tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post3767226641570347096..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: Answering the Skeptical Rationalist's questionsRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-43746064467314425052010-03-25T23:48:47.673-05:002010-03-25T23:48:47.673-05:00I still haven't seen anything inconsistent her...I still haven't seen anything inconsistent here with the rest of the Bible.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-81835704746319330672010-03-22T12:43:49.157-05:002010-03-22T12:43:49.157-05:00Maybe. I was responding to Bossmanham who said it...Maybe. I was responding to Bossmanham who said it was <i>an historical account of <b>God's</b> displeasure with the Israelites marrying non-converts</i> and <i>It(marrying foreigners) was a direct affront to the command of God. </i><br /><br />I don't have enough context from you to know exactly what you are asking or your thoughts on the topic.<br /><br />I think it was a historical account of some guy giving a command, his interpretation of what he thought God wanted.marhabanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05321278261501924028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-8974611153039812642010-03-22T12:28:42.526-05:002010-03-22T12:28:42.526-05:00Can you recognise the diff between the Bible comma...Can you recognise the diff between the Bible commanding sthg and the Bible recording someone commanding or doing sthg?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-72143420955728566902010-03-22T12:23:14.211-05:002010-03-22T12:23:14.211-05:00Rhoblogy,
Point taken. But, this just reinforces...Rhoblogy,<br /><br />Point taken. But, this just reinforces my belief that Ezra is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible if you believe he was actually was speaking for God and not just a historical figure.marhabannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-74293995663361945792010-03-22T07:34:13.092-05:002010-03-22T07:34:13.092-05:00In your view if someone converts to Christianity, ...<i>In your view if someone converts to Christianity, should they divorce their non-believing spouse and abandon their kids?</i><br /><br />marhaban,<br />Do everyone a favor and read 1 Cor 7.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-21370667898700867782010-03-21T19:01:53.356-05:002010-03-21T19:01:53.356-05:00Bossmanham,
Aww, what happened to The alien livin...Bossmanham,<br /><br />Aww, what happened to <i>The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.</i><br /><br /><i>The command to not marry foreign wives is found in Exodus.</i><br /><br />I wouldn't call it a command, advice maybe. ;) <br /><br />Jacob married wives that kept their family idols.<br />Esau married foreign wives.<br />Joseph married a foreign wife.<br />Simeon married a foreign wife.<br />Moses married a foreign wife.<br />David married foreign wives.<br />Solomon married foreign wives.<br />Ruth was a foreign wife.<br /><br />In none of these stories, did God require anyone to exile their wives and children. <br /><br />Even in Numbers when Mariam and Aaron speak out against Moses for marrying a foreigner, God doesn't tell them they are right and Moses should cast off his family. Instead he rebukes them and gives leprousy to Mariam.<br /><br />I'm guessing you justify the inconsistency by saying isn't it great that God is forgiving of sinners and sometimes lets things slide. Am I wrong? <br /><br />In your view if someone converts to Christianity, should they divorce their non-believing spouse and abandon their kids?marhabannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-86514475368004866582010-03-20T18:19:12.736-05:002010-03-20T18:19:12.736-05:00BTW, this wasn't a new thing by any means. The...BTW, this wasn't a new thing by any means. The command to not marry foreign wives is found in Exodus.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-52603104707911418362010-03-20T18:18:06.963-05:002010-03-20T18:18:06.963-05:00marhaban,
I don't see any reason to see it as...marhaban,<br /><br />I don't see any reason to see it as anything but an historical account of God's displeasure with the Israelites marrying non-converts, thereby becoming unequally yoked and exposing themselves to be influenced by ungodly peoples. It was a direct affront to the command of God. The practical aspects to this command seem self-explanatory.<br /><br />This command is upheld in the New Testament and shows this to be typological of the command to the modern people of God, those who are in Christ. We are not to marry non-Christians (2 Corinthians 6:14).<br /><br />So the Israelites who had married these non-believing women were told by Ezra to separate themselves from them. They sent them away and therefore undid these unlawful marriages.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-3125901344028515072010-03-19T21:11:56.128-05:002010-03-19T21:11:56.128-05:00Bossmanham,
