists are trying to remove God from the picture by presenting evolution as all neatly explained and tied up in pretty pink ribbons.
Fact is there are holes and gaps and missing links all over the theory that a bus could drive through..

So, do you accept evolution or not?

If you think the holes and gaps are arguments against it then it might seem you don't. But mentioning a tweaking God might indicate that you do. I guess you have to make up your mind.

Or do you think that tweaking means creating intermediate discrete steps with a hole or a missing link in between?

At the end of the day there is no theist that really accept evolution and its obvious theological consequences. Maybe this is due to the fact that evolution theory is called evolution by natural selection and not evolution by supernatural tweaking.

Ergo, even if you accept evolution, what you accept is your own made up version thereof that has nothing to do with what science has in mind.

Ciao

- viole

 

[TheGunShoj]

Not really, I use a word predictor that sometimes puts in strange alternatives. I always check it though and put it right, it is just that there are those who try and stupefy you before you get chance to put right a perfectly logical error. You do it quite a lot.

You sure will argue with anything and everything won't you? So that was "not really" an unfortunately mistyped word whether it was due to a prediction software or not? You're really going to argue that point? And why are you acting like I'm using that as some sort of slam dunk to destroy your credibility. It was a funny typo that I pointed out. But if you don't want people doing that to you, I have to ask, why don't you just proof read before you post instead of after?

What you call spin I call truth. It is a standard indictment from atheists that God is a genocidal murderer who condones rape. It always gets the same responses that blow the assertions clean out of the water, but that does not stop atheists from persisting with it

It's not truth, you're like sonic the hedgehog with all your spin. Your God killed all but 8 people on earth because he didn't like how they were behaving, even though he made them that way. Please, spin this to me so it is somehow not genocide. I would love to see that dance.

Yes.

Okay, here they are. To save space and to keep other people having to scroll through paragraphs or spam I am just providing the verses. I trust you will be honest enough to at least have a look at them. We'll see.

Rape:

(Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

(2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)

(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

(Judges 5:30 NAB)

(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Slavery:

(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

(Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

(1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

(Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

And just in case, to preempt your sonic spin, let's not forget matthew 5:17 “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. 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”

Why wouldn't you use it? Because it is not true and because telling lies is immoral.

It is true sir, I can point it out in your own book. How can you call me a liar? Besides, according to you, atheists have no morality so how would that stop me even if it were the case? Make up your mind.

 

[suncowiam]

How about just giving some real world examples of the methodologies between science and religion?

How would science argue why the color blue is the color blue? How would religion do this?

Let's make this more serious:
How would science argue that being gay is or is not detrimental to society? How would religion do this?

Let's make this hit close to home as possible:
How is science trying to cure cancer? How is religion trying to do this?

This is the main reason I believe in science because when something really matters, I will choose that I believe is more beneficial to me. Yes, that is very superficial but guess what, we all do this. If you are sacrificing yourself, that's your choice as a reasonable adult. If my son had cancer, I would literally put my money on science to try and cure his cancer. It's not my son's choice but unfortunately it's his life and not mine. So I better make the best choice for him in this case.

 

[Serenity7855]

Fair enough, then please back up those sweeping assertions with evidence.

It is not I who must back anything up, it is you. You originally said to me:

Originally Posted by cottage View Post
Looking back at your OP there are some very arrogant assumptions and a rather patronising tone.

This is an unfounded assertion to which I responded :

Originally Posted by Serenity7855 View Post
That is how you might have read it, as a cynic, but you are one of those to whom I point an exposing figure at. I saw it as a statement of absolute truth.

I make no claim there, just a statement of fact. Then you astonishingly ask

Fair enough, then please back up those sweeping assertions with evidence.

What sweeping assertions? I never made any.

The arrogant claim was that you said you could convince “any reasonable and impartial man” that it is more likely than not that God exists. That is a supremely patronising statement, i.e. condescending and haughty, and one that can never be demonstrably true.

