CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The bible is... illogical
Okay, I apologize for all the Christians who are angry to me but I am just sharing my opinion okay? But it seems our opinions don't agree with eachother. The bible contains many flaws and contradictions (In my opinion) and I know the bible does contain values of how we should respect eachother and all, but it does contain illogical things and mean things like supporting sexism and slavery. For the opposing position, feel free to show how much you hate me for saying this but don't just yell, be convincing and show me all the proof you got because I want to know! And for those on my side, do your best as well! Just do this as respectfully as possible.
The most glaring conflict I see is the assumed existence of both an all-forgiving God and Hell.
And free choice with God's omniscience. You can't have both. And if there's no free choice, how can you blame non-Christians for a lack of belief? God would know that they'd never believe, doesn't do anything that will effectively convert them before death, letting that person go to Hell. And we're back to the issue of all-forgiving again.
The most glaring conflict I see is the assumed existence of both an all-forgiving God and Hell.
Since when is God all-forgiving according to the Bible?
And free choice with God's omniscience. You can't have both. And if there's no free choice, how can you blame non-Christians for a lack of belief? God would know that they'd never believe, doesn't do anything that will effectively convert them before death, letting that person go to Hell. And we're back to the issue of all-forgiving again.
And again I will tell you that God is not 'all-forgiving.' I have no idea who or what you are getting this idea from.
“The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations” (Exodus 34:5-7)
Punishing the guilty is not forgiveness. Neither is punishing the next generations for crimes they have not committed. Therein lies the contradiction.
More examples I have found include
"I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins" Isaiah 43:25
"Who forgives all your iniquities..." Psalm 103:3
Or do you choose to ignore these parts? An all-forgiving God is actually a very popular Christian belief. I'd have been surprised if there was nothing from the Bible supporting it.
“The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations” (Exodus 34:5-7)
You just proved that God isn't all-forgiving according to the Bible. It says he will not leave the guilty unpunished.
Punishing the guilty is not forgiveness.
Exactly. Now you see that God is not all-forgiving.
Neither is punishing the next generations for crimes they have not committed. Therein lies the contradiction.
But now you are changing the wording of the text. It is not saying that because a father commits a crime the children are punished as well.
"I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins" Isaiah 43:25
"Who forgives all your iniquities..." Psalm 103:3
These verses apply to those who believe in and follow God. If you bother to look at the context, you will see this is true.
Or do you choose to ignore these parts? An all-forgiving God is actually a very popular Christian belief. I'd have been surprised if there was nothing from the Bible supporting it.
This is a fallacy. Popularity does not equate to what is actually true.
I never said that because of the popularity of forgiveness meant it was true, just that it must have arisen from somewhere, and that somewhere would have been the Bible.
So we've established that God is not all-forgiving then. That would rule out 'forgiving iniquity and sin', which the Bible also says he does.
'..visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children..." This means exactly that. The sins of the father will be put on the children's shoulders. It even goes on to say:
'I will even repay into their bosom, both their own iniquities and the iniquities of their fathers together'
So, they will be punished for both their own sins and 'fathers' before them. Yes?
No, apparently. Because the Bible also says in Deuteronomy 24:16
'Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin'. All these quotes are from the same book, but their messages are completely contradictory.
I never said that because of the popularity of forgiveness meant it was true, just that it must have arisen from somewhere, and that somewhere would have been the Bible.
So then we can both agree that because the Bible does not support the idea of an all-forgiving God, Christians that believe to the contrary are mislead or not follwers of the Bible.
So we've established that God is not all-forgiving then. That would rule out 'forgiving iniquity and sin', which the Bible also says he does
Just because he is not all-forgiving does not mean he is non-forgiving.
'..visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children..." This means exactly that. The sins of the father will be put on the children's shoulders. It even goes on to say:
'I will even repay into their bosom, both their own iniquities and the iniquities of their fathers together'
I think this is implying a if a child follows in the sins of his father, they will then both be punished for their transgressions.
But the Christian God is also omnibenevolent, it's the essential foundation of Christianity, in fact.
Romans 8:38 "... neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Going to Hell.. that's about as far from being connected to God's -unconditional- love as you can get.
Once again, you've overlooked the simply fact that this is referring to Christians only. I find it hard to believe that you're just that stupid. Obviously this isn't directed towards all people.