2) The servants that belonged to the ...Bossmanham,<br /><br /><i>2) The servants that belonged to the Israelites from pagan nations typically became Israelites, placing them under the same laws as the other Israelite slaves. </i><br /><br />I think it is interesting that the bible goes from a somewhat more accepting view of aliens in the time of Moses to casting out the foreign women and children in the book of Ezra.<br /><br /><i>3 Now let us make a covenant before our God to send away all these women and their children, in accordance with the counsel of my lord and of those who fear the commands of our God. Let it be done according to the Law.</i><br /><br />From what I have read, it was a shift in thinking that occurred with the Jews in exile in Babylon. While there, they adopted the idea that they needed to stay seperate from the "other" people. Unfortunately, I think this idea is still prevalent today in Israel. When the exiled jewish people returned to their land, they refused to assimilate with the people there and cast off the alien women and children that had married Jewish men.<br /><br />From your perspective, is this just history or did God condone the mass exile/abandonment of women and children?marhabannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-13637893696286200272010-03-19T14:37:08.966-05:002010-03-19T14:37:08.966-05:00This is for the indentured servants NOT the slaves...<i>This is for the indentured servants NOT the slaves from other countries that can be regarded as property and inherited by the next generation.</i><br /><br />1) I don't think that distinction is made in the text. 2) The servants that belonged to the Israelites from pagan nations typically became Israelites, placing them under the same laws as the other Israelite slaves. 3) These servants were freed from the evil and oppressive grip of sinful pagan rituals and traditions. 4) They were not to be mistreated either. 5) Man-stealing was still punishable by death. 6) Ergo this was still nothing akin to the race-based Egyptian or African slavery.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-72464874047741928952010-03-19T08:12:36.616-05:002010-03-19T08:12:36.616-05:00what I said was "in my experience the bible i...<i>what I said was "in my experience the bible is just as 'errant' ...You were the one who took that to specifically refer to internal contradiction.</i><br /><br />OK, good point. Fair enough.<br />Let me clarify why I went the internal contradiction route then:<br />1) External critiques aren't any good from an atheistic perspective, for many reasons, one of which is that there's no objective moral prescriptive power in any atheistic worldview, no reason to tell me "you SHOULD reject a book that claims things that are not consistent with reality." You need to do an internal critique for that reason.<br />2) If the Bible is true, then God is sovereign and man is extremely finite and limited. Therefore, one has every reason to take God's Word over any human observation, even repeated observation, as true and authoritative. Thus you need an internal critique to shake that up.<br /><br /><br /><i>the books I've read lead me to believe they're accounts passed down orally for many decades after the events in question</i><br /><br />And many of them are. But the books apparently don't talk about ALL that the Scripture is.<br /><br /><br /><i>not actually written by eyewitnesses</i><br /><br />I can't imagine how anyone would know that. It's so much hot air.<br /><br /><br /><i>illustrative of the historical and theological trends of the times leading up to them</i><br /><br />Some of them were, and so what?<br />Yet some of them weren't - the sudden appearance of the God-man, the Messiah, in opposition to most of the leading religious authorities of the day, for example, wouldn't be. Or the lone prophet speaking against the laxity of Israel. This represents a superficial reading level.<br /><br /><br /><i>I think the simplest explanation is that Jesus was not the son of god</i><br /><br />Yes, it makes much more sense to think that sextillions of individual evolution events took place JUST RIGHT to land us here.<br /><br /><br /><i>2nd Timothy 3:16 doesn't say "except when he's making the best of a bad situation." </i><br /><br />But the rest of the Bible demonstrates that. how many zillions of examples do you need?<br />God fashioning garments for Adam and Eve.<br />God giving Seth to console EVe after Abel's murder.<br />God granting diversity at the Tower of Babel. (You like diversity, don't you? Most atheist love it.)<br />God making laws that govern the punishment of murder.<br />God flooding the Earth.<br />God giving Israel judges and later a king.<br /><br />On and on. You don't understand the biblical paradigm of the already and the not-yet, it would appear.<br /><br /><br /><i>If god doesn't like slaves, why doesn't he say "Thou shalt own no slaves?"</i><br /><br />B/c it's not true to say "God doesn't like slaves". What are you even talking about now?<br /><br /><br /><i>Why does Jesus use the beating of slaves as a metaphor, without any indication that he or his father disapprove of the institution? </i><br /><br />Maybe b/c He's accommodating to illustrations that ppl would understand?<br />Maybe b/c all men are as slaves to God?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-30485797287521786872010-03-18T22:36:25.359-05:002010-03-18T22:36:25.359-05:00Bossmanham,
I'm not saying it wasn't bett...Bossmanham,<br /><br />I'm not saying it wasn't better regulated or possibly kinder than the American slave trade, but I do not see it as indentured servitude. <br /><br /><i> they were to go free in the year of jubilee.</i><br /><br />This is for the indentured servants NOT the slaves from other countries that can be regarded as property and inherited by the next generation. <br /><br />I already read your link, but even they don't claim this was a temporary servitude. They justify the slavery of Gentiles by saying Jewish people are servants to God and thus they have the right to make Gentiles their servants. <br /><br />Just because you are nice to your slaves, does not make the practice equal to indentured servitude experieced by jewish servants with a 7 year time limit.marhabanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05321278261501924028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-92116890329468075442010-03-18T18:15:34.273-05:002010-03-18T18:15:34.273-05:00I think I'm done talking to you. Too bad.
