"Faith is the basis for my belief"

Author: SkepticalOne

Posts

Total: 278
#211
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Yes, you have exchanged those God beliefs for other beliefs. Atheism is not a void. Your worldview now BELIEVES that "methodological naturalism" explains or is the likely explanation of origins. It believes that humanism or human thought is the authority on origins and evolution (to some extent).
What beliefs did I exchange my god-belief for? Methodological naturalism? No, I already had that. Humanism? No, I already had that.  Skepticism?  No, again, I already had that.
How can you be a skeptic and still believe in methodological naturalism and humanism holding the answers? You presuppose those positions as your answers yet they hold no answers. Even though you say 'don't know' you use these positions as answers to life in your rejection of God. Thus, you hide behind them as part of your core beliefs, your foundation, while chaffing ignorance. 

YOU: "Skepticism?  No, again, I already had that."

How can you be consistent with that position? I don't know comes from a position of ignorance.  

Just because you have a god-belief and lack these views doesn't mean they cannot co-exist in a worldview including a god. 
A god that is not almighty, transcendent, omniscient, benevolent, eternal, and immutable is not capable or necessary for the universe. To presuppose a god who has not left a revelation of him/her or itself, yet dismiss the Christian God is unrealistic and a non-answer. Show me it is reasonable and logical to believe is your small g god or gods. Which one(s) are you speaking of?

Atheism is a justifiable position given the inability of believers to bear the burden of their god claims - not an irrational presupposition akin to those preferred by some religious dogmatists.
Justifiable position on what? You presuppose more than the believer does. You presuppose that chance happenstance is able to do something.
This is flawed in 2 ways: 
1. Those making a claim have the burden to substantiate it.  If they cannot (or refuse), then their claim [can] be dismissed in this alone.
I have already given reasons that you keep dismissing. I have said many times that I am willing to give evidence to explain what I believe is reasonable and logical, and I have given that evidence. You, and others keep dismissing it without discussing the reasonableness of it.

Trying to get your reasons for your belief is difficult and it should not be so. It takes post after post, but I'm glad when you do respond. 

2. If I state "I don't know", I presuppose nothing.
Your whole worldview presupposes so much, yet it answers, "I don't know." Even though you say, 'I don't know' you use philosophical naturalism to examine and explain what you do believe. That is how you live inconsistently. You borrow from the system you 'don't know' about. You don't know if it is correct but you use it anyway. 

Also, chance isn't the only option other than god, but I'll get into that a little more below.
If you do not have a reasoning personal being what is left? If you have a god that has not revealed itself what is left but pure speculation. As a believer in the biblical God I come from a position of knowledge. I can pint to a knowing being. I can give reasons for that knowing being from the writings available. I can test from those writings whether what is said is reasonable to believe from the historic information available and also from a position of logical consistency. Could a God who reveals Himself as omnipotent create the universe? Is philosophically consistent to think the reason for the universe is outside the universe, outside of the physical realm? It is reasonable to think that God, who created all things is capable of doing things (miracles) that go beyond what we usually experience in the natural realm? Is it reasonable to believe that God has revealed Himself through a specific people to the world? Does history back up people, places, events, described in the Bible? 

What is necessary to believe for there to be certainty regarding origins?  Obviously you can't have it with your position. The position itself wreaks of ignorance. 

What options outside of the god/chance are you willing to entertain? 
Either God, chance, or illusion. What is more reasonable?
Actually, there are many more options than that.  Even if we discount the Christian deity, there are still thousands of other 'revealed' and deistic deities.
Name one so that we can discuss the reasonableness of it and the evidence for it. Then we can make comparisons and contrasts.  

Also, it is possible  deterministic forces explain origins (this is especially true of life) and was an inevitability of Chemistry and/or the environment.
Deterministic forces? How is that possible? Explain. How can a force determine anything? Again, you personify 'force' as being deterministic. What put that force in action? Are you going to give a non-answer like, 'It just does happen' or 'it just is so'? Your worldview has very little ability in answering the why or how questions, or even what? 

SO, the options you allow exponentially underestimate the possibilities.
When you list these supposed options or possibilities demonstrate that they are reasonable to believe. That is the catch. You see, I can give arguments that are most reasonable and logical to believe. You can't. 

Skepticism in God is usually part of the atheists repertoire. Skepticism does not answer the worldview questions but pleads ignorance. Atheism does. Worldviews attempt to answer four or five ultimate questions. Skepticism does not. I don't think skepticism is a worldview. You can't live by 'I don't know.' Skepticism as a worldview can only say, 'I don't know' and plead ignorance. Skeptics live as if they do know. They live inconsistently with 'I don't know.' You don't know yet your comments speak of knowing. Skeptics usually reject God. You reject the biblical God. How can  an 'I don't know' skeptic believe the Bible is not true?   
I agree skepticism is not quite enough on it's own and other views like humanism help to fill out a worldview. What skepticism has going for it that faith does not is that it is a pathway to knowledge.
Funny statement. How is 'I don't know' a pathway to knowledge? How can you know if you don't know? More like a contradiction in terms. 

It is through skeptical inquiry that we learn new things or show  dubious or false claims. You love to attack "I don't know", but this is a mistake in my opinion.  The more we learn about the world around us, the more we realize how much we don't know.
Then do not be so fast to dismiss the biblical God. Have a more plausible reason if you want to dismiss Him. You do not. 

I do not follow your apparent position that anything less than absolute certainty leaves an individual in some sort of black hole of ignorance. 
What I am saying is that with presupposing God you have what is necessary to make sense of origins.  You have what is necessary to have certainty if God has revealed. So what is the evidence that God has revealed? I say it is reasonable and logical to believe. Alternatively, your worldview is not. 

Are you absolutely certain of that underlined statement - that you can be certain without being absolutely certain? Can you be certain when you are ignorant? What is the difference between absolute certainty and certainty?

Be careful when you attempt to make absolutes that refute themselves. You demonstrate with 'I don't know' that you do not have what is necessary to be certain yet you claim you can anyway. There is a word for that. It is called a self-refuting statement. You claim certainty while refuting certainty. Thus, once again, it shows an inconsistent.  

We all function with ignorance AND knowledge, and admitting ignorance in one limited field doesn't negate all possible knowledge. It also doesn't mean someone who claims absolute certainty gets a pass on whatever they believe to be true.
Ignorance and knowledge? The two are opposites. You either know or you are ignorant of knowledge. You either build upon what is true or your worldview is corrupt, having a rotten core that it rests upon.  

I have what is necessary for certainty in origins, you do not. For something to be certain an objective, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal Being must exist as our reference point. You nor I am that being. 

I'm not sure what ultimate questions you think atheism seeks to answer...at its core, it is a negative answer to one question: do you believe in gods?
It attempts to answer life's ultimate questions like,
1. What am I? From its standpoint you are a biological animal.
2. Why am I or how did I get here? You are here because of chance happenstance. You are a biological freak of nature. (I say chance happenstance because there is no intent, no agency, no purpose, no meaning, no value behind something devoid of personhood) At worst atheism says 'I don't know' or 'I don't care' yet then goes on to rule out reasonable presuppositions all the time acting like it does care and it does know. (Inconsistent) 
3. Who cares? Ultimtely, it does not matter yet you make it matter. That is inconsistent with where you start.
4. What happens to me when I die? You believe you cease to exist, thus your life once again has no ultimate purpose. Yet you live life like a moral being. Where do your morals come from? You make them up or accept some relative standard that is insufficient to make sense of morals. How can relativism or subjectivism make sense of what ought to be from what is? All it can do is push forth its own preference - "I like this!" But as soon as you say, "And you should too" you cross the line that you cann ot defend adequately.Then you go from a description to a prescription. You go from a behaviour (I like to eat human beings) to an ought (Eating human beings is immoral).  

In dismissing God it would have to base that rejection on something else. How else could atheists reject God?  

There is no "atheist epistemology", no "atheist morality", no "atheist origins", no "atheist purpose of life".
Then they are very ignorant people who offer all kinds of advice and solutions to things they have no understanding of. 

Of course atheists can have have answers to these questions, but it's not derived from atheism.
How can they have answers if they don't know? It is because they presume to know. You presume to know that God does not exist or you presume they is no sufficient evidence for God and you go even further by denying Him. Then you build all kinds of systems off that belief to explain your world but without God where do they start? 

Without God or gods what is left? Without God, what gods are you proposing? Are such gods reasonable to believe? But atheism is a rejection of God or gods. So what are you left with as your agency for existence? Will you answer that? Can you even speculate on it with any reasonableness? I say no, you can't. 

Also, I was a skeptic before I was an atheist, so that rant about skepticism and ignorance lacks some nuance unless you're mean to have it apply to Christian skeptics as well....
Your skepticism is an illogical position. As soon as you say, "I don't know" you give away any sufficient or necessary/self-evident reasons for your existence. You plead ignorance while you dismiss what is necessary for making sense of origins, God.  First, prove the biblical God is unlikely. Work from what would be necessary. Can you do that? If so, then try?

#212
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

I haven't "adopted naturalistic means" to explain origins.
You deny God. Without God what do you have left??? 
I reject YOUR preferred deity. 
Then you must think something else is more reasonable to put your lock stock faith in. To reject without something sufficient in explaining existence would be foolish, IMO. And that is exactly the biblical position: 

Psalm 14:1 (NASB)
[ Folly and Wickedness of Men. ] [ For the choir director. A Psalm of David. ] The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

[ Folly and Wickedness of Men. ] [ For the choir director; according to Mahalath. A Maskil of David. ] The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,” They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good.

There are still plenty of options besides naturalistic means (of course I think this is the most likely), but any option that can be demonstrated to be true is the one I will accept. 
Ah, you say the naturalistic means is the most likely to your thinking. How is that so? How do you demonstrate it? Please go ahead!

In the beginning...what? 