How is the Christian god different from the Jewish god or Islamic god?
Let me answer that for you: they're supposed to be the same person. This verse from this book in particular may be referring to Christians, but what's this debate about again? Oh, right, THE BIBLE.
The theology in the Bible may be always appear to be contradictory. In fact, it is a sign of contradiction, Luke 2:34. Yet, belief solely on signs should not be what Christian's believe. To the Christian the Bible is not a book but a person, "ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ," -St. Jerome.
Do we have free will if someone else knows what we will do? Of course. Whenever you look at child who is hungry for food, and put food in front of it, you know the child will want to eat it because its hungry. Well the child could also not eat it too, of which you know that as well. Still the child will choose which direction it wants to go. Whatever the child chooses, you know that the best choice, if it is hungry for food would be to consume the food and not wear it as a helmet.
Knowledge doesn't impede will. God will never bully someone into believing in Him, but He will do everything in his power to reach out to humanity always stopping short of 'making' someone believe. Hence the Bible, divine love letters from Heaven.
So how can we fully understand how can the justice of God seem to contradict mercy shown to sinners? To the Christian, we are all sinners, believers and unbelievers. Yet while we merit the eternal pains of hell, all, including those unaware of the message, Jesus has reconciled man to God. Nobody deserves or merits it. It is a gift freely offered and freely received.
The mercy of God is higher and more profound than the mercy of Man. Really, the mercy of God is justice because while He is well aware that not everybody will come to know him through the Bible, He is not not going to have it written. God is love and love will conquer death in order to be reunited with the soul of man. It is wrong that a just man die without meeting the fullness of justice Himself! It would be merciful to bring the just man, who is ignorant of Christ, to see God face to face rather than to let him perish.
To even the one who is willfully ignorant and despite all attempts from Heaven to reconcile with God, God will still be merciful and respect his free will. Its man who chooses Hell for all eternity, God simply honors the decision.
Here's a random nonsensical fact in the bible- There are a weird types of angels called Thrones that are depicted as wheels within wheels, with eyes on its rims. The way you see angels is not how the bible says it. Of course there are the winged baby angels but there a some that are just... disturbing. Also, the figure of Jesus is not what he appears to be, in fact, the painters from the Renaissance took the liberty of painting what he looked like, so the figure of Jesus that you would see right now is actually a figure of a "handsome Italian man" who is supposed to be Jesus. Other cultures have also depicted Jesus as their own race as well. Keep in mind that Jesus was middle eastern, and wouldn't of appeared like how the artists depicted it. Also, hell is only mentioned as a placed that has fire and it sucks to be there.
My first reason for the bible being illogical is the fact that the bible claims that the world is 6000 years old! I mean, seriously, the space hubble telescope has prooven that universe was created from the "big bang" about 10 to 15 billion years ago. See, PROVEN with visual evidence. And also, dinosaur bones have been dated back more than 65 million years, using modern dating methods that are prooven to be extremely accurate. How can is it possible when universe is only 6000 years old!?
When you look at the night sky, some of the light from the stars you see takes millions of years to reach your eyes. The fact that you can see the stars is proof that the universe is more than 6,000 years old, and there are cave paintings from our ancestors that are 30,000 years old! Why would anyone think the universe is 6000 years old? Is it Just because bible says so? Heaps of proof are thrown at you showing you that the book you so highly value is mistaken and completely false in so many ways, and you still believe in it? 6000 years ago was in fact 1000 years after the Sumerians invented glue. Fail. They writ this book to explain things they didn't know.
And what about women?? So only men are made of the image of god, not women? Then how did women come to being, what is their image? Don't say that "man" means to both genders because that would mean God is a hermaphrodite and a hermaphrodite is definitely not the image of a man. Why is god male anyway? In the bible, Jesus even calls God a father. Aaaand, why does it say in the bible that women have no power over a man and that they have to be silent and obedient. Why did they make Adam the goody two shoes and Eve the sinner and transgressor? The bible is clearly saying that women are a lesser being to men! It says that god made the universe from nothing, but made Adam out of dirt and Eve was made from the rib of Adam and yet we are actually made up of water, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, sodium, magnesium, Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron, Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic and Bromine. Why couldn't god make Adam and Eve out of nothing, like he did with the universe? And why does god say that it's okay to have slaves??? READ THIS:
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Oh My! God has been a very naughty person lately, with all those slaves...