Well you are supremely incorrect. You are making a claim from ignorance. You just have no way of knowing that. It is a statement built on knowledge and experience. My experience and the experience of billions of other. Ask shuttlecraft, Kryptid, sonofason, bible student and word. All of them will say the same. What makes you think, an atheist, that it is patronising, condescending and haughty to tell the truth? You deny our beliefs with equal zeal so are these descriptive words befitting to you as well. Post like this waste my time and effort. The statement is unnecessary yet I have had to politely respond to it. I know you are not stupid so may I advice a little time pondering over your response before posting it. These lengthy posts can be exhausting to write and take up a lot of time, for me.

Then kindly provide evidence instead of simply making these assertions. We know of religious cults that have been accused of brain washing their converts, denying parents and friends access to them etc. But even on that account it would be an absurd generalisation to imply that type of behaviour is indicative of theists, and yet you presume to tarnish atheists with an unevidenced general assertion.

No, you do not know of religious cults that have been accused of brain washing their converts, denying parents and friends access to them etc. You know of denominations, sects, cults and creeds. The religion is Christianity, under which all of these reside.

That type of behaviour is indeed indicative of theists as much, or more so, then atheists. I have set a premise when I said

"If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn,"

I was not tarnishing atheists, as you presume, inwas setting a premise for my OP, that is, that the test subject must be void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists. You seem to be manipulating my words to make them sound like a slur on a group of people, most of which I respect and admire. Why?

I use the expression that some atheists brain wash others into the belief that God cannot possibly exist. I maintain that stance based on my experience and knowledge of aggressive atheists.

So, you are talking about individual atheists and not atheism.

Correct, which begs the question, why did you get me to consider and respond to your previous question when you knew the answer?

That does not concern me or atheism in general. For example I don’t judge theism by your obvious loathing of atheism; in fact I have had many sparring partners over the years for whom I have unconditional respect.

I have no loathing for atheists just apprehension and suspicion.

I do not judge the many friend I have, who are atheists, by the attitude of Sapiens, Outhouse, adi2d, SkepticThinker or Shad and their loathing for Christians either. So what is your point. I categorise them in a whole different group.

This is the remark I’m speaking of:

“Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence”.

Really! Okay then, so present the demonstration?

I believe that I have.

I take no pleasure in having to keep picking you up on where you contradict yourself. Causality is temporal, i.e. contingent, because it isn’t logically necessary.

Yes, of course.

Newtons, temporal, first law of motion states.

First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.

It is illogical to assume that a body would change its current state of temporal existence unless it is acted upon by an external force. If it were an uncaused cause then it would need to be pre-BB, prior to the expansion of our temporal universe. That would make it a supernatural event, giving rise to the uncaused caused being the a supernatural being. Either wa, god is a possibility.

And you agree with this where you say: “but it is not a certainty.” Now if causality were temporal then we’d have an infinite regression of temporal causes, which is impossible.

Why would we? Why is it?

And “everlasting” and “eternal” have two different meanings.

Not True. They mean the same.

“God is eternal” means he has no beginning and no end, he has always existed and will continue to exist forever,

True

whereas the notion of God being temporal, existing in time, runs to a contradiction, for as Dominican friar, Brian Davis, says: “If God is a changing individual it could not be true that God is the first cause of all change as the cosmological argument holds.

Unfortunately, Dominican friar, Brian Davis, has gotten it all wrong. But we should not judge him for it as we do not know what has caused his error. God is not a temporal being.

And those who believe that God is a changing individual will have to accept what many find unbelievable: that a changing individual can be the uncaused cause of a changing universe”. Source: An Introduction to the philosophy of religion. (second edition).

God is the same today, tomorrow and forever.

But it is not a truth! For as you said “there is always a chance that it may be false.” A thing that is actual is also possible, but a thing that is possible does not imply actuality.