I'm not speaking of how to interpret the Bible.
But you did speculate. You said there are perhaps thousands of ways to interpret the Bible. I explained that the Bible speaks of a correct way. It does not depend on a private interpretation. It depends on gleaming the right interpretation for God's word to make perfect sense. 
What's your point?  Speculation=/=interpretation.
My point is that there is only one correct way, not thousands. That correct way is to get the author's meaning. That would be correct. Anything else is thinking something the author did not intend for you to think. I cannot communicate my thoughts to you unless you understand what I mean by my use of words in sentences. And when you question what I mean, I explain it by other words to perhaps make my thoughts clearer. I have shown you through a number of biblical passages (that you did not object to) that the same sense is to be used when interpreting the Bible. You have to understand what the author is saying and to whom. Who is the primary and specific audience? That audience is the OT people Jesus came to in His visitation. What I the time frame? What do we need to understand about the culture spoken to?

Even though there is a correct interpretation you deny the obvious. You make up all kinds of wrongful speculations and scenarios on what is meant. You change 'this generation' to another generation, 'this age' to another age, 'these sinful people' to other sinful people, 'this time' to a far distant time, and so on it goes. What you do is you do not understand the passage or verse in its context but make a pretext out of it. 

You are wrong. Tell me of anyone you know who can predict hundreds and hundreds of specific prophecies that find fulfillment in one Person and one nation. Show me how the unity of over 1500 years of time and over forty different authors can predict so much about history that is fulfilled in AD 70. Explain away the OT canon as written after AD 70. That is not what recorded history reveals as reasonable to believe. Show me how it is more reasonable to believe even one NT canon writing was written after the fall of Jerusalem. Your view is the weak evidence, not mine. 
Well, THAT is what I offered to debate before you went rambling through the fields of rabbits trails about Biblical interpretation. Are you alright, man?
What exactly is 'THAT'?

I am fine. Thank you for asking!

How are you?

Topic's author
#213
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
It seems this conversation has already been done:

#214
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
It seems this conversation has already been done:

Okay, I watched the debate. What is it that you want to address as to the unreasonableness of my arguments? Next, please make the points you want me to dispute from your atheist guru's arguments. I agree that Matt's opponent, Sye, did not present a great defence. It was weak. Sye was jumbled in his thinking, all over the place. He came with a fixed agenda and argument and could not via from it. I agree with Matt and Sye that we do begin with presuppositions. As I have said, from where Matt would need to start, blind chance happenstance (his beginning presuppositions or what he rests his worldview upon), he can't make sense of existence. From where he starts he cannot justify his position because he doesn't have what is NECESSARY. That has been my point all along. I just wonder why Matt's view is true regarding absolutes? I wonder why I could trust Matt any more than Sye?

Matt attacks Sye on the claim that God reveals things to us (everyone) in ways that we can be certain. Matt asks, how it works? I claim it works on the impossibility of the contrary, that blind indifferent chance does not have what is necessary to make sense of existence, the universe, morality, absolutes, the uniformity of nature. Blind, indifferent chance is not a thing that has any ability. It has no agency. When you start from it as your maker I ask you how it is able to do anything and whether it is more reasonable to believe it rather than God - a reasoning, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal Being? I ask on the grounds of how chance happenstance is able to sustain anything? I ask why things in the universe (natural laws) continue to function in the way they do if a random chance is behind them? I ask why you look for meaning and find it if the universe is a cosmic accident? Now, if you want to attribute a god to it I ask which one? How is the god you attribute to it reasonable to believe? You do not answer these questions. Instead, you keep telling me that the biblical God is unreasonable. How so? 

Matt asks, "How is it possible for God to reveal things to you in a way that you can be certain?" On the impossibility of the contrary. It is self-evidence to many. On making sense of existence, the universe, morality.

I asked you how it is possible for you to be certain, in a world where God does not exist, about your beginnings, your existence, the existence of the universe, morality? What reason do you rest beginnings upon? Then I continue to ask you what is necessary for certainty in origins/beginnings? Does your worldview have what is necessary? It does not. That is the difference between our worldviews. Mine does, providing God exists and has revealed Himself. My evidence outshines and outweighs yours for it can make sense of origins. Yours cannot. Of course, you are welcome to hold it but the Emperor has no clothes as he parades before the people all the while thinking he is splendidly dressed. 

I have claimed prophecy is one reasonable and logical justification for God's existence. It has explanatory power. I believe when the evidence is weighed (the Bible, history of the ANE and 1st-century that it is based upon) my side is far more reasonable than yours. I am willing to do my best to demonstrate the prophetic argument is better reasoned than your counter belief based on what is available. I have challenged you again to do so, claiming that your misepresented the Bible in our last two debates on the subject. 

I have argued on the consistency and unity of the Bible as a reason and evidence for a divine author. God has revealed and given us reason to believe in Him. Throughout the pages of the Bible (OT and NT) there are central themes, none greater, IMO, than the typology of Jesus Christ as God on almost every page of the OT pointing to and prophecizing the coming Messiah.

I have argued that moralism needs more than moral relativism as its justification. Your subjective feelings or preferences do not explain why something is good, the ought of goodness. You just gives a preference, what is liked and label that preference or like as good. It has no fixed standard of appeal, no best to compare and measure good and bad to other than preference. Frederick Copleston once asked (and I paraphrase), "Some people like to love their enemies and others like to eat them. What is your preference?" Hitler's Germany is not morally wrong but just a preference from such a worldview as naturalism.

And there is a moral lesson in the Bible. It explains "why" the sin, the wrongdoing, the evil that exists in the world. How does your worldview do that? Can it? Again, it does not have what is necessary. Do you believe there is such a thing as evil? If so, how does it come about if we are nothing more than biological machines, the product of chance happenstance? How does chance determine something as good or evil? How do you arrive at evil from chance? How do you get the ought from an is? 

These and other questions you continue to ignore, mock my belief as unreasonable while yours is far less sufficient, reasonable, or logical.

I keep begging you to give me reasons why I SHOULD believe anything you are peddling. 

Silence or inconsistency on your part while you continue to quiz me. 

Go figure! 
Topic's author
#215
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
I agree that Matt's opponent, Sye, did not present a great defence.
He literally provided *no defense* saying if he provided evidence for god he would be "putting man as the judge over god". OF course, it's not "God" that is making the claim, but (in this case) Sye. This is a cop-out answer.

I agree with Matt and Sye that we do begin with presuppositions.
I agree we begin with presuppositions.  That is something that has already been addressed in this thread.

Matt attacks Sye on the claim that God reveals things to us (everyone) in ways that we can be certain. Matt asks, how it works? I claim it works on the impossibility of the contrary, that blind indifferent chance does not have what is necessary to make sense of existence, the universe, morality, absolutes, the uniformity of nature. 
And that is where our common ground falls away.  The 'impossibility of the contrary' fails because it assumes your own claim has been substantiated (attempts to shift the burden) AND that there are only 2 options: God or chance.  This has been addressed in the thread.

I asked you how it is possible for you to be certain, in a world where God does not exist, about your beginnings, your existence, the existence of the universe, morality? 
Again, you are assuming your own conclusion true, AND suggesting ignorance regarding origins prevents one from reasonable certainty that they (or the universe) exist or that there are acts which work better/worse for making a better world. You need to substantiate your claims.

I have claimed prophecy is one reasonable and logical justification for God's existence.
True enough - you have MADE the claim and attempted to argue from a very limited view.  What you haven't done is consider how prophecy can be easily explained without a god. Your argument can't see the the forest for the trees.

I have argued that moralism needs more than moral relativism as its justification. Your subjective feelings or preferences do not explain why something is good, the ought of goodness. 
I don't subscribe to relativism (you should know this by now), AND even if your god existed you can't get an ought from "I believe God is".

And there is a moral lesson in the Bible.
Maybe there is, but why should I hold the Bible as an authority on morality?  There are many things codified, condoned, or otherwise not objected to that we (when not related to the Bible) would consider to be wrong. 

#216
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
I agree that Matt's opponent, Sye, did not present a great defence.
He literally provided *no defense* saying if he provided evidence for god he would be "putting man as the judge over god". OF course, it's not "God" that is making the claim, but (in this case) Sye. This is a cop-out answer.
Sye was a weak debater, IMO, but on the point, do you or Matt have what is necessary to judge the biblical God? To your point, the Bible claims to be the word of God and it says, "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." With their limited capacity, who are they to say there is no God?   Now, is there no evidence for God? I have said there is all kinds of evidence that backs the biblical claim.  

I agree with Matt and Sye that we do begin with presuppositions.
I agree we begin with presuppositions.  That is something that has already been addressed in this thread.

Matt attacks Sye on the claim that God reveals things to us (everyone) in ways that we can be certain. Matt asks, how it works? I claim it works on the impossibility of the contrary, that blind indifferent chance does not have what is necessary to make sense of existence, the universe, morality, absolutes, the uniformity of nature. 
And that is where our common ground falls away.  The 'impossibility of the contrary' fails because it assumes your own claim has been substantiated (attempts to shift the burden) AND that there are only 2 options: God or chance.  This has been addressed in the thread.
I am not shifting the burden. I've asked you to go into these "other options." I've asked you to show God is not necessary. I am asking you to show me that the impossibility of the contrary is possible. You have not. Disprove the claim by showing I have no grounding for it. I have gone into the claim deep enough for you to dispute it. You have not. You have not shown a system of thought or worldview that makes sense when you look at its roots, what it all rests upon.

When you propose it is reasonable that chance happenstance is your maker and yet give no evidence of how or why it came about except 'I don't know' it is not me who is being unreasonable, avoiding the question, or providing no evidence. I don't know is not reasonable. It gives no reason other than ignorance. 


I asked you how it is possible for you to be certain, in a world where God does not exist, about your beginnings, your existence, the existence of the universe, morality? 
Again, you are assuming your own conclusion true, AND suggesting ignorance regarding origins prevents one from reasonable certainty that they (or the universe) exist or that there are acts which work better/worse for making a better world. You need to substantiate your claims.
What did I assume there? I'm asking even challenging you to show otherwise, as I usually do. I'm asking you to do so by discounting God. I do not believe you can.