Seriously, Christians, do you really believe God is all good and nice? If you hate slavery (Not to mention sexism), then you will hate this verse in the bible but uh-oh, the bible happens to be the word of God, so if you hate slavery then You.Would.Deny.The.WORD.OF.GOD!!! Ooooooohh Snaaaaaap. The bible also contains instructions of how to handle slaves, and that you can beat them and also instructs when to rape a female slave O:
The bible was written by men, for men, in a male dominated society! Are you not yet convinced????
The basis of Christianity is of the bible and of god, but since the bible and god is NOT good even though they are said to be good and are said to be the cause of creation, it is called a lie. So there, the foundation Christianity just got unstable.
Okay opposition, tell me what you think about this information.
the space hubble telescope has prooven that universe was created from the "big bang" about 10 to 15 billion years ago
I'm pretty sure no telescope could prove a theory about the origin and age of the universe.
When you look at the night sky, some of the light from the stars you see takes millions of years to reach your eyes.
What? This makes no sense.
there are cave paintings from our ancestors that are 30,000 years old
Can you prove this claim?
Heaps of proof are thrown at you showing you that the book you so highly value is mistaken and completely false in so many ways, and you still believe in it?
Most of the 'proof' you have provided is highly misguided.
And what about women?? So only men are made of the image of god, not women? Then how did women come to being, what is their image?
Man is referring to all humans. This is not saying that only males are made in the image of God.
Why is god male anyway?
God cannot be classified as being of an earthly gender.
Aaaand, why does it say in the bible that women have no power over a man and that they have to be silent and obedient.
Again, please provide the verse(s) that mentions this.
Why did they make Adam the goody two shoes and Eve the sinner and transgressor?
Who is 'they?' And whoever they are, this is not what they 'made.'
The bible is clearly saying that women are a lesser being to men!
Well, women are generally physically weaker than men, and men have accomplished more if you look at history. If you put 2 and 2 together, you'll find that this statement is necessarily true.
Why couldn't god make Adam and Eve out of nothing, like he did with the universe?
He chose to create them symbolically, this does not make the Bible illogical.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Oh My! God has been a very naughty person lately, with all those slaves...
World culture and morality changes over time. When this text was written, every civilization thought slavery was moral. It was fine at the time; they had no reason to believe it was unfair or immoral in any way.
The bible also contains instructions of how to handle slaves, and that you can beat them and also instructs when to rape a female slave O:
Care to reference this?
The basis of Christianity is of the bible and of god, but since the bible and god is NOT good even though they are said to be good and are said to be the cause of creation, it is called a lie. So there, the foundation Christianity just got unstable.
Your sorry idea of logic and proof did not make Christianity any less stable.
no telescope could prove a theory about the origin and age of the universe
The Wilkinson Probe provided substantiations for cosmic microwave background radiation, Hubble's constant, inflation theory, non-uniformity of temperature and many other elements of the Big Bang theory. It provided a vast array of information about where and when the Big Bang happened.
light from the stars you see takes millions of years to reach your eyes - What? This makes no sense.
there are cave paintings from our ancestors that are 30,000 years old - Can you prove this claim?
The Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc Cave in France has paintings which date to more than 30,000 years. There was a controversy over whether the date could be trusted since only one lab was used in dating the samples. Other labs have been used since and the cave includes paintings of cave bears that went extinct around 24,000 years ago ref.
There are many other caves that date to more than 6,000 years which supports Kamekaze's point ref
also, here are more than 30 types of evidence that the world is more than 6,000 years old ref
This is not saying that only males are made in the image of God.
Chimps have 10 fingers, 10 toes, fingernails, forward facing trichromatic eyes, ears, nostrils, lips, teeth, a brain, heart, lungs, liver, stomach, intestines, an appendix, blood, veins, arteries, similar muscle and bone structure (ankles, knees, hips, shoulders, elbows, wrists, knuckles) - they eat, sleep, dream, breath, urinate/defecate, communicate, procreate, die, etc.
Biblical creationists would have us believe that, instead of sharing a common ancestor with these animals, humans are made out of dirt in the image of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, space-less, timeless, all-good creator of the universe and somehow we turned out to share more than 95% of our DNA with modern day Chimpanzees.....