Bec...<i>I think I'm done talking to you. Too bad.</i><br /><br />Because I challenged your claim of being a former Christian because of your lack of Biblical knowledge? That's a little thin skinned, isn't it?<br /><br />marhaban,<br /><br />Again, you can't read a passage anachronistically as indicating the same thing that happened in America in its first 100 years. This is an indentured servitude (ie not harsh slavery) in which these 'slaves' could be redeemed by a friend, and if that wasn't possible, they were to go free in the year of jubilee.<br /><br />Lev 25:<br />47'Now if the means of a stranger or of a sojourner with you becomes sufficient, and a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to him as to sell himself to a stranger who is sojourning with you, or to the descendants of a stranger's family,<br /> 48then he shall have redemption right after he has been sold. One of his brothers may redeem him,<br /><br />54'Even if he is not redeemed by these means, he shall still go out in the year of jubilee, he and his sons with him.<br /><br />And as Mariano points out in his piece (<a href="http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/11/does-bible-and-its-god-condone-slavery.html" rel="nofollow">http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/11/does-bible-and-its-god-condone-slavery.html</a>)<br /><br />"Note that the relevant passages from Leviticus 25, namely vv. 39-55, make reference to and distinguish between a “slave” or “bondservant” (`ebed) and a “yearly hired servant” or “hired servant” (sakiyr).<br />Within the text an explanation is given, via a correlation, as to why the slaves bought from the Gentiles were to be permanent (unless they are mistreated such as having even one single tooth knocked out Exodus 21: 26-27 in which case they were to be let go).<br />Verse 55 reads,<br />For the children of Israel are servants to Me; they are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.<br /><br />Thus, just as God freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt to serve Him, the Israelites could free Gentiles from Gentile nations to serve them. It seems rather odd to correlate freedom with servitude yet: they, both the Israelites with Egypt and the Gentiles with their nations, were being liberated from malevolence and would now enjoy benevolence. In Israel, Gentile slaves were afforded virtually unheard of rights and privileges.<br /><br />An important text to note with regards to the concept of freedom for servitude is that engaging upon the manner in which we think of slavery—basically; kidnapping people—was punishable by death,<br />He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death (Exodus 21:16)."bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-48568238512297568512010-03-18T16:54:10.224-05:002010-03-18T16:54:10.224-05:00Bossmanham,
The facts are that poor people who ow...Bossmanham,<br /><br /><i>The facts are that poor people who owed debts "sold themselves" to someone to work for them to pay off their debts.</i><br /><br />Except when they didn't. I did read your links, but Leviticus 25 is pretty clear.<br /><br />44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.<br />45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and <b>they will become your property.</b><br />46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them <b>slaves for life</b>, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.marhabanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05321278261501924028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-15431622545859431522010-03-18T16:14:49.696-05:002010-03-18T16:14:49.696-05:00I also find it interesting that you'll take an...<i>I also find it interesting that you'll take anecdotal accounts from two millennia ago as rock-solid evidence, but the statements of a living person speaking directly to you are dismissed out of hand because they disagree with your preconceptions.<br /><br />What on earth are you talking about?</i><br /><br />Oh, what could I be talking about? Things like:<br /><br /><i>"And I always disbelieve apostates who say they studied their way out of Christianity."<br /><br />"See, I don't believe you were a Christian at all."</i><br /><br />I think I'm done talking to you. Too bad.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-40779589507127235392010-03-18T13:03:44.655-05:002010-03-18T13:03:44.655-05:00presuppositional scholarship