I have claimed prophecy is one reasonable and logical justification for God's existence.
True enough - you have MADE the claim and attempted to argue from a very limited view.  What you haven't done is consider how prophecy can be easily explained without a god. Your argument can't see the the forest for the trees.
The biblical view is limited, if you take the text for what is says. There is a specific meaning. I invite you to show otherwise. The Olivet Discourse is the example I challenged you on. You made a mockery of the written word. "This generation" became a generation way in the future. That is what you argued for. Ridiculous and you can't show otherwise. "The age" was not identified correctly by you. The time elements of Scripture were completely ignored by you. 

And how can prophecy be easily explained without God? Show me another prophetic text that goes into the detail the Bible does with the same accuracy. You can't reasonably do this, can you? 

Go ahead and explain how. 

I have argued that moralism needs more than moral relativism as its justification. Your subjective feelings or preferences do not explain why something is good, the ought of goodness. 
I don't subscribe to relativism (you should know this by now), AND even if your god existed you can't get an ought from "I believe God is".
What is your objective standard concerning morality? 

You can get an ought from an objective, omniscient being who has revealed Himself. I'm puzzled how you get it from relative beings. Please explain, again. I don't remember your argument. 

A object or mindless thing is descriptive, not prescriptive. It just is.  

And there is a moral lesson in the Bible.
Maybe there is, but why should I hold the Bible as an authority on morality?  There are many things codified, condoned, or otherwise not objected to that we (when not related to the Bible) would consider to be wrong. 
Because it is reasonable to believe and God is a necessary being for morality. 

Wrong by God or a human, and what? Wrong by whom and why are they the standard?

Topic's author
#217
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Sye was a weak debater, IMO, but on the point, do you or Matt have what is necessary to judge the biblical God?
Yep, just like I have what it takes to judge Voldemort. ;-) 

I have said there is all kinds of evidence that backs the biblical claim.  
"No evidence" is not my position.  What evidence there is... is insufficient.  Anecdote, hearsay, prophecy, etc., wouldn't be sufficient to find a person guilty of murder...why would it be sufficient grounds for a person's (or god's) existence? 

I am not shifting the burden. I've asked you to go into these "other options." I've asked you to show God is not necessary.
That's literally the definition of shifting the burden.  It's not my job to disprove your claim - it's your job as the claimant to substantiate it.


When you propose it is reasonable that chance happenstance is your maker 
I didn't propose this - that's a strawman.  I've actually said there are thousands of options besides chance and whichever one is demonstrated I will accept. All you have to do is provide sufficient evidence for your god, and I will share your belief. Easy-peasy, right?

And how can prophecy be easily explained without God?
Here's one possibility that is way more likely: 'prophecy' was written after the event.  This has conforming to the laws of nature and simplicity as strong arguments in its favor.

A object or mindless thing is descriptive, not prescriptive. It just is. 
Is your god an object or a subject?  Tell me again about your 'objective' source for morality... 

[...] why should I hold the Bible as an authority on morality? 
Because it is reasonable to believe and God is a necessary being for morality. 

Why should I believe that?

There are many things codified, condoned, or otherwise not objected to that we (when not related to the Bible) would consider to be wrong. 
Wrong by God or a human, and what? Wrong by whom and why are they the standard?
Do you think slavery is wrong? Why or why not?



#218
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Sye was a weak debater, IMO, but on the point, do you or Matt have what is necessary to judge the biblical God?
Yep, just like I have what it takes to judge Voldemort. ;-) 
No idea what that means since I have never watched or read Harry Potter. 

I have said there is all kinds of evidence that backs the biblical claim.  
"No evidence" is not my position.  What evidence there is... is insufficient.  Anecdote, hearsay, prophecy, etc., wouldn't be sufficient to find a person guilty of murder...why would it be sufficient grounds for a person's (or god's) existence? 
I am convinced your position comes from ignorance. You have probably read very little on prophecy or Preterism while I have around thirty books on the subject of Preterism alone and more on prophecy.

Then, you fail to explain or justify how your worldview can make sense of origins, even pleading ignorance in stating that you have no idea ("I don't know"). You have no sufficient explanation for morality, meaning, values, purpose either from where you would start from.

I am not shifting the burden. I've asked you to go into these "other options." I've asked you to show God is not necessary.
That's literally the definition of shifting the burden.  It's not my job to disprove your claim - it's your job as the claimant to substantiate it.

It ties together. I am looking for your justification. I am contrasting my worldview with yours. I'm saying that it takes more credulous faith on your part than mine in that my position can make sense of origins, yours can't. I examine what both rest upon. I argue my belief is necessary to make sense of origins and that what you have built your worldview upon (chance happenstance without God) is a house of cards with a weak foundation just waiting to collapse. It has no explanatory power ("I don't know"), yet it rules on other positions as if it does. You say there are many other options but will not discuss or identify these supposed options so I can test their viability. You may not care, dismissing my questions, but I say, hold on! How dare you dismiss Christianity based on ignorance and insufficiency in making sense of origins and replace it with a worldview that has nothing better to offer? Yours is a destructive worldview. It does not contribute but destroyed and tears away from making sense, IMO. It is not reasonable to believe yet you do. I call that foolish but you choose to make it. I call it foolish based on what the Bible says about those who deny God.

When you propose it is reasonable that chance happenstance is your maker 
I didn't propose this - that's a strawman. 
So, you think there is something better that explains our existence and origins? What is that? As an atheist who does not believe God or gods are viable options what is it that you are HIDING behind? You are afraid to take the mask off and expose what is behind your philosophy of life or what it rests upon.  

I've actually said there are thousands of options besides chance and whichever one is demonstrated I will accept. All you have to do is provide sufficient evidence for your god, and I will share your belief. Easy-peasy, right?
I say that each one of those thousand options, of which you have not identified one as viable, are deadends that lead back to the two options - God or chance happenstance. 

Identify another option so we can discuss its reasonableness in making sense of origins and how it holds together in logical consistency. Not so easy-peasy, right? 

And how can prophecy be easily explained without God?
Here's one possibility that is way more likely: 'prophecy' was written after the event.  This has conforming to the laws of nature and simplicity as strong arguments in its favor.
Easy to say, but which position is more reasonable to believe based on the evidence available? It is not yours. The late date position or argument is based largely on a doubted statement by Irenaeus. 

A object or mindless thing is descriptive, not prescriptive. It just is. 
Is your god an object or a subject?  Tell me again about your 'objective' source for morality...
Okay. My God is revealed as personal, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, thus objective and the object of our worship. Being omniscient and omnibenevolent would mean that God knows everything as it is and thus speaks from a position of knowledge and wisdom on what should be (prescriptive, not descriptive). Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not lie, etc. Such a God is necessary for understanding morality. Show me that what you believe can be something more than subjective preference. Show me it is necessary in determining what is right and good. What is goodness fixed upon in your worldview? Is it some other subjective opinion(s)? What is your best? Do you even have a best, or is goodness always a shifting standard that can illogically mean its opposite depending on who pushes what idea and when? Have you shifted your belief on 'goodness' to the opposite? Did you once believe abortion was wrong, now believe it is right? If so, based on what? Subjective standards? Your ideas? You see, best can never be nailed down without God. Goodness has nothing fixed as the best of final reference to mirror goodness against. It is all made up and subject to change.  

[...] why should I hold the Bible as an authority on morality? 
Because it is reasonable to believe and God is a necessary being for morality. 

Why should I believe that?
Because it would be an objective standard for the reasons given above. 

There are many things codified, condoned, or otherwise not objected to that we (when not related to the Bible) would consider to be wrong. 
Wrong by God or a human, and what? Wrong by whom and why are they the standard?
Do you think slavery is wrong? Why or why not?

What do you mean by slavery? Are you speaking of ANE practices as showcased by the Egyptians on the Israelites or are you referencing God's requirements for Israel in which He reminds them never to practice the harsh treatment to others that they experienced in Egypt?

Is it servitude or slavery? You see, I place myself in servitude when I agree to work for an employer. I agree to subject myself to their standards for a wage that I can live by, support my family, and not go into poverty. With Israelites, there was an agreement that a person would only serve such a master (employer) for a period of time in paying off debt unless the Hebrew servant chose to stay longer. Now with foreigners, there were different kinds, for instance, those that were the product of war or aggression against Israel and those who were poor or destitute and looking for shelter and to make a living. Neither were to be treated as Israel was treated by Egypt. 

So, to answer your question, I think the 'Egypt' kind of slavery is wrong and, cruel exploitation. I do not believe it is ever condoned in the Bible by God. An indentured servant, on the other hand, is similar to an employee/employer relationship and is symbiotic or synergistic. It is to the benefit of both. They feed off each other. 

Topic's author
#219
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
do you or Matt have what is necessary to judge the biblical God?
Yep, just like I have what it takes to judge Voldemort. ;-) 
No idea what that means since I have never watched or read Harry Potter. 
Much like the Biblical god (or any god), Voldemort has never been established to exist in the real world. As such, very little is 'necessary' to judge either.

"No evidence" is not my position.  What evidence there is... is insufficient.  Anecdote, hearsay, prophecy, etc., wouldn't be sufficient to find a person guilty of murder...why would it be sufficient grounds for a person's (or god's) existence? 
I am convinced your position comes from ignorance. You have probably read very little on prophecy or Preterism while I have around thirty books on the subject of Preterism alone and more on prophecy.
This doesn't answer the question.

That's literally the definition of shifting the burden.  It's not my job to disprove your claim - it's your job as the claimant to substantiate it.
It ties together. I am looking for your justification. I am contrasting my worldview with yours. I'm saying that it takes more credulous faith on your part than mine in that my position can make sense of origins, yours can't

This is still attempting to shift the burden.  You have the misguided idea that if you can disprove my views (or more correctly, what you *think* my views are), your belief will be true by default, but that's not how the burden of proof works. Your beliefs are either true or not true.  If you cannot bear the burden of showing your belief true, then you remove the burden from me and everyone else of accepting it - it get's dismissed.