God cannot be classified as being of an earthly gender.
why does it say in the bible that women have no power over a man and that they have to be silent and obedient. - please provide the verse(s) that mentions this
I Timothy 2:11-14 - "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
I Corinthians 14:34-35 - "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
Ephesians 5:22-24 - "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything."
The bible also contains instructions of how to handle slaves, and that you can beat them and also instructs when to rape a female slave
Care to reference this?
(care to know the bible yourself at all?)
Leviticus 25:44-46) (text above)
Exodus 21:2-6) If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
Exodus 21:20-21) When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
1 Timothy 6:1-2) Those who are under the yoke of slavery must regard their masters as worthy of full respect, so that the name of God and our teaching may not suffer abuse. Those whose masters are believers [Christians] must not take advantage of them because they are brothers but must give better service because those who will profit from their work are believers and are beloved.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14) When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.
World culture and morality changes over time
wouldn't the morality of an all-knowing ever-existing god be fairly constant?
Chimps have 10 fingers, 10 toes, fingernails, forward facing trichromatic eyes, ears, nostrils, lips, teeth, a brain, heart, lungs, liver, stomach, intestines, an appendix, blood, veins, arteries, similar muscle and bone structure (ankles, knees, hips, shoulders, elbows, wrists, knuckles) - they eat, sleep, dream, breath, urinate/defecate, communicate, procreate, die, etc.
Biblical creationists would have us believe that, instead of sharing a common ancestor with these animals, humans are made out of dirt in the image of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, space-less, timeless, all-good creator of the universe and somehow we turned out to share more than 95% of our DNA with modern day Chimpanzees.....
See, you're interpretating the Bible entirely literally. By saying men were created in the image of God, it figuratively implied that humans are spiritually similar to God, in that they own consciences and souls.
Also, when God appeared on Earth, he was a man, not a chimp.
God is often referred to as father
Once again, you interpret this literally. God is not everyone on Earth's father, God is simply a father figure to humans.
wouldn't the morality of an all-knowing ever-existing god be fairly constant?
See, you're interpretating the Bible entirely literally
Genesis 2:7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Yes. I am using the bible's own words and you disagree with them so you decide it is not to be taken literally. Who gets to decide which parts are to be taken literally and which parts men or god thought it would just be better to make something up?
Also, when God appeared on Earth, he was a man, not a chimp.
he was only >95% chimp...
humans do not have constant morals
your comment that "World culture and morality changes over time" was in reference to Leviticus 25:44-46 which is supposedly from the laws god gave Moses (Leviticus 25 begins "And the Lord spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying,") So the verses about slavery, etc. are about god's morals not man's.
Though god does not have constant morals either. God and Jesus are one and the same, yet god of the old testament says:
Exodus 21:23-24) And if any mischief follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
-while god in the new testament (Jesus) says:
Matthew 5:38-41) "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
-----------------------------
If you can't take literally what the bible says about how or why things work or which morals to have, what good is it exactly?
The idea is that everything in the universe is moving away from a central point, and given Newton's First law of motion, we must conclude that at one point all matter existed at this central point before it started to expand. This is what we call the instance of the Big Bang.
What? This makes no sense.
What doesn't make sense? The fact that there are celestial objects so distant that it takes millions of light-years to reach earth. This is true. Light does not move instantly, and the further away the object is the greater the time delay between when the light is emitted and when we actually see it. At the very least it suggests a very old universe.
These facts only present a challenge to Christians who hold a very literal view of the Bible.
These facts only present a challenge to Christians who hold a very literal view of the Bible.
Kamikaze is the one interpreting the Bible literally. It's completely logical once you realize many things mentioned are either meant to be figurative or are badly worded/translated.
So sexism, slavery and rape are to be seen as metaphors? Please explain to me why the bible condones this because it's not spreading a special message.
No, this is not what I said. You are either interpreting verses containing what you think to be concepts of illogic wrongly, or they are badly translated/worded.
No, I am asking who is the final arbiter of which verses to take literally and which ones God didn't really mean?
Kamikaze and I referenced several bible verses and your response (without any substantiation) was that the verses were either wrongly interpreted or wrongly translated. We have cited the verses, if you feel this is the case, then support it with evidence.