There is a chance that evolution is wrong but it is so unlikely that it is not even a consideration. Gods existence is based on the same principle. What are you trying to say?

 

[Serenity7855]

You sure will argue with anything and everything won't you? So that was "not really" an unfortunately mistyped word whether it was due to a prediction software or not? You're really going to argue that point? And why are you acting like I'm using that as some sort of slam dunk to destroy your credibility. It was a funny typo that I pointed out. But if you don't want people doing that to you, I have to ask, why don't you just proof read before you post instead of after?

It's not truth, you're like sonic the hedgehog with all your spin. Your God killed all but 8 people on earth because he didn't like how they were behaving, even though he made them that way. Please, spin this to me so it is somehow not genocide. I would love to see that dance.

Okay, here they are. To save space and to keep other people having to scroll through paragraphs or spam I am just providing the verses. I trust you will be honest enough to at least have a look at them. We'll see.

Rape:

(Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

(2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)

(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

(Judges 5:30 NAB)

(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Slavery:

(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

(Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

(1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

(Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

And just in case, to preempt your sonic spin, let's not forget matthew 5:17 “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. 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”

It is true sir, I can point it out in your own book. How can you call me a liar? Besides, according to you, atheists have no morality so how would that stop me even if it were the case? Make up your mind.

The same old same old atheist diatribe. What atheist site did these come from?

Atheists’ favourite Bible verses!​

Those who dispute the existence of God, and reject the character of God that is insisted upon by Bible-believers, often like to misuse various passages of Scripture to prove God to a vindictive, hate-filled, jealous monster that they are fully justified in rejecting. After all they argue, who could reasonably be expected to believe and embrace a God who authorizes (as they allege) pillage, rape, murder and innumerable other atrocities.

Inevitably some passages such as those below are dragged from their Scriptural context to justify such claims. It can be intimidating to face such claims, and many Christians who know little of the Bible can be rendered dumb in the face of such an attack.

What is the explanation for some of the passages that atheist’s use to malign the character of God? Hopefully, the commentary on the selection of verses below will help!

The suggested ‘explanations’ atheists give of these passages are seriously flawed! Very often these mistaken notions arise – not from an accurate interpretation of the passage – but from the imposition upon the passage of modern, and usually highly sexualized, notions. So, for example, many will suggest rape and sexual slavery being represented in such passages and claim God vindicates such things, when in reality it is only their imagination, which has been corrupted by modern debauchery, that is at work

1. Exodus 21:7-11.

Allegation: God permits young girls to be sold into slavery.

Answer: The situation here is one where because of financial hardship in a family a young girl is put into service. Poverty was a real issue and sometimes this was the only way to address it.

Various other matters are dealt with to prevent her becoming the victim of unscrupulous masters/employers who might take advantage of her situation. The thrust of the passage is in fact the opposite of what is suggested! The purpose of this command is to protect a young woman who found herself in this situation of having to go into service.

Other aspects of Mosaic legislation prevented other possible abuses and while the service was not limited to a fixed period of time, ending in the year of release every seventh year (Exodus 21:2) as it was for men, there was opportunity for her to be ‘redeemed’, i.e. to buy release from this arrangement. The service in view was to be as envisaged in Exodus 21:5 – such that the servant would not want to leave!

http://www.yesthereisagod.info/atheists-favourite-bible-verses/

 

[Serenity7855]

CONTINUED

2. Numbers 31:7-18.

Allegation: God justifies murder of men and women and the seizure of unmarried women

Answer: This is just one such episode in Israel’s conquest of Canaan. There are many others passages of a similar nature that describe the annihilation of one Canaanite tribe or another by Israel at God’s command.At first glance this may seem a brutal and indefensible thing!

In the purpose of God He had put up with the vile wickedness of the Canaanite nations for centuries and the time to take vengeance on their sin had now come. Israel was His chosen means to do so. What you have here is an OT illustration of the reality of God’s wrath. We need make no apology for Divine justice! It is the order of the universe established by God that sin brings His punishment. Sometimes that vengeance is seen to be worked out on earth but always it is worked out in eternity in everlasting destruction for the wicked who refuse God, His laws and/or any offer of mercy He publishes to them at His own discretion.