I say that each one of those thousand options, of which you have not identified one as viable, are deadends that lead back to the two options - God or chance happenstance.
You're back to the false dichotomy I have already shown to be flawed thinking.  You're stuck in the script, man. This commitment to willful ignorance is why I will engage your words less and less.

Identify another option so we can discuss its reasonableness in making sense of origins and how it holds together in logical consistency. Not so easy-peasy, right? 
Shifting the burden, again.  Substantiating your claims would be much much easier than refuting thousands of other options. 


Here's one possibility that is way more likely: 'prophecy' was written after the event.  This has conforming to the laws of nature and simplicity as strong arguments in its favor.
Easy to say, but which position is more reasonable to believe based on the evidence available? It is not yours. The late date position or argument is based largely on a doubted statement by Irenaeus. 

You seem blissfully unaware that it is observation that leads us to accept Occam's razor and methodological naturalism. I wasn't referring specifically to Biblical prophecy, but now that you mention it, Irenaeus  is additional evidence.

A object or mindless thing is descriptive, not prescriptive. It just is. 
Is your god an object or a subject?  Tell me again about your 'objective' source for morality...
Okay. My God is revealed as personal, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, thus objective and the object of our worship.

You've created a special category for your god: an object that has a mind. You've found yet another broken logical path that won't get you to the destination you think it maps to. 

Do you think slavery is wrong? Why or why not?

What do you mean by slavery?
Chattel slavery...the kind of slavery where people are treated as property rather than people. 

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

^ --- Like that. 

It seems you object to it when done by the Egyptians, but find it acceptable when codified by the god of the Bible through Moses. What a confused position. I'll ask again.  Is slavery wrong? Why, or why not?


#220
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
do you or Matt have what is necessary to judge the biblical God?
Yep, just like I have what it takes to judge Voldemort. ;-) 
No idea what that means since I have never watched or read Harry Potter. 
Much like the Biblical god (or any god), Voldemort has never been established to exist in the real world. As such, very little is 'necessary' to judge either.
Again, does God or chance happenstance make sense? Is my faith more reasonable than yours? Am I ever going to get answers to my questions? Why is this a one-way examination? 

How is chance necessary for morality? How is it necessary for personal beings? How is it nec essary for existence? 

Not only this, many people throughout history have thought of God as self-evident. That is worth exploring. What has made them think this way? I think it is that other systems of thought don't make sense. Unfortunately, that have made God in their image instead of worshiping Him for who He is. Thus, you have incompetent gods who are not all powerful or all knowing. 

"No evidence" is not my position.  What evidence there is... is insufficient.  Anecdote, hearsay, prophecy, etc., wouldn't be sufficient to find a person guilty of murder...why would it be sufficient grounds for a person's (or god's) existence? 
I am convinced your position comes from ignorance. You have probably read very little on prophecy or Preterism while I have around thirty books on the subject of Preterism alone and more on prophecy.
This doesn't answer the question.
I have offered my belief and answer in many other statements yet you continue to dodge how your position can be otherwise. Remember this is about which position is more reasonable. 

"Faith is the basis for my belief."

We both have faith. You admit you do not know how things began (origins), that you are ignorant of how and why, thus you build your belief on faith just as much (more so) as a believer in God does. 

Is it my faith that is reasonable or yours? There is no contest that it is mine. Yours is very inconsistent. You keep hiding behind it with silence. So far, you have zero accountability. 

That's literally the definition of shifting the burden.  It's not my job to disprove your claim - it's your job as the claimant to substantiate it.
It ties together. I am looking for your justification. I am contrasting my worldview with yours. I'm saying that it takes more credulous faith on your part than mine in that my position can make sense of origins, yours can't

This is still attempting to shift the burden.  You have the misguided idea that if you can disprove my views (or more correctly, what you *think* my views are), your belief will be true by default, but that's not how the burden of proof works. Your beliefs are either true or not true.  If you cannot bear the burden of showing your belief true, then you remove the burden from me and everyone else of accepting it - it get's dismissed.
I have made a claim, that your worldview does not make sense without first presupposing God, nor can it. I have asked you to demonstrate it can make sense. You have not. You say, "I don't know." That is demonstrating there is warrant for my claim. I can make sense of mine and it is both reasonable and logical. From a necessary personal being come contingent personal beings. It is self-evident from what I witness that personal beings come from other personal beings. Can you show me otherwise? From an intentional agent (God) there is reason, purpose, meaning, value. How do you make sense of these qualities from blind, indifferent chance? You can't. There is no reason behind a godless universe. But you continue to find reason and meaning is the universe - natural laws that should not be the case by blind, indifferent chance. 

Why is it only me who has to explain what I believe and why? I have been demonstrating my burden all along by showing that only one worldview can make sense of itself. I have continually made the claim that your worldview can't make sense of itself when you discount the biblical God and you continually avoid showing that it can. You even admit it can't ('I don't know'), which bolsters my claim as reasonable. 

I substantiate my belief it by showing it is more reasonable and logical to believe than other beliefs, and I invite you to make sense of what you believe. I claim God is necessary and I give examples of why this is reasonable to believe. I give reasons, such as with morality. I invite you to make sense of morality excluding God. I think it would be a great debate in contrasting our worldviews as to which is more sensible and logical to believe. That would mean you would have to be clear cut on what you believe instead of hiding it like you constantly do.

Are you saying you have no belief - an empty void? I am asking.  Asking a question is a ploy for you to demonstrate that what I am saying is false. 

I say that each one of those thousand options, of which you have not identified one as viable, are deadends that lead back to the two options - God or chance happenstance.
You're back to the false dichotomy I have already shown to be flawed thinking.
No, you have not. You have not shown how any other worldview is more viable, more reasonable. You made a claim too. The burden is now on you to show that it is fact, not just mere opinion. An opinion is not a fact. It needs to be demonstrated as fact. 

FACT: Personal beings come from other personal beings. That is all we ever witness. It is reasonable to believe.

CONJECTURE: Personal beings can come from something devoid of personal being or personhood. Show me how that process begins. 

You're stuck in the script, man. This commitment to willful ignorance is why I will engage your words less and less.
I say you are stuck on your script too. Your worldview rests upon a denial of God. Thus, you look for other ways to explain origins that end up being non-explanations which eventually boil down to "I don't know." If you don't know why are you discounting the obvious or reasonable?  

Identify another option so we can discuss its reasonableness in making sense of origins and how it holds together in logical consistency. Not so easy-peasy, right? 
Shifting the burden, again.  Substantiating your claims would be much much easier than refuting thousands of other options. 
You were the one who claimed there are other options. I claimed that other options are not reasonable and invited you to pick one and demonstrate it is more reasonable or even in the slightest bit reasonable. Now, you are welcome to believe something that is irrational or inconsistent. But once you make the claim, which you did, I ask for you to demonstrate it as reasonable.  

Here's one possibility that is way more likely: 'prophecy' was written after the event.  This has conforming to the laws of nature and simplicity as strong arguments in its favor.
Easy to say, but which position is more reasonable to believe based on the evidence available? It is not yours. The late date position or argument is based largely on a doubted statement by Irenaeus. 

You seem blissfully unaware that it is observation that leads us to accept Occam's razor and methodological naturalism. I wasn't referring specifically to Biblical prophecy, but now that you mention it, Irenaeus  is additional evidence.
Observation? Where do you observe personal being coming from something devoid of personhood? 

Domitian as the Caesar of Revelation is not reasonable and is built upon doubted words by Ireneus. Evidence and facts point otherwise. I can demonstrate that more reasonably than you can otherwise. Do you want me to start a thread on that topic? 

A object or mindless thing is descriptive, not prescriptive. It just is. 
Is your god an object or a subject?  Tell me again about your 'objective' source for morality...
Okay. My God is revealed as personal, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, thus objective and the object of our worship.

You've created a special category for your god: an object that has a mind. You've found yet another broken logical path that won't get you to the destination you think it maps to. 
How is that? Support your claim and make it clearer as to what you mean.

Object: NOUN
  • 1A material thing that can be seen and touched.

    1.1Philosophy A thing external to the thinking mind or subject.
  • 2A person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed.

There is no logical inconsistency there. It fits the definition. 

***

object noun (CAUSE)
What Is the Object of a Sentence?
The object of a sentence is the person or thing that receives the action of the verb. It is the who or what that the subject does something to. That sounds complicated, but we'll understand it more after we practice.

#221
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

Do you think slavery is wrong? Why or why not?

What do you mean by slavery?
Chattel slavery...the kind of slavery where people are treated as property rather than people. 

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

^ --- Like that. 

It seems you object to it when done by the Egyptians, but find it acceptable when codified by the god of the Bible through Moses. What a confused position. I'll ask again.  Is slavery wrong? Why, or why not?
Again, you have to understand the ANE and the practices of those times to understand the biblical narrative on this subject. You are trying to put a 21st-century spin on the word property. The J.P. Holding site (Tektonics) gives an excellent link to the issue, found here (for those interested):

Holding breaks down the different meanings of slave as used in the Bible and what is meant, as well as the word property.

As I mentioned, there is a difference between the way a Hebrew was treated and a foreigner was treated. But was either chattel slavery in the sense of how Egypt or the South treated people? Hebrew slavery had as its motive protection against poverty or a form of debt payment. The Hebrew 'slave' was only indebted for six years, per the law, unless the 'slave' chose otherwise. The Hebrew person could sell his wife of children into indentured servitude to alleviate their poverty or provide necessities for his family. This was voluntary slavery, as I mentioned similar to an employee/employer relationship. Forced enslavement of a Hebrew was punishable by death. The law forbids cruel treatment of 'slaves.' 


Leviticus 25:42-46 (NASB)
42 For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 43 You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. 44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Under the title:
2.     The OT institution of Hebrew 'slavery' in the Law of Moses--its purpose, and structure.