You also say "I personally don't think gays should get married because the Bible teaches that homosexuality is an abomination"ref
How do you know that you aren't the one misinterpreting or that those verses weren't translated incorrectly, etc.? see also
Your knowledge of science is deplorable Troy! Didn't you know about all this? Okay, I will explain.
Scientists have received images of space, and the stars, that have been taken by the Hubble to learn about the universe, and have used these images of stars, the oldest white dwarf stars, is in the globular cluster M4. Astronomers also selected the closest globular cluster to Earth. M4 is 5,600 light-years away. Conceptually, the age-dating observation is as simple as estimating how long ago a campfire was burning by measuring the temperature of the smoldering coals. In this Hubble observation, the "coals" are white dwarf stars, the burned-out remnants of the earliest stars that formed in our galaxy. Hot, dense spheres of carbon "ash" left behind by the long-dead star's nuclear furnace, white dwarfs cool down at a predictable rate - the older the dwarf, the cooler it is, making it a perfect "clock" that has been ticking for almost as long as the universe has existed. This is a way find out the universes age, which is very old.
To explain your question of how we see the star's light, here it is:
The sun is huge, yet appears so small in the sky because it is extremely far away and since it is, the light that it emits will actually take 8 minutes to reach the Earth because of it's distance. Light only travels 186000 mi/sec, so it would take a lot of time to travel through far distances in space. The stars you see in the sky are much like the sun, but some are even larger, like 100 times larger or even 1000 times larger. (As you may already know) And when you see them, they would only appear as small, tiny specks of light. This means that they are very far, far away, and I mean VERY far away which leaves an awful lot of distance for the light to travel. The fact that we could see the stars is because the light has taken millions of years to reach us, okay?
The earliest European cave paintings date to the Aurignacian, some 32,000 years ago. These old paintings have been analyzed by experts, and there is no denying their extremely old age. It would take more than 6000 years to get the ancient cave paintings as aged they look now.
To your comment that questions my viability of evidence,
Most of the 'proof' I have provided is extremely viable, thank you very much.
God is male because, Jesus referred to him as "Father," and we all know that a father is not female and clearly, you don't understand the bible and it's sexism because in it, it says "A man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." (1 Cor. 11:7) Hence is why god made Adam from dirt, and Eve from Adam's rib. And also: "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches." (1 Cor. 14:34)
And not to mention: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man." (1 Tim. 2:12-14) And also: "If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off." (1 Cor. 11:6) This proves to show how offensive the bible is to women.
Your excuses to defend these offensive verses in the bible will furthermore deeply offend feminists and their beliefs, these are words from the bible. And the bible is what you support. The reason why men has accomplished so much is because they always kept their wives locked up in the house to cook and clean, so they never got to do anything. Just please keep in mind that your comments to women are a bit sexist.
Anyone with basic knowledge of the bible knows that Eve was made the transgressor in the bible and was the one who sinned. Adam is made the goody two-shoes because he, (Who represents all men) didn't give in to temptation and yet Eve (Who represents all women) did give in to temptation and easily got deceived by the serpent which made god angry, that eventually caused human suffering and sin.This gave men a reason to hate women, but women were still mistreated before-hand. This sends a message that shows that the bible clearly sees women as lesser beings. Don't you think this would be offensive? But this is not surprising, because the bible was made by men, for men, in a male dominated society.
For your response from the bible verse about slavery, I'll have you know that this is the bible we're talking about here, which is in your case, "the word of god." But god is supposed to be a perfect, all knowing being, with wiseness beyond boundary. He would know better then to condone taking control of people's lives and rights, and beating them.
Take this verse for example of beating slaves:
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
If God didn't find this immoral, then no one would, I guess it's safe to say we know better. Perhaps the bible was man-made after all.
Stars are millions of light years away, you can measure this though various means.
Radiometric dating is pretty accurate most of the time.
If man refers to all humans, then why isn't a gender neutral term used? Is it a bad translation?
Does referring to the christian god as a she, he-she, or genderless really fit his description as well as referring to him having the stereotypical male gender. Also, Adam, as in man was made in god's image. Eve was made from Adam's rib.
I'll leave the bible quotes, to someone else but their there as I'm sure your aware.