If you don't thi...<i>presuppositional scholarship</i><br /><br />If you don't think there aren't presuppositions in all scholarship, you are deluded.<br /><br /><i>This whole "critical thinking" stuff is just hogwash</i><br /><br />I'm sorry you think that. Critical thinking is something I enjoy quite a bit. When I study the historical evidence of the resurrection, I think critically about it. Inference to the best explanation causes me to come away with the belief that God raised Jesus from the dead. If you have a more plausible theory based on the evidence, go for it. Key phrase "is plausible based on the evidence."<br /><br /><i>The fact that you're bending over backwards to cherry-pick the bits that support your kinder, gentler version of slavery seems to hint that you yourself have some other standard that makes you find parts of the bible distasteful.</i><br /><br />Actually, my argument doesn't at all rely on this slavery being kind or gentle. I am simply stating the facts about the time period and am striving to not be anachronistic. The facts are that poor people who owed debts "sold themselves" to someone to work for them to pay off their debts. But my argument is that God regulating an institution does not equal the condoning of the institution, which is independent to how the institution actually functions. He may be neutral on the whole thing and His purpose may have been to work within what the Israelites already knew. It strips your criticism down to nothing, making it a non-issue. God obviously would not approve of early American slavery, because it was nothing but man stealing(Exodus 21:16).<br /><br /><i>The fact that you're bending over backwards</i><br /><br />This isn't hard at all for me. The fact that you have to use emotionally charged language in your arguments shows their weakness. A person who truly is open to the evidence would consider what I'm saying instead of reacting so emotionally to it.<br /><br /><i>I also find it interesting that you'll take anecdotal accounts from two millennia ago as rock-solid evidence, but the statements of a living person speaking directly to you are dismissed out of hand because they disagree with your preconceptions.</i><br /><br />What on earth are you talking about?bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-55355921740194377412010-03-18T09:14:46.213-05:002010-03-18T09:14:46.213-05:00''I actually don't think euthanasia or...''I actually don't think euthanasia or abortion for that matter is at all unclear from a biblical perspective.'<br /><br />I agree about abortion, but questions in euthanasia are extremely difficult sometimes. '<br /><br />I'm not so sure it's that simple, even with abortion it is not entirly clear.<br /><br />Exodus 21:22-25 Is often quoted but there the punishment for causing a miscarrige is a fine, it is not treated like murder or manslaughter. Of course the miscarrige has been translated as causing premature birth, in some versions which could be the case. However this is not entirly clear.<br /><br />Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 Could also be interprted as abroving of abortion and euthanasia. I'm not saying that it does for sure but once again it is not entirly clear.Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-53036566325324518042010-03-18T06:12:48.575-05:002010-03-18T06:12:48.575-05:00My point with the Sabbath and Jesus advice at *man...My point with the Sabbath and Jesus advice at *many* points is that God, in the bible, is not shy in the least about making demands that go against the grain of it, but that apparently the perfect expression of his will allows you to beat an "indentured servant" to death and get off scot free as long as it takes more than two days for him or her to die. If it's in the bible, I assume that it's God's expression of the way things ought to be, in the best of all possible worlds.<br /><br />The fact that you're bending over backwards to cherry-pick the bits that support your kinder, gentler version of slavery seems to hint that you yourself have some other standard that makes you find parts of the bible distasteful. Curiouser and curiouser.<br /><br />I also find it interesting that you'll take anecdotal accounts from two millennia ago as rock-solid evidence, but the statements of a living person speaking directly to you are dismissed out of hand because they disagree with your preconceptions.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-86198622865845021342010-03-18T06:01:44.077-05:002010-03-18T06:01:44.077-05:00Which corroborates my suspicion that you've ne...<i>Which corroborates my suspicion that you've never actually investigated the subject.</i><br /><br />Which corroborates my suspicion that you've never actually investigated the subject.<br /><br />(see, I can argue like Rhology!)<br /><br /><br />{sarcasm}<br />Oh, of COURSE I haven't investigated! <i>If I had, I'd have come to the exact conclusion you have!</i> I must up my intake of apologetics, presuppositional scholarship, and foregone-conclusion archaeology immediately! This whole "critical thinking" stuff is just hogwash, of course it's a path to truth to only accept those facts which agree with what I've already believed!"<br />{/sarcasm}MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-73752551370742744772010-03-18T00:06:41.360-05:002010-03-18T00:06:41.360-05:00But God Almighty, The Beginning and the End, the A...<i>But God Almighty, The Beginning and the End, the Alpha and Omega, only takes palliative measures on slavery? I conclude that if he exists, and if the Bible is his word, that the biblical guidelines ought to perfectly express his exact will, no ifs, ands or buts.