"The slave's personal dignity is also evident in the prescriptions concerning personal injury (Ex 21.20-27)., since the punishments for mistreatment are meant to restrain the abuse of slaves…Clearly, the personal rights of slaves override their master's property rights over them." [OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]
Now, when I back up and look at this passage, factoring in these observations, I note the following:
1.      This passage is unparalleled in its humanitarian considerations.
2.      This passage is absolutely anti-abuse, in the strongest sense of the term.
3.      This passage is completely parallel to the case of the freeman, under discipline by the community.
4.      This passage is completely parallel to the case of a brawl between Hebrews:
5.      It applies primarily to the foreigner.
6.      The "because he is his property" is NOT about 'property', but about how the punitive payment was made (economic 'silver'--lost output, increased medical expense)
7.      It is a remarkable assertion of human rights over property rights."

Contrast chattel slavery to Exodus 21 property:

Chattel: "Legal Status: Slaves were considered 'property' in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or ethical demands upon owners' as to how they treated their 'property'. Other than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.

OT: In keeping with the 'variableness' of notions of property in the ANE (as noted by historians and anthropologists), Israel's notion of 'property' was a severely restricted one, and one that did NOT preclude the humanity of the servant nor absolve the master from legal accountability."

***

The foreign slave was usually the result of warfare and reparation for damages done (punishment),  or to counter the threat to the security of Israel. A slave could also be bought from foreign lands. Slavery could also be to help a foreigner in poverty, a temporary resident, indebted, or in need. See Glenn Miller's article cited above under the title: 
3.     Other references to 'slavery-like' situations in the Mosaic law: The 'Foreign slave".



Topic's author
#222
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Much like the Biblical god (or any god), Voldemort has never been established to exist in the real world. As such, very little is 'necessary' to judge either.
[...] many people throughout history have thought of God as self-evident. That is worth exploring. What has made them think this way?

Many people use to think the Sun revolving around the Earth was self evident...what many people think isn't exactly a strong standard of evidence. ;-)

"No evidence" is not my position.  What evidence there is... is insufficient.  Anecdote, hearsay, prophecy, etc., wouldn't be sufficient to find a person guilty of murder...why would it be sufficient grounds for a person's (or god's) existence? 
"Faith is the basis for my belief." [...] We both have faith. 
Still not an answer, unless you're admitting to faith to a poor standard of evidence.

This is still attempting to shift the burden.  You have the misguided idea that if you can disprove my views (or more correctly, what you *think* my views are), your belief will be true by default, but that's not how the burden of proof works. Your beliefs are either true or not true.  If you cannot bear the burden of showing your belief true, then you remove the burden from me and everyone else of accepting it - it get's dismissed.
I have made a claim, that your worldview does not make sense without first presupposing God, nor can it. 
Worded differently, but this is still attempting to shift the burden, Peter. It's about substantiating your own claim of the existence of a being beyond detection.  The time to believe something is when it has been demonstrated.

You're back to the false dichotomy I have already shown to be flawed thinking.
No, you have not. You have not shown how any other worldview is more viable, more reasonable.
False dichotomy: God (the Christian god) or chance. There are thousands of other options. You need to update your argument to reflect this if you mean to have an honest discussion.

Shifting the burden, again.  Substantiating your claims would be much much easier than refuting thousands of other options. 
You were the one who claimed there are other options. I claimed that other options are not reasonable and invited you to pick one and demonstrate it is more reasonable or even in the slightest bit reasonable. Now, you are welcome to believe something that is irrational or inconsistent. But once you make the claim, which you did, I ask for you to demonstrate it as reasonable.  
Pointing out errors in your reasoning is not making a claim. There ARE thousands of options for origins - this is simply a statement of fact. Hone your argument to account for this.

You seem blissfully unaware that it is observation that leads us to accept Occam's razor and methodological naturalism. I wasn't referring specifically to Biblical prophecy, but now that you mention it, Irenaeus  is additional evidence.
Observation? Where do you observe personal being coming from something devoid of personhood? 
Don't be so obtuse and/or dishonest. Observation lead to deference to *Occam's razor* and *methodological naturalism*...not whatever you wish to put after "Observation?"

A object or mindless thing is descriptive, not prescriptive. It just is. 
Is your god an object or a subject?  Tell me again about your 'objective' source for morality...
Okay. My God is revealed as personal, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, thus objective and the object of our worship.

You've created a special category for your god: an object that has a mind. You've found yet another broken logical path that won't get you to the destination you think it maps to. 
How is that? Support your claim and make it clearer as to what you mean.
Follow along now: You said an object or mindless thing can't be prescriptive (no ought can be derived), and then you made god into an object that can prescriptive. Cool trick, bro...special pleading (and nonsensical)...but still, cool trick.

Chattel slavery...the kind of slavery where people are treated as property rather than people. 

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

^ --- Like that. 

It seems you object to it when done by the Egyptians, but find it acceptable when codified by the god of the Bible through Moses. What a confused position. I'll ask again.  Is slavery wrong? Why, or why not?
Again, you have to understand the ANE and the practices of those times to understand the biblical narrative on this subject.

No.  A god claimed to be the basis of morality should know one person owning another as property is wrong. Embarrassingly, your argumentation is actually attempting to justify codified slavery in the Bible. 
#223
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne


Chattel slavery...the kind of slavery where people are treated as property rather than people. 

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

^ --- Like that. 

It seems you object to it when done by the Egyptians, but find it acceptable when codified by the god of the Bible through Moses. What a confused position. I'll ask again.  Is slavery wrong? Why, or why not?
Again, you have to understand the ANE and the practices of those times to understand the biblical narrative on this subject.

No.  A god claimed to be the basis of morality should know one person owning another as property is wrong. Embarrassingly, your argumentation is actually attempting to justify codified slavery in the Bible. 
The OT standards exceeds the ANE standards, for the ANE standards were the standard that Israel witnessed in the cultures around them, the standard they had experienced in Egypt, the world OT Israel lived in, the world they understood. God's best is always truth and freedom, justice and compassion for those who do right. Doing right is a problem for we all fall short of His standard, the glory that is God. Thus, He works within our fallenness. He chose a people out of the nations and cultures of that time where cruel slavery was a common practice, such as in Egypt. He worked within that system. BUT, the kind of slavery experieinced by Israel in Egypt and the chattel slavery of cruelty was not what God wanted Israel to observe and practice. God strictly spoke against such treatment. IF you read the article by Glenn Miller you would further understand this, yet you continue to act as if you did not. That article is very good in making the distinctions clear. It has a section, section 2, that covers property, a part of which I quoted from. You ignored it. Here it is again:

2.     The OT institution of Hebrew 'slavery' in the Law of Moses--its purpose, and structure.

"The slave's personal dignity is also evident in the prescriptions concerning personal injury (Ex 21.20-27)., since the punishments for mistreatment are meant to restrain the abuse of slaves…Clearly, the personal rights of slaves override their master's property rights over them." [OT:DictOT5, s.v. "Slavery"]
Now, when I back up and look at this passage, factoring in these observations, I note the following:
1.      This passage is unparalleled in its humanitarian considerations.
2.      This passage is absolutely anti-abuse, in the strongest sense of the term.
3.      This passage is completely parallel to the case of the freeman, under discipline by the community.
4.      This passage is completely parallel to the case of a brawl between Hebrews:
5.      It applies primarily to the foreigner.
6.      The "because he is his property" is NOT about 'property', but about how the punitive payment was made (economic 'silver'--lost output, increased medical expense)
7.      It is a remarkable assertion of human rights over property rights."

Contrast chattel slavery to Exodus 21 property:

Chattel: "Legal Status: Slaves were considered 'property' in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human. There were no legal or ethical demands upon owners' as to how they treated their 'property'. Other than with the occasional benevolent master, only economic value was a main deterrent to abusive treatment.

OT: In keeping with the 'variableness' of notions of property in the ANE (as noted by historians and anthropologists), Israel's notion of 'property' was a severely restricted one, and one that did NOT preclude the humanity of the servant nor absolve the master from legal accountability."

AGAIN: 
6.      The "because he is his property" is NOT about 'property', but about how the punitive payment was made (economic 'silver'--lost output, increased medical expense).

Those who acted in vengeance against the Israel of God could expect punishment, one of which was slavery, but not the kind experienced in Egypt. For the damage these cultures inflicted punitive payment was to be made in helping Isreal recover from the damages. Slavery in the Ot is a picture of bondage and sin. It had its consequences. 

Not only this, but that world was different in many ways from ours. The covenant made provisions for prisoners of war, women, etc., to provide for their well being in most cases. But, in cases such as the Canaanites, these people were very evil and God did not want them influencing His people, which in fact is what happened by not obeying God. Thus, when giving the Promised Land to Israel God instruct Israel to rid or drive out all the Canaanites from the land that this evil influencing might not happen. Israel did not do this and the Canaanites were a constant problem to Israel.
#224
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Much like the Biblical god (or any god), Voldemort has never been established to exist in the real world. As such, very little is 'necessary' to judge either.
[...] many people throughout history have thought of God as self-evident. That is worth exploring. What has made them think this way?

Many people use to think the Sun revolving around the Earth was self evident...what many people think isn't exactly a strong standard of evidence. ;-)
I'm saying that a majority through human history have thought of God or gods as reasonable to believe in, and many understand God as self-evident on the impossibility or improbability of the contrary. Because people believe it does not, in itself, answer the question of whether such a belief is true, granted. To that question, other evidence points to the truth of the biblical God.

Remember, we are still trying to determine how your worldview can make sense of itself based on your core presuppositional beliefs, such as chance.


"No evidence" is not my position.  What evidence there is... is insufficient.  Anecdote, hearsay, prophecy, etc., wouldn't be sufficient to find a person guilty of murder...why would it be sufficient grounds for a person's (or god's) existence? 
"Faith is the basis for my belief." [...] We both have faith. 
Still not an answer, unless you're admitting to faith to a poor standard of evidence.
Insufficient in what way? How is your more sufficient?

IMO, you are being very dishonest with yourself and looking for excuses for not discussing your faith as plausible. My charge all along is that my faith/belief is more reasonable than yours. It has better evidence because of where it begins, where you being is not sensible.