Relative Physical Weakness and social oppression as property due to baby making and physical weakness does not constitute general inferiority.
God didn't think it was immoral, isn't that the issue. Moral relativism isn't a defense for the supreme and absolute being.
I would of just mentioned how the properties of god are contradictory, how free will is just basically a rehashing of Leibniz best world bullshit, etc But attacking the bible works as well.
I do know metaphors. It is you who does not know metaphors if you think the Bible has metaphors that say all who don't believe must die.
What the Bible does say in it's metaphors that all people whom are evil must die. 'Evil' was far less understood back then as it is today, but that doesn't mean the Bible hailed the killing of innocent people who were not Christian.
People could be... merciless in those days, with all the cruel punishments like death by crucifixion, stone or fire. People were not very knowledgeable in those days as well, so a sinner would be seen as a corrupt thing that must be killed. You are either saying it is a metaphor as an excuse or as truth but don't mistake the darkness of those times. Some would actually take pleasure in seeing the sinners and faithless burn in hell, they wouldn't even consider them "innocent" for not being religious, because that was a wrong doing all in it's self. The bible really does hate the faithless because it is the very thing that goes against the it. In all the tales that the bible tells, the faithless end up suffering, and the faithful end up saved. Much like the prophecy foretold in the book of Revelations.
People could be... merciless in those days, with all the cruel punishments like death by crucifixion, stone or fire.
Cruel punishments were necessary in those days, considering crime in those days was far more dangerous then it is today. Examples had to be made to keep order. I don't like it, but that's what had to be done.
People were not very knowledgeable in those days as well, so a sinner would be seen as a corrupt thing that must be killed.
Right. They didn't understand what evil was like we do today, so a sinner was always evil. That's a logical train of thought in an ancient society.
You are either saying it is a metaphor as an excuse or as truth but don't mistake the darkness of those times.
I don't mistake the darkness of those times. The fact that they were dark is a truth that excuses the horrors those people committed. After all, if they hadn't, we wouldn't be here today with the prosperity we currently have.
Some would actually take pleasure in seeing the sinners and faithless burn in hell, they wouldn't even consider them "innocent" for not being religious, because that was a wrong doing all in it's self.
Back then, faithless and sinning people were evil. They were without morals and couldn't be trusted to behave properly in society. There was no consideration for the idea that these people could be good because they knew no other way to be good.
Once again, I don't like it, but that's how they kept order in ancient times.
The Bible really does hate the faithless because it is the very thing that goes against the it.
The Bible does hate the faithless, because in ancient times, the faithless were a deterrent to society. The Bible supported the elimination of that which deterred ancient society.
I don't like, but that's what they had to do. And it followed a completely logical point of view for the audience it was intended for.
In all the tales that the bible tells, the faithless end up suffering, and the faithful end up saved.
Of course, because in that society, the faithless were always evil and the faithful were doing what they were supposed to be doing. That's how they kept order. I think I'm repeating the same thing at this point.
Much like the prophecy foretold in the book of Revelations.
End times stories are like creation stories; they aren't meant to be literal anymore. They were written by the author(s) as a sham to get people to stop asking questions. In the case of Revelations, they wanted people to be terrified of end times so they be scared and stop asking questions and get back to work.
The Bible is known to be written by Jesus Himself - He'd no doubt make His deeds seem bigger than the real thing. Jesus was probably a normal Jew who others raised up as "Son of God", and that means He would favor himself and his students. Even if He had written the bible correctly, His students were bound to rewrite it to make them look good. The bible also encourages insanity which is supposed to be a virtue to the Jews.
One reason some people don't believe the bible is the people like you who think they do.
The entire old testament was written before Jesus was conceived and none of the people who wrote the new testament ever met Jesus and didn't write until decades after his death.
Jesus didn't write the bible- that's why it says the gospels ""according to John" etc. The original texts have books that were left out, and there is no proof of Jesus Christ. If you mean Jesus Christos different guy.
Full of contradictions, and hypocrisy. The KJV is probably the 13th "revised" version. The book was written by men, and plagarized. It is a retelling of the Egyptian's Osiris.
A baseless text with no evidence, contradictory statements throughout, immorality a common theme in many of its messages... Yeah, illogical that an all-loving, all-powerful deity would have such a thing created.