</i><br /><br />First off, God's word does express all we need to know. Second, what are you basing your criteria on? Your silly expectations and God's purpose do not share a 1 to 1 correlation. Who gave you the authority to determine the way anyone writes down what they want people to know, especially God? In your statement, you're making your expectations the "ought" that God should follow. But that is elevating your opinion to an objective imperative, making yourself above God. So you have made your own standard that which is above God, making yourself god, verifying Paul's contentions in Romans 1. Good for you, although your standard, sadly, holds no sway on me or God.<br /><br /><i>but it troubles me that Jesus speaks so blithely about whipping the servants.</i><br /><br />What are you basing this consternation on? Whose moral code are you invoking to say that anything is wrong? Second, you admit that there is context to consider in Jesus' statement, so it should be a moot issue. Jesus is, like He often does, speaking in a <b>parable</b>. He's relating to people in the society and sharing transcendent truth at the same time. I could use an example of something I may find detestable to share a deeper meaning. Doesn't mean I condone it.<br /><br /><i>The Sermon on the Mount would definitely benefit from a bare mention against slavery specifically, but it apparently is an evil he doesn't feel worth speaking out about.</i><br /><br />Yeah, the whole "treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 7:12) must mean absolutely nothing.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-76956093945194517402010-03-17T23:52:10.788-05:002010-03-17T23:52:10.788-05:00The next "evidence" for such that I see ...<i>The next "evidence" for such that I see will be the first.</i><br /><br />Which corroborates my suspicion that you've never actually investigated the subject.<br /><br /><i>Considering you give the impression of someone who restricts himself to reading only apologetics and writings of those who take the presupposition that the Bible is true, I imagine you would</i><br /><br />Another one of those blind assertions.<br /><br /><i>Bear in mind that this is a combox on a blog and it's all too easy to dismiss the conclusion of reading a *lot* of books--all of which I'm sure you'd be happy to shit on from great height, so I won't bore you--as pontificating, due to space constraints.</i><br /><br />This statement is a little bit rambling. Are you saying you read a lot? So do I. What does that prove?<br /><br /><i>I'm pointing out that it doesn't make sense to me that a God opposed to slavery would make such a mealymouthed case to "regulate" it.</i><br /><br />1) Why doesn't it make sense? 2) Since the institution being regulated wasn't the detestable form that you anachronistically read into the text, who says this kind was necessarily bad? Perhaps God is neutral on indentured servitude? Or perhaps you don't have to approve of an institution to regulate it? There are plenty of other options other than just "oh God must approve because He doesn't explicitly outlaw it." But that's a total non-sequitur. To act like it's not is intellectually dishonest.<br /><br /><i>I would think he would say whatever he bloody well pleased</i><br /><br />He did. He pleased to allow the institution to exist under the Mosaic law. Just because it offends your sensibilities doesn't mean it was a priority for God to stop it. In fact, it can be reasonably assumed that preventing all evil on this earth in this life is NOT His top priority. Your contention is just another form of the problem of evil. Not a compelling reason to stop believing in Biblical inerrancy.<br /><br />Furthermore, silence on a subject in the Bible (and the Bible is not silent on the subject) would not be an error.<br /><br /><i>Think about the Sabbath: he basically tells the Jews to sacrifice 1/7th of their productivity, simply to honor him.</i><br /><br />So? The point was for them to rely on Him anyway. What a silly complaint.<br /><br /><i>Jesus' advice at several points would wreck your life--"let him sell all that he has and follow Me"--because of higher concerns.</i><br /><br />Um, first off this is a misquote of Matthew 19:21 and Luke 18:22. See, I don't believe you were a Christian at all. This has to be one of the most preached on sermons in history and you don't even understand what the context is. If you spent any time in church, either you weren't listening or the preacher wasn't preaching.<br /><br />Jesus is speaking specifically to the rich young ruler who relied on his money and his good deeds over God. This is the point, we are to rely on Christ, not ourselves. Jesus is not prescribing that all people do this, He told this to the young ruler to prove a point that the ruler loved the world more than God. The young ruler proved his point.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-54815723723541470192010-03-17T21:46:20.994-05:002010-03-17T21:46:20.994-05:00Hmm, evidence of the resurrection and personal exp...