The following verses indicate very clearly the vile wickedness of those wiped out by Israel. The list of crimes against God justifies His actions in vengeance against them.

“But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.” (Genesis 15:16) God is here promising Abraham and his descendents the land of Canaan.
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.” (Leviticus 18:22-25)
“Which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness.” (Ezra 9:11 AV)
As God spoke to Abraham, all around him were the tribes of Canaan who had sunk in this vile debauchery and wickedness. YET, God in patience put up with this defiance and wickedness for another five centuries before bringing Israel into the land to cut off these wicked tribes. God will punish sin!

The devastation caused by Israel’s armies at the command of God was the vengeance of God upon their sin. It simply illustrates what lies ahead for every sinner who will not repent and seek God as is clear from the following. “God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready. He hath also prepared for him the instruments of death; he ordaineth his arrows against the persecutors.” (Psalm 7:11-13 AV) Whether sinners like it or not, this is the God they will have to deal with.

3. Deuteronomy 20: 10-1.

Allegation: God forced men to make peace and submit to forced labour or be killed/plundered.

Answer: This passage is essentially explained by the comments above. There was an offer of mercy extended by Israel to cities of their enemies that were not within the immediate territory that God had purposed to give Israel. All these heathen deserved to perish and yet God gave an option for escape! Serve the interests of my people, submit to my Laws etc. and live! Their defiance of God had brought them to the place were they were now threatened with destruction – but God offers mercy! That is always the way of escape from the consequences of sin! However, sinners stubbornly hold out in defiance against God, will not bow to the gospel yoke, and yet rail against God’s alleged unfairness and injustice when they face eternal ruin He warned of and offered escape from. The sinner’s issue is that he simply does not like the terms that God offers mercy upon, but it is not the sinner’s place to dispute these terms. The gospel is – and always has been – a take it or leave it proposition.

4. Judges 21:10-24.

Allegation: Men and women killed, virgins taken as wives.

Answer: The entire passage here must be read – Chapters 19-21. However, again this is an instance – this time within Israel – where justice is being done because of events detailed in Chapters 19 & 20. The sin did involve the crimes of sodomy and rape/murder and now those crimes are being avenged by the rest of the nation at the command of God. The deaths that occur in the passage cited are of those who deliberately sympathized with the perpetrators of the original crimes and so became an accessory to them.

The unmarried women were given the opportunity to live as wives of those men who had survived the original action of vengeance. This was actually an act of mercy! They were spared from death – fully deserved because of their being accessories to the outrages earlier referred to. They are now given an opportunity to live as productive members of their society. This is in fact mercy and rehabilitation! Very different to the scenario than the allegation presents.

Here is an illustration of what God does for sinners all the time! Every one of us deserves to perish because of our sin and yet He spares many from death even as others perish; brings them into a wonderful relation to Christ and gives them a useful role among His people.

5. Deuteronomy 22: 25-29.

Allegation: God punishes one form of rape but condones another.

Answer: The obvious rape of the woman in the first case referred to here is followed by a Divinely pronounced death sentence. This is Divine justice. Every sin – not just the ones we think are sufficiently serious – deserves death. He will administer that sentence even in cases where civil authorities can not. This is the reason why we all must die physically – a death sentence is the God-appointed consequence of sin.