If all of the nonsensically biased, illogical, ludicrously cruel and hypocritical verses in the bible (Which is all of the bible) are meant to be ignored or not taken literally, then the god --With no capital "G"-- which is included in the bible should be treated as just the same.
I think from a scientific standpoint it is completely illogical. In historical context it can be unreliable, but somewhat useful. As far as theology goes, it is perfect. Because that is what it is. A religious book. But used in any other context and it becomes highly illogical.
The Bible is actually totally logical as long as you interpret it's original texts from the perception of a religious scholar.
What's illogical is how most normal people interpret the Bible and then say outrageously illogical shit that has nothing to do with what the Bible really says.
The Bible is written so much in metaphor, that it's hard to discern many of it's points and topics and even individual words. That's why you talk to a religious scholar. They understand that the Bible tells many logical stories which were for the purpose of guiding people in ancient times.
So the Bible isn't utterly illogical.
Whatever your average Christian idiot says about the Bible, on the other hand, is.
What about problems with slavery and sexism, because there ain't no special meaning for that. :P
Because you don't want people saying "From what I've learned from the bible, we should take away the rights of women and keep our slaves in check because we are loyal servants of god!"
Okay, like I said before, The bible was written by men, for men, in a male dominated society.
I'm not religious scholar myself, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct to say that slavery is not said to be good or bad in the Bible. It's barely mentioned, and when it is, it is mentioned with indifference. The issue of slavery has nothing to do with logic, it has to do with feelings over humanitarian rights.
Besides, back then, most slaves were indentured servants or war criminals. Either way, they deserved it unless they were obtained as slaves illegally, something that any major writer in the Bible would agree is wrong... since it would be illegal.
As for sexism... yes, today, it would be sexism. But if you would notice, I pointed out that the Bible was intended to guide ancient people. What we would call 'sexism' today is what back then that they'd call 'protection'.
Limiting the rights of women back in more primitive times was their way of protecting women and their ability to have children from the horrors of war, politics, and crime. Today, we'd hate that idea, but today, we have acquired prosperity; of course it's illogical to us now, but back then, it was perfectly sensible. You're right. It was written my men and for men in a male dominated society.
But so what?
That was thousands of years ago.
Whatever perceptions you have about the world today have nothing to do with the Biblical past. Humans don't do things for no reason. They do whatever they are programmed to do over time to help them survive.
Which is why today, our entire mentality as human beings is to not let anyone be a second class citizen. And it's also way all the way back then, human mentality was to make certain groups of people second class citizens out of necessity.
I'm not religious scholar myself, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct to say that slavery is not said to be good or bad in the Bible. It's barely mentioned, and when it is, it is mentioned with indifference. The issue of slavery has nothing to do with logic, it has to do with feelings over humanitarian rights.
You are very much correct, but what does that say about this benevolent being who doesn't find anything wrong with slavery?
Besides, back then, most slaves were indentured servants or war criminals. Either way, they deserved it unless they were obtained as slaves illegally
Most slaves back then were War captives, indentured servants would come in at a close second. Many of them were children, so I think it would be wrong to say they "deserved it", this is an abhorrent statement.
As for sexism... yes, today, it would be sexism. But if you would notice, I pointed out that the Bible was intended to guide ancient people
This suggests that morals are relative, and furthermore what does that say about people who use it to guide their modern lives?
If most of the stories within the bible are metaphors, Parables, and fables--and if the bible's only moral guidance is to people of ancient times, on what basis can one insist that the bible is a true and living document, when it most certainly is not?
back then, human mentality was to make certain groups of people second class citizens out of necessity.
There are numerous 'primitive' societies then and now where men and women are/were considered equal, where there is no second-class. I would argue the creation of second-class citizens came about, not as a result of necessity, but as a result of the consolidation of power by the ruling class.
You are very much correct, but what does that say about this benevolent being who doesn't find anything wrong with slavery?
It says that the benevolent being is indifferent to slavery. Different times, different values. It being illogical today doesn't mean it wasn't once very logical.
Most slaves back then were War captives, indentured servants would come in at a close second. Many of them were children, so I think it would be wrong to say they "deserved it", this is an abhorrent statement.
My argument is with consideration for the perceptions of people in ancient times.