This is still attempting to shift the burden.  You have the misguided idea that if you can disprove my views (or more correctly, what you *think* my views are), your belief will be true by default, but that's not how the burden of proof works. Your beliefs are either true or not true.  If you cannot bear the burden of showing your belief true, then you remove the burden from me and everyone else of accepting it - it get's dismissed.
I have made a claim, that your worldview does not make sense without first presupposing God, nor can it. 
Worded differently, but this is still attempting to shift the burden, Peter. It's about substantiating your own claim of the existence of a being beyond detection.  The time to believe something is when it has been demonstrated.
No, it is an attempt to justify my worldview (what I place my faith in) as sensible and others as not by comparison and contrast. That IS an argument for God. No matter which other worldviews you pick, my claim is that they do not make sense of origins because of where they start or what would be necessary for that worldview to be true. You continue to argue what I contend is not true. Thus, I challenged you to pick one in which to examine and I encourage you to pick your own. Then we can compare and contrast the two faiths to their sensibilities or lack of. You refuse to do this, thus we keep finding ourselves in circular argumentation. We keep going back to your charge that I am shifting the burden when in fact I am attempting to show that my belief is well justified in that statement whereas your is not. Its reasonableness and the irrationality of others has been my claim all along.

I have argued that inconsistency is usually a sign of falsehood and a worldview that does not start with the biblical God finds itself in this position. I have largely singled out atheism and philosophical (or mythological) naturalism based on that starting point or core presuppositions. Most of these charges you ignored. You talked over those claims or ignored them completely. I invited you to make sense of your faith, your position as more reasonable for the fact that it highlights mine as able to reason and make sense of origins better than yours. My claim is yours cannot because of where you would need to start. 

You're back to the false dichotomy I have already shown to be flawed thinking.
No, you have not. You have not shown how any other worldview is more viable, more reasonable.
False dichotomy: God (the Christian god) or chance. There are thousands of other options. You need to update your argument to reflect this if you mean to have an honest discussion.
BS.

How have you shown this? You have not. Show how it is false by proving there are other viable options.

You think I have created an either/or fallacy. Go ahead and justify your charge. 

Special pleading? When it comes to core presuppositions that everything else rests upon, each of us has to start somewhere. We have to plea one of two positions, for I claim the other thousands you claim fall within one of these two - God or chance. Show otherwise is reasonable.

Shifting the burden, again.  Substantiating your claims would be much much easier than refuting thousands of other options. 
You were the one who claimed there are other options. I claimed that other options are not reasonable and invited you to pick one and demonstrate it is more reasonable or even in the slightest bit reasonable. Now, you are welcome to believe something that is irrational or inconsistent. But once you make the claim, which you did, I ask for you to demonstrate it as reasonable.  
Pointing out errors in your reasoning is not making a claim. There ARE thousands of options for origins - this is simply a statement of fact. Hone your argument to account for this.
You CLAIMED their are other options. I claimed they are not reasonable. 

Here is your claim again. 

YOU: "There ARE thousands of options for origins - this is simply a statement of fact."

I claim that any other option you provide could be shown as less reasonable than the biblical God. So now the ball is in your court to back up your claim that you say is fact. All I have so far is opinion, nothing to back it up. Thousands, yet you name not even one. Better or more reasonable? How? We would have to examine them to find out if what you say is factual or more reasonable. 

Reasonable options? Like what?

Other gods? Go ahead.
Illusion? Go ahead.

What god do you want to illustrate that what you are saying is true or reasonable, or do you have other options besides gods? It is a mystery as to what you are getting at by your statements/claims (thousands of options).

Show these gods are almighty, omniscient, or not themselves created, or we are back to the biblical God as more reasonable. 

Two contrary gods cannot both be true. It defies logic. 

You seem blissfully unaware that it is observation that leads us to accept Occam's razor and methodological naturalism. I wasn't referring specifically to Biblical prophecy, but now that you mention it, Irenaeus  is additional evidence.
Observation? Where do you observe personal being coming from something devoid of personhood? 
Don't be so obtuse and/or dishonest. Observation lead to deference to *Occam's razor* and *methodological naturalism*...not whatever you wish to put after "Observation?"
Dishonest? 

The simplest explanation is God. The simplest explanation is that personal beings derive their existence from other personal beings.

A object or mindless thing is descriptive, not prescriptive. It just is. 
Is your god an object or a subject?  Tell me again about your 'objective' source for morality...
Okay. My God is revealed as personal, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, thus objective and the object of our worship.

You've created a special category for your god: an object that has a mind. You've found yet another broken logical path that won't get you to the destination you think it maps to. 
How is that? Support your claim and make it clearer as to what you mean.
Follow along now: You said an object or mindless thing can't be prescriptive (no ought can be derived), and then you made god into an object that can prescriptive. Cool trick, bro...special pleading (and nonsensical)...but still, cool trick.
An object or mindless thing? How is that a person? The object of worship (what we focus on) is a Person, not a thing or inanimate object. Only a personal being can prescribe. An object like a rock or a table cannot. 

 See post #220. 
#225
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
I have made a claim, that your worldview does not make sense without first presupposing God, nor can it. 
Worded differently, but this is still attempting to shift the burden, Peter. It's about substantiating your own claim of the existence of a being beyond detection.  The time to believe something is when it has been demonstrated.

No, you have not. You have not shown how any other worldview is more viable, more reasonable.
False dichotomy: God (the Christian god) or chance. There are thousands of other options. You need to update your argument to reflect this if you mean to have an honest discussion.
Look, you as an atheist are left to a very limited view of the world, the universe, existence, morality. Since you disavow God or gods as lacking evidence you would answer ultimate questions or questions of existence and how things operate from the standpoint of naturalism and empiricism. That means that you have one option in looking at the world, the universe, through a naturalistic explanation. That is how you do look at the world. You discount God, or gods otherwise you would not be an atheist. God or chance still stands.  

Me, as a professor of faith in Jesus Christ would have a combination of options; this God alone, supernaturally, this God through natural means, or this God through both natural and supernatural means. The Bible reveals God alone, supernaturally. I argue that is the most plausible and reasonable explanation. 
Topic's author
#226
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
The OT standards exceeds the ANE standards, for the ANE standards were the standard that Israel witnessed in the cultures around them, the standard they had experienced in Egypt, the world OT Israel lived in, the world they understood. God's best is always truth and freedom, justice and compassion for those who do right. Doing right is a problem for we all fall short of His standard, the glory that is God. Thus, He works within our fallenness. He chose a people out of the nations and cultures of that time where cruel slavery was a common practice, such as in Egypt. He worked within that system. BUT, the kind of slavery experieinced by Israel in Egypt and the chattel slavery of cruelty was not what God wanted Israel to observe and practice. God strictly spoke against such treatment. IF you read the article by Glenn Miller you would further understand this, yet you continue to act as if you did not. That article is very good in making the distinctions clear. It has a section, section 2, that covers property, a part of which I quoted from. You ignored it. Here it is again:
The notion that Biblical slavery is only indentured servitude is simply false. The Bible advocates indentured servitude only in the case of Hebrew men.  Hebrew women and foreigners were subject to permanent sexual/chattel slavery (respectively) which is made clear in Exodus 21-7-8 and the very verse supplied in the article [Link]. There is a distinction made between Hebrew men, women, and the heathen of the pagan nations - different rules applicable to each and the latter two undeniably slavery.

Even if indentured servitude is an accurate description, it would still not justify different rules for these servants as compared to free persons.  An eye for an eye is the Biblical rule for full persons, but a slave losing an eye gets freedom and the owner loses a slave - not an eye.  If a servant is killed by negligence (gored by a bull), the owner of the Bull has to pay 30 shekels rather than pay with his life as he would if the victim were not a slave. You've equated Biblical slavery to employment, but would you really accept these rules from your own employers or those of your family and friends? The idea that the Bible provides advocacy for slave's personal rights and/or human dignity is a laughable distortion.

Finally, the argument that 'it was a different time and culture' is an appeal to moral relativism. I thought god was supposed to be the basis of an objective morality? This argumentation undercuts one of your core arguments regarding the superiority of a moral system with a god as the basis.

Anecdote, hearsay, prophecy, etc., wouldn't be sufficient to find a person guilty of murder...why would it be sufficient grounds for a person's (or god's) existence? 
Insufficient in what way?
Do you think the standards of evidence in a court of law are too high? Would you be willing to be found guilty of murder based on anecdote, hearsay, or spectral evidence? No? Then why should we accept such a low standard for gods...something arguably more important if true?

I have made a claim, that your worldview does not make sense without first presupposing God, nor can it. 
Worded differently, but this is still attempting to shift the burden, Peter. It's about substantiating your own claim of the existence of a being beyond detection.  The time to believe something is when it has been demonstrated.
No, it is an attempt to justify my worldview (what I place my faith in) as sensible and others as not by comparison and contrast. 
Again, if your proof for the Christian deity is built on the unreasonableness of all other positions, then there is no way you should have come to a conclusion.  It is simply not possible that you have evaluated all other positions.  Your reasoning is flawed and disingenuous.

Don't be so obtuse and/or dishonest. Observation lead to deference to *Occam's razor* and *methodological naturalism*...not whatever you wish to put after "Observation?"
Dishonest? 

The simplest explanation is God. The simplest explanation is that personal beings derive their existence from other personal beings.
A single super complex "explanation" (that is 'beyond our comprehension') is not more simple than multiple sensible explanations.

An object or mindless thing? How is that a person? The object of worship (what we focus on) is a Person, not a thing or inanimate object. Only a personal being can prescribe. An object like a rock or a table cannot. 
A subject can be an object? If a subject is the object in your objective morality...wouldn't that make your morality subjective? 

Look, you as an atheist are left to a very limited view of the world, the universe, existence, morality. Since you disavow God or gods as lacking evidence you would answer ultimate questions or questions of existence and how things operate from the standpoint of naturalism and empiricism. That means that you have one option in looking at the world, the universe, through a naturalistic explanation. That is how you do look at the world. You discount God, or gods otherwise you would not be an atheist. God or chance still stands.  