The second instance in this passage also indicates a heavy sentence upon an act of immorality but it is not clear that this is in fact rape at all. In fact, the context I think argues against the idea that this was forcible and without consent. The verb translated ‘lay hold on’ does not necessarily imply violence or force. See its use in Genesis 4:21, translated here ‘handle’ in the context of using musical instruments. There was a financial price for the offender to pay to her father who was a legal representative/guardian figure for having acting in a shameful way with his daughter. This statute is built upon the concept – so utterly foreign to today’s promiscuous society – that such sexual activity is only permissible within the bounds of marriage. Having engaged in this sexual act they were obliged to be married. A leading purpose of this command would have been to prevent such casual sexual relations apart from a consideration of marriage

http://www.yesthereisagod.info/atheists-favourite-bible-verses/#allegation4

 

[TheGunShoj]

Hey serenity, I still don't think you ever answered my question. Instead of me having to post verses to you which you are obviously going to weasel out of, why not just answer my earlier question? It should be pretty easy for you to do.

Where did God give us a commandment not to own other human beings as slaves? Book and verse, if you would be so kind.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..Your God killed all but 8 people on earth because he didn't like how they were behaving, even though he made them that way...

Sorry to butt in, but if people behaved bad, thats only because God gave them FREE WILL to behave how they liked!
Huh, you try to be nice to people....

 

[Serenity7855]

Hey serenity, I still don't think you ever answered my question. Instead of me having to post verses to you which you are obviously going to weasel out of, why not just answer my earlier question? It should be pretty easy for you to do.

Where did God give us a commandment not to own other human beings as slaves? Book and verse, if you would be so kind.

No, you are mistaken again. I have answered it with book and verse. It must have been when I spent some time responding to you and you completely ignored the post that put you in a corner.

Now, I did a little research on that list you posted as your own. You know, like you have that knowledge ready to pluck from your memory. It seems as though there are several sources, usually on anti-theist site, promoting this list and asking the same question that you have asked me here. Where did God give us a commandment not to own other human beings as slaves? Would you not feel better to ask your own questions rather then quoting anti-theist sites that specialise in twisting the truth. It does nothing for your personal integrity

Does God Approve of Slavery According to the Bible?

First, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today - in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)

So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.

The Irrational Atheist by Vox DaySo, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party.1 Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath,2 slander a slave,3 have sex with another man's slave,4 or return an escaped slave.5 A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first.6 In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".7

The idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is shown to be false. In fact, anybody who was caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed. However, since voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the Bible proscribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves. Paul, the author of many of the New Testament writings, virtually ordered the Christian Philemon to release his Christian slave from his service to "do what is proper". In addition, numerous verses from the New Testament show that God values slaves as much as any free person and is not partial to anyone's standing before other people.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

 

[metis]

If we read the scriptures, any scriptures, as if we're reading objective history, we're making a big mistake. These are subjective accounts typically written decades or centuries after the events supposedly took place, and they're obviously written from rather subjective points of view.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The same old same old atheist diatribe. What atheist site did these come from?

Atheists’ favourite Bible verses!​

Those who dispute the existence of God, and reject the character of God that is insisted upon by Bible-believers, often like to misuse various passages of Scripture to prove God to a vindictive, hate-filled, jealous monster that they are fully justified in rejecting. After all they argue, who could reasonably be expected to believe and embrace a God who authorizes (as they allege) pillage, rape, murder and innumerable other atrocities.

Inevitably some passages such as those below are dragged from their Scriptural context to justify such claims. It can be intimidating to face such claims, and many Christians who know little of the Bible can be rendered dumb in the face of such an attack.

What is the explanation for some of the passages that atheist’s use to malign the character of God? Hopefully, the commentary on the selection of verses below will help!

The suggested ‘explanations’ atheists give of these passages are seriously flawed! Very often these mistaken notions arise – not from an accurate interpretation of the passage – but from the imposition upon the passage of modern, and usually highly sexualized, notions. So, for example, many will suggest rape and sexual slavery being represented in such passages and claim God vindicates such things, when in reality it is only their imagination, which has been corrupted by modern debauchery, that is at work

1. Exodus 21:7-11.

Allegation: God permits young girls to be sold into slavery.

Answer: The situation here is one where because of financial hardship in a family a young girl is put into service. Poverty was a real issue and sometimes this was the only way to address it.