With that said, what's abhorrent about enslaving the children of your enemies? Your enemies are evil. So must be their children. Why treat your enemies children any different then your enemies themselves?
I don't like it, but that's how they did things back then. That's the only logic they could follow to survive and develop and eventually become what we are today.
This suggests that morals are relative, and furthermore what does that say about people who use it to guide their modern lives?
Morals of humanity are relative based on what's necessary to survive and develop. We are prosperous today, so we can afford for our morals to be huge. It was different for the ancient audience the Bible was intended for.
I disagree with the herd of modern Christian literalists just as much as I disagree with the herd of modern Biblical loathers.
...on what basis can one insist that the bible is a true and living document, when it most certainly is not?
It's not a true and living document, today that is. It was a true and living document a long time ago, though, when it's intended audience needed it's guidance. Today it should just be a very intelligently-interpreted storybook of proverbs that could possibly assist you with daily life. It shouldn't be taken literally anymore though because we are not the audience it was designed for.
There are numerous 'primitive' societies then and now where men and women are/were considered equal, where there is no second-class. I would argue the creation of second-class citizens came about, not as a result of necessity, but as a result of the consolidation of power by the ruling class.
I would not doubt that you are correct in some fashions over this idea, the problem is that, no matter how ridiculous ancient people's act, I cannot be convinced that they do it all for a reason that did not perpetuate their existence and allow them to culturally evolve into what we are today.
Just as the Aztec's sacrificed people to keep the masses in high moral, I believe that the elimination of woman's rights in ancient Europe/Arabia was a ploy to save their ability to bear children from the dangers of the world.
Why assume they did it for an illogical reason instead of a logical reason?
Especially considering that women in the Bible weren't the characters commonly being killed, after all. It was always the male soldier, citizen, ruler, etc. Back then, the powerful, while being powerful, were far less safe then the people whom were sheltered and without as many rights as the powerful.
I don't like it, but it seems that for the time, it was a very logical way to help ancient people's societies survive.
If they didn't need a second class to perpetuate their culture, then what that says to me is that they ended up developing a culture that needed a second-class to survive.
It says that the benevolent being is indifferent to slavery. Different times, different values.
Yes, People's values do change, but God's value should not change, this implies fallibility.
It being illogical today doesn't mean it wasn't once very logical.
Yes it absolutely does. Logic does not rest upon people's values, and it certainly doesn't depend on what year it is. Logic, like math, is universal. It applies equally to all cultures at all times.
"A feather is light. Light is not dark, therefor no feathers are dark" is just as illogical today as it was 2,000 years ago.
With that said, what's abhorrent about enslaving the children of your enemies? Your enemies are evil. So must be their children.
I sincerely hope you do not actually believe what you are saying. You cannot truly mean this.
Enslaving children is morally reprehensible, and repugnant. Children are too young to even understand most of what is going in the world nonetheless to have done anything to deserve slavery. One cannot choose their parents nor the location of their birth, to punish a child on this basis is the act of a vile person.
Your enemies are evil. So must be their children.
No people is inherently evil. Even so, to enslave the children of others would make you just as evil if not more so.
Fortunately most of the western world has progressed past this medieval mindset, I had hope that you had too, but it seems I am mistaken. Or perhaps you are just saying this because you want to defend the bible, but what does it say about the bible when you must be pro-child-slavery to defend it?
Why treat your enemies children any different then your enemies themselves?
Did Martin Luther King Jr, not say that we should judge others based on the content of their character? What character are you judging when you condemn an entire generation of children to slavery?
I don't like it, but that's how they did things back then.
You don't have to like it, that is how things were done back then, but that certainly doesn't make it right or moral.
Morals of humanity are relative based on what's necessary to survive
Slavery has never been necessary to human survival. The only thing it has been necessary for is the comfortable lifestyle of the ruling class.
It's not a true and living document, today that is. It was a true and living document a long time ago, though, when it's intended audience needed it's guidance.
True and Living? Living perhaps, but it's never been particularly true.
I would not doubt that you are correct in some fashions over this idea, the problem is that, no matter how ridiculous ancient people's act, I cannot be convinced that they do it all for a reason that did not perpetuate their existence and allow them to culturally evolve into what we are today.
Whether you can be convinced or not, is a different matter entirely. Slavery has