Me, as a professor of faith in Jesus Christ would have a combination of options; this God alone, supernaturally, this God through natural means, or this God through both natural and supernatural means. The Bible reveals God alone, supernaturally. I argue that is the most plausible and reasonable explanation. 
You demonstrate you do not understand atheism. For me, it is a derivation of evaluating my former beliefs and finding them wanting - not a starting place as you continue to assert. I don't reject gods as a possibility, I just don't view them as very probable given the sad state of evidence in their favor. I also don't discount the supernatural as a possibility, but until it can be demonstrated there is little reason to build it into an epistemology and/or a life philosophy. 

As an atheist, all the options you listed are available to me as well, but I have one more: nature alone. We have only ever found what was was thought supernatural to be poorly understood nature, and never ever has the supernatural been confirmed. If you or anyone wants me to accept their (supernatural) beliefs, then attacking well-accepted standards of evidence, knowledge, or our well-founded understanding of reality is not the way to go. You'll need to do better than that. 


#227
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

An object or mindless thing? How is that a person? The object of worship (what we focus on) is a Person, not a thing or inanimate object. Only a personal being can prescribe. An object like a rock or a table cannot. 
A subject can be an object?
Grammatically, a person can be the object of a sentence.

"The direct object is the noun that receives the action of the transitive verb.
Typically, a direct object follows the verb and can be found by asking who or what received the action of the verb."

You can usually use a word in two or more different senses, as illustrated by the different uses of the word 'object' in a dictionary.

Are you confusing, "God is the object of our worship" with my point on objective morality? I am saying that an inanimate object is not personal, thus it does not have moral views, thus you can't get an ought from it like you can from a personal being? Thus, are you equivocating a person as being objective with an object or thing that is not personal? My aim: I'm asking for the connection that links morality to mindless things and saying that there is none that can be demonstrated, hence the is/ought fallacy. Your worldview, excluding God, would have to begin with inorganic matter and somehow derive conscious beings from that, conscious beings then who are capable of making moral distinctions. Post 216 is perhaps where you got confused. Here it is again:

ME: "What is your objective standard concerning morality? 

You can get an ought from an objective, omniscient being who has revealed Himself. I'm puzzled how you get it from relative beings. Please explain, again. I don't remember your argument. 

An object or mindless thing is descriptive, not prescriptive. It just is."

I am using the word object in two different senses in that one is from the standpoint of an inanimate object or inorganic matter compared to a personal being who is capable of being objective in their thinking. I'm asking how you can get an ought or objective moral from something that is an object or inorganic mindless thing? 

Here is where you equivocate - Post 217:

ME: "An object or mindless thing is descriptive, not prescriptive. It just is." 

YOU: "Is your god an object or a subject?  Tell me again about your 'objective' source for morality..."

'An object or mindless thing' is the same as saying 'a mindless object' as something that does not have the ability to moralize and it is descriptive in that we describe such a thing. It just is. We don't prescribe a should to it. There is no ought to such a thing. Ought applies to mindful beings. There is no mind or consciousness to it. It does not moralize, nor do we say that it should do something because we realize it can't, it lacks the ability. Now the problem is how your worldview scales this barrier between what is (the descriptive mindless thing) to what should be (the prescriptive mindful being)? How does it get from a description to a prescription? Somehow along the way this inorganic inanimate mindless object evolves into a reasoning, conscious being who can think abstractly enough to moralize (according to your worldview that does not start from a being but mindless matter). Then, once you have explained how this is so, the change, why is the thoughts of the being on morality better than those of someone else who disagrees? How does such a being get to better? What is the objective standard that it measures qualitative values against in determining their objectivity?

If a subject is the object in your objective morality...wouldn't that make your morality subjective? 
You merge two concepts together once again by equivocating subject/object to objective morality, then back to subjective being. Your idea is that if we are subjective beings then we can never think objectively in a moral sense, creating a false dilemma from an either/or scenario. The notion is that if a person is a subject or subjective they can never be objective about anything. In the case of morality, my question and driving point is how do you arrive at what is 'objective morality' unless you have an objective best, a fixed measure, that you can compare a qualitative value against? Since morals are personal and abstract the 'best' must be a person, not a mindless thing. What person would necessarily fit that bill? I say that person we use as our reference as the objective measure would have to be omniscient, benevolent, eternal, and immutable - the very description of the biblical God. Now, my charge is that if you say there is no God then you cannot get to objective morality for what makes your OPINIONS and PREFERENCES any BETTER than any other persons?

After all, you said you have or can have an objective standard that is not God. Since you say you can, how do you have objective morality (from your worldview standpoint that discounts God)? What is that standard?  Show me it is possible. Make sense of objective morality without God.

Go ahead! I await. (Sense of avoidance detected, another reshuffling or refocus of the discussion instead of an answer, or perhaps a 'You are accountable for answering my questions but not I yours.')

Thus, my faith is reasonable on yet another topic, yours is not. 

You can't make sense of objective morality without God as anything more than preference or opinion. You do not have what is necessary. Opinion or preference does not make something good or bad, it just makes it liked or disliked.

Some people like to gas chamber their neighbours, others like to befriend them. Some like to eat their neighbours, others like to love them. What is your 'objective' preference (an oxymoron)?

You have one society advocating abortion, another condemning it. Which is morally right since they are both opposite regarding the same issue, one as good, the other as bad? If you say they are both right you are a moral relativist that defines 'right' as what each person likes. You can't live consistently with that philosophy since once you meet someone who disagrees with you and thinks you should die, you're dead. Was he right in killing you because your views on abortion were different (opposite) from his? Will you argue that, yes, he was?

So, once again, we have two conflicting worldviews on morality; yours and mine. Only one can make sense of morality unless one is inconsistent within itself and borrows from the other. That is what YOU do. You keep borrowing from mine while denying that you do. You keep finding meaning and purpose in a universe (according to your atheist worldviews default causality position - mindless matter) not capable of those qualities. Do you just make up values arbitrarily?  Inconsistency is the operative word in an atheist's worldview, no matter whether he/she identifies as a strong or weak atheist. 

#228
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
I am working on the rest of your post. There are two issues, atheism and the biblical view of slavery. 
Topic's author
#229
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
FYI, I'm waiting on your complete response to my post before I reply.  Have a good evening. 
#230
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
I forgot to plug my computer in when the battery was low and lost all my unsaved work. I still have some work to do. About atheism, I was thinking about another thread. It is a big subject.
Topic's author
#231
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Another thread would be preferable.
#232
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Another thread would be preferable.

#233
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
The OT standards exceeds the ANE standards, for the ANE standards were the standard that Israel witnessed in the cultures around them, the standard they had experienced in Egypt, the world OT Israel lived in, the world they understood. God's best is always truth and freedom, justice and compassion for those who do right. Doing right is a problem for we all fall short of His standard, the glory that is God. Thus, He works within our fallenness. He chose a people out of the nations and cultures of that time where cruel slavery was a common practice, such as in Egypt. He worked within that system. BUT, the kind of slavery experieinced by Israel in Egypt and the chattel slavery of cruelty was not what God wanted Israel to observe and practice. God strictly spoke against such treatment. IF you read the article by Glenn Miller you would further understand this, yet you continue to act as if you did not. That article is very good in making the distinctions clear. It has a section, section 2, that covers property, a part of which I quoted from. You ignored it. Here it is again:
The notion that Biblical slavery is only indentured servitude is simply false. The Bible advocates indentured servitude only in the case of Hebrew men. Hebrew women and foreigners were subject to permanent sexual/chattel slavery (respectively) which is made clear in Exodus 21-7-8 and the very verse supplied in the article [Link]. There is a distinction made between Hebrew men, women, and the heathen of the pagan nations - different rules applicable to each and the latter two undeniably slavery.  
First, if Israel had obeyed God, there would be no Hebrew 'slavery,' for there would be no poor that by necessity agreed to work for a 'master' to sustain their livelihood. 

Deuteronomy 15:4 (NASB)
4 However, there will be no poor among you, since the Lord will surely bless you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess,

God made laws based on reality, however, not on the ideal. The ideal was obedience that all would go well with Israel. 

While indentured servitude is one form of 'slavery' mentioned in the Bible, it is certainly not the only one. There is a distinction between the kind of 'slavery' allowed by God versus the type practiced by Egypt and other ANE nations, or as witnessed by the 'New World' (NW) slavery. We use NW slavery as the comparison and contrast with biblical slavery and associate the term slavery with it most often. 

And the difference between New World slavery (i.e., 19th-century plantation slavery) and ANE, including OT slavery, is vastly different, as noted by 22 scholars (History of Ancient Near Eastern Law) while studying every legal document available. ANE and biblical slavery were mostly voluntary because of necessity, such as poverty or debt. New World (NW) slavery was forced and involuntary.  

New World slavery was primarily mistreatment of the person enslaved while very seldom so with ANE or biblical slavery, except in a few cultures, as seen in Egypt and its treatment of the Israelites. 

"The images we have of the Old American South are filled with mistreatments, and we need no documentation of that here. The ANE, on the other hand, was much less severe, due largely to the differences in the attitudes of the 'master' to the 'slave'. Slavery in the ANE was much more an 'in-house' and 'in-family' thing, with closer emotional attachment. However, there were still some extreme punishments in the ANE, but the biblical witness is of a decidedly better environment for slaves than even the ANE. Exodus 21, for example, is considered by many to be unparalleled in respect to humanitarianism toward slaves, and we shall return to this in detail below. [Suffice it to mention here that Ex 21.21 restricts the treatment of the slave to be no more severe than what the community/elders could do with a regular, free citizen. This restriction on an owner should make one ponder what in the world the word 'property' might mean in such a context!"

Thus, I continue to highlight your ignorance in using our era treatment and terminology in judging OT slavery. Look at what the term property meant within each cultural age. 