Various other matters are dealt with to prevent her becoming the victim of unscrupulous masters/employers who might take advantage of her situation. The thrust of the passage is in fact the opposite of what is suggested! The purpose of this command is to protect a young woman who found herself in this situation of having to go into service.

Other aspects of Mosaic legislation prevented other possible abuses and while the service was not limited to a fixed period of time, ending in the year of release every seventh year (Exodus 21:2) as it was for men, there was opportunity for her to be ‘redeemed’, i.e. to buy release from this arrangement. The service in view was to be as envisaged in Exodus 21:5 – such that the servant would not want to leave!

Well, it sounds much less immoral when you put it that way!

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, you are mistaken again. I have answered it with book and verse. It must have been when I spent some time responding to you and you completely ignored the post that put you in a corner.

Now, I did a little research on that list you posted as your own. You know, like you have that knowledge ready to pluck from your memory. It seems as though there are several sources, usually on anti-theist site, promoting this list and asking the same question that you have asked me here. Where did God give us a commandment not to own other human beings as slaves? Would you not feel better to ask your own questions rather then quoting anti-theist sites that specialise in twisting the truth. It does nothing for your personal integrity

Does God Approve of Slavery According to the Bible?

First, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today - in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)

So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.

The Irrational Atheist by Vox DaySo, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party.1 Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath,2 slander a slave,3 have sex with another man's slave,4 or return an escaped slave.5 A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first.6 In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".7

Slavery in the Bible: Does God Approve of It?

Ah, the old "it's not the slavery we think of today" cop out. Yeah, it was probably worse!


What does it say about non-Hebrew slaves?

 

[TheGunShoj]

No, you are mistaken again. I have answered it with book and verse. It must have been when I spent some time responding to you and you completely ignored the post that put you in a corner.

Then tell me right now. Book and verse, please.

Now, I did a little research on that list you posted as your own. You know, like you have that knowledge ready to pluck from your memory. It seems as though there are several sources, usually on anti-theist site, promoting this list and asking the same question that you have asked me here. Where did God give us a commandment not to own other human beings as slaves?

You're right. I looked up those verses. Sorry that I can't remember and recite 17 specific verses from memory. Did I ever claim that I was doing that? I believe I said I would find you verses, which is exactly what I did.

Would you not feel better to ask your own questions rather then quoting anti-theist sites that specialise in twisting the truth. It does nothing for your personal integrity

It is my own question and it is perfectly valid. It's not surprisingly that other people in the world would come to the same conclusion when reading these verses of your holy book.

Does God Approve of Slavery According to the Bible?

First, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today - in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)

So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.

The Irrational Atheist by Vox DaySo, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party.1 Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath,2 slander a slave,3 have sex with another man's slave,4 or return an escaped slave.5 A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first.6 In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".7

Slavery in the Bible: Does God Approve of It?

I don't care. You are wrong. The slavery in the bible is not just indentured servitude as your Christian apologists would have you believe. In those verses I referenced it tells you how much you can pay for slaves, that they are your property to be passed on to your children, where to get them, how to mark them as your slaves by piercing their ear with a nail, It says that you can beat your slaves and if they die within the first few days then you are punished however if they live for a day or two and then die you aren't and it tells you how you can trick a fellow Jew into being a permanent slave by giving them a wife.

Does all of that sound like a God who is against slavery or is making rules for it?

these verses didn't come from an atheist website, they came right from the bible. Look them up. And they aren't taken out of context, tell me a context when it is ok to own another human being as property.

Again, Book and verse, please.

Let's see those tires spin some more.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Jesus said- "I didn't come to overthrow the old laws", and left it to our FREE WILL to either live by them, or by his new enlightened approach, and people quickly cottoned on-
"The covenant of which Jesus is mediator is superior to the old one" (Hebrews 8:6)

So call it a test, and if people still want to keep slaves I'm sure they'd flunk bigtime..