<i>Hmm, evidence of the resurrection and personal experience...</i><br /><br />The next "evidence" for such that I see will be the first.<br /><br /><i>And I always disbelieve apostates who say they studied their way out of Christianity.</i><br /><br />Considering you give the impression of someone who restricts himself to reading only apologetics and writings of those who take the presupposition that the Bible is true, I imagine you would. Bear in mind that this is a combox on a blog and it's all too easy to dismiss the conclusion of reading a *lot* of books--all of which I'm sure you'd be happy to shit on from great height, so I won't bore you--as pontificating, due to space constraints.<br /><br /><i>how does that show any lack of inerrancy?</i><br /><br />I'm not saying it does or doesn't. I'm pointing out that it doesn't make sense to me that a God opposed to slavery would make such a mealymouthed case to "regulate" it. This is supposedly the Inspired Word Of God Almighty, I would think he would say whatever he bloody well pleased, and mortal institutions (literally, even) be damned. Think about the Sabbath: he basically tells the Jews to sacrifice 1/7th of their productivity, simply to honor him. Even the Mormons don't gouge their followers for that much. Jesus' advice at several points would wreck your life--"let him sell all that he has and follow Me"--because of higher concerns. But God Almighty, The Beginning and the End, the Alpha and Omega, only takes <i>palliative</i> measures on slavery? I conclude that if he exists, and if the Bible is his word, that the biblical guidelines ought to perfectly express his exact will, no ifs, ands or buts.<br /><br />The verse I'm referring to is Luke 12 47-48. I'm not saying it's a verse in favor of slavery per se, there's a lot of context, but it troubles me that Jesus speaks so blithely about whipping the servants. Jesus talked about the golden rule, but he also said whoever lacks a sword needs to buy one <i>tout suite</i>. <br />The Sermon on the Mount would definitely benefit from a bare mention against slavery specifically, but it apparently is an evil he doesn't feel worth speaking out about.<br /><br /><i>All of your contentions sound like their straight from evilbible.com or something, a site not known for its logical prowess. Read some stuff that deals with these subjects in a more objective way.</i><br /><br />You know, I can't say as I have a very high opinion of what might constitute "objective" in your eyes. "Intellectually dishonest and flagrantly biased towards the chosen conclusion," in my experience. But you know, I have, and they suck. I reach a different conclusion. Deal with it. <br /><br />Never been to that website in particular, but if you hate it that much I'll be sure to check it out.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-24511067892936019342010-03-17T21:38:18.339-05:002010-03-17T21:38:18.339-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.MethodSkeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05844566230083531269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-49785167829738056482010-03-17T19:56:09.231-05:002010-03-17T19:56:09.231-05:002nd Timothy 3:16 doesn't say "except when...<i> 2nd Timothy 3:16 doesn't say "except when he's making the best of a bad situation."</i><br /><br />What!? The Bible is inerrant in what it asserts. If it never asserts that slavery is "the way to go" and only regulates the institution (which was demonstrably not anything like early American slavery) then how does that show any lack of inerrancy?<br /><br />Even if the Bible did approve of slavery, it wouldn't follow that it is errant. But since it doesn't, the issue is moot.<br /><br /><i>If god doesn't like slaves, why doesn't he say "Thou shalt own no slaves?" Why does Jesus use the beating of slaves as a metaphor, without any indication that he or his father disapprove of the institution?</i><br /><br />I don't like slavery (I like people, so if I met a slave I would probably like them) yet I don't make it a point to announce that fact everywhere I go.<br /><br />What are you talking about "beating of slave" metaphor? Any time Jesus discusses it, it's in a negative context. Slavery is always something to be avoided for people (ie slavery to sin or to idols). And since Jesus advocated the golden rule, that would seem to rule out the affirmation of the institution of slavery.<br /><br />All of your contentions sound like their straight from evilbible.com or something, a site not known for its logical prowess. Read some stuff that deals with these subjects in a more objective way.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-58848042253334699042010-03-17T19:43:06.518-05:002010-03-17T19:43:06.518-05:00Hmm, evidence of the resurrection and personal exp...Hmm, evidence of the resurrection and personal experience, or Skeptical Rationalist's pontifications and blind assertions...tough choice.<br /><br />And I always disbelieve apostates who say they studied their way out of Christianity.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.com