Legal (NW): "Slaves were considered 'property' in exclusion to their humanity. That is, to fire a bullet into a slave was like firing a bullet into a pumpkin, not like firing a bullet into a human."

Legal ANE: "Slaves had certain legal rights: they could take part in business, borrow money, and buy their freedom." [HI:DLAM:118]...the idea of a slave as exclusively the object of rights and as a person outside regular society was apparently alien to the laws of the ANE." [ABD, s.v. "Slavery, Ancient Near East"]

Legal Biblical - Hebrew slave/servant:
1. "Forced enslavement of Hebrews was punishable by death."
2. "Although most of these arrangements were limited to six years in length (e.g. Deut 15.12 above), continuation of this relationship was possible, but ONLY AS a strictly voluntary act of the 'slave'"

Regarding Exodus 21:7-10, usually this was driven by the father being poor and wanting to secure a good future for his daughter, sometimes even choosing between life and death for the family or a family member.

"The odd mixture of 'slave' words and 'marriage' words designate this individual as a 'concubine'. Concubines in the ancient world were essentially wives whose offspring were not automatically in the inheritance/succession line. They had all the legal rights of wives, but they had typically originated in a state of slavery. They were subordinate to freeborn-wives (if there were any in the household), and their offspring could be successors ONLY IF the offspring were legally 'adopted' or publicly acclaimed by the owner. They could be legally 'promoted' to full wife status (in the ANE)."

"Exodus 21:7-11 specifically seeks to regulate cases involving Israelite women/girls who were sold by their fathers as female slaves (amot), presumably because of debt."

Property: "In keeping with the 'variableness' of notions of property in the ANE (as noted by historians and anthropologists), Israel's notion of 'property' was a severely restricted one, and one that did NOT preclude the humanity of the servant nor absolve the master from legal accountability...In keeping with the 'variableness' of notions of property in the ANE (as noted by historians and anthropologists), Israel's notion of 'property' was a severely restricted one, and one that did NOT preclude the humanity of the servant nor absolve the master from legal accountability."

"...God was NEVER in favor of 'chattel' slavery, and even instituted Hebrew semi-slavery as a concessive means to help the poor." 
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Legal - Foreign slave:  "Although slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households, the latter were not free to brutalize or abuse even non-Israelite members of the household. On the contrary, explicit prohibitions of the oppression/exploitation of slaves appear repeatedly in the Mosaic legislation.  In two most remarkable texts, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, Yahweh charges all Israelites to love ('aheb) aliens (gerim) who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Like Exodus 22:20 (Eng. 21), in both texts Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her slaves. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to Yahweh himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities." [HI:MFBW:60]

God told His people not to practice the same harsh treatment they suffered in Egypt. Thus foreign slaves were to be treated humanely even though those obtained through war rather than bought were considered as reparations for the damage and hurt inflicted on Israel. 

Repeatedly, both the Hebrews and the NT believers are admonished to treat others as they would like to be treated, even better in the NT case. We, as NT believers, are to put others before ourselves, to take up our cross and follow in our Lord's example. In Joel 3 God shows His distain for slavery as practiced in the rest of the ANE. 

Even though chattel slavery was not condoned by God it is evident in the OT as an typological example of bondage and sin.  God allowed the evil kind (of slavery or servitude) experienced in Egypt by Israel as a typological lesson since that kind of slavery represents bondage. Slavery or servanthood can also typify our act of looking after others and placing them before ourselves. It represents our real surrender in our wills to Jesus Christ and others by the act of serving (putting them first), just as Christ served God with us in mind, thus indirectly serving us. Thus, we serve others with Christ in mind. Remember, in the OT Israel was to serve God. In the NT we are to serve Christ. What is applicable to God in the OT is applicable to Jesus Christ in the NT because Jesus Christ is God.  
Topic's author
#234
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Everything you've described is in regards to slavery amongst Jews - indentured servitude. Obviously, there are still serious issues with this type of slavery. Jews could be owned by other Jews permanently if a master provides a wife the slave does not want to leave (Exodus 21:5).  Slavery was more or less voluntary for Jewish men and was generally no more than a 6 year term to pay off debt or acquire something valuable. So, even in its least objectionable form, Biblical slavery is still troubling (women are property, and men can become permanent slaves to stay with wife and family - exploitation.

Beyond this, Jewish women and foreigners (that weren't Jews) slavery was not voluntary and slaves *were* property to the exclusion of their humanity. Women were sold into sexual slavery.  The " The odd mixture of 'slave' words and 'marriage' words" are explained quite simply by 'sexual slavery'. It wasn't voluntary and it was permanent -  unless the woman "didn't please her master" (Exodus 21:7-10).  So, the statement "Forced enslavement of Hebrews was punishable by death." isn't true if we allow Hebrew women to be considered. Chattel slaves were to come from the surrounding nations (ie. foreigners), their slavery was non-voluntary and permanent (Leviticus 25:44-46). This is explicitly stated and not contradicted by commands to "love foreigners in your midst" either. These rules were meant for Jews and that would include foreigners who had converted (and not the heathens from the nations which surround you). 

Keep in mind, this part of our conversation started because you accused me of judging Biblical slavery by modern standards. Given that your god is claimed to be immutable and the basis of morality - that seems only fair.  But the real issue, is that you (or those which inform your views) have obviously judged Biblical slavery immoral seeing as how it is all conflated to the least objectionable type.  The Bible condones chattel slavery - are you willing to defend that? If not, then you should re-evaluate your moral basis.


39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves.(A) 40 They are to be treated as hired workers(B) or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property(C) of their ancestors.(D) 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt,(E) they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly,(F) but fear your God.(G)
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

571 days later

#235
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@Lemming
If my eldest brother had been charged with the crime of trying to murder him, my faith in him would be a strong 'reason for me personally, in believing that he would not commit such an action.
I find that very interesting. Do you think it would be faith that is the basis of that belief or your experience of your brother and knowledge of his character that led you to trust in said character? 
#236
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Faith cannot be used to prop up any belief. That is like saying our legs prop up our legs. It makes no sense. Faith and belief are the same things. They are synonyms along with the word trust. 
I would say that faith and belief are similar, but I wouldn't say synonymous. Faith is specifically a belief held through religious convictions rather than proof. I can believe in things without having faith in them. I believe my smart phone exists (I'm using it to write this), but I don't have faith in its existence (my belief is neither a religious conviction or lacking in proof).
#237
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
Yet I could say I have faith in the principle of physics - which allows me to trust that if I sit on this chair then I wont fall down.  
I don't believe physics requires a religious conviction to be trusted, I believe the chair will hold based on past experience, sure it could be wrong, but it's not religious conviction that leads to that belief. Just as its past experience that leads to me trusting the chair... There have been more than a few times I've not risked less than stable looking chairs.
#238
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,356
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@amandragon01
I would say my experience of my brother and knowledge of his character,
But I don't see this as at odds with faith, myself.


PGA2.0: Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ. Do you understand the deeper meaning there?  #1

User tenshon

Jesus even says himself 'blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.'
It's a false dichotomy to claim that it's either faith or reason. When Jesus talks of those who "have not seen" he means those who understand without having the proof shown to them empirically.
It's like if someone said "it's hailing outside, don't go outside or you'll get hurt". Then they reply "I can see the hail, but I don't believe that I will get hurt unless I go outside myself and feel it.". And another replies "I can see the hail and understand it will hurt me, so I won't go out.". This person believes without seeing that it hurts. He applies reason.
Much of what Jesus says requires a deeper understanding. See for example Matthew 13:5:
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
or Matthew 16:9:
Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand?
Or Luke 10:23:
Turning to the disciples, He said privately, "Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see, for I say to you, that many prophets and kings wished to see the things which you see, and did not see them, and to hear the things which you hear, and did not hear them."
So when Jesus talks about believing, he is actually talking about understanding - applying reason. He isn't talking about blind faith.

#239
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@amandragon01
Faith cannot be used to prop up any belief. That is like saying our legs prop up our legs. It makes no sense. Faith and belief are the same things. They are synonyms along with the word trust. 
I would say that faith and belief are similar, but I wouldn't say synonymous. Faith is specifically a belief held through religious convictions rather than proof. I can believe in things without having faith in them. I believe my smart phone exists (I'm using it to write this), but I don't have faith in its existence (my belief is neither a religious conviction or lacking in proof).
Faith can be used in different ways, this is true.     We can talk of the faith as a noun. Or we can talk of it as a verb.  I have faith in that man.   

the Greek word for faith - pistos. is a noun. It's used in Jude - to talk of the doctrines which have been delivered once and for all. 

Greek also uses it in as pisteueo - - as in I believe - In the NT - belief and faith are synonymous on many occasions and on other occasions there is a distinction. For instance -  the demons believe in God - but this is not in the sense of trust.  but in the sense of "I know".   

but it is also used on many occasions in the same way as trust.   Do you believe in me? Says Jesus.  this is - both the knowledge that he is the messiah, but also a trust that he will what is right.   

I'm not sure what you are saying about religious conviction.  In my view EVERYONE is religious.  I say religion is inescapable.  Humans are religious beings. 

I actually don't think being religious has anything to do with faith per se.  
#240
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
Faith can be used in different ways, this is true.     We can talk of the faith as a noun. Or we can talk of it as a verb.  I have faith in that man.   
And personally this is why equivocation fallacies happen. When I mean I believe (accept as true) then I use the term belief, when I mean I have trust in something/someone, then I use the term trust. When I use faith it is within the context of a belief not based on proof. Not because I'm attacking faith, but because it's clear. When we do otherwise we lead to equivocation fallacies. 

I'm not sure what you are saying about religious conviction.  In my view EVERYONE is religious.  I say religion is inescapable.  Humans are religious beings. 
Define 'religious' because I don't believe I am at all religious by any definition I'm aware of. 

I actually don't think being religious has anything to do with faith per se.
That depends on your definition of religion, but within the context of most of the discussions I've seen here, I'd say faith certainly has something to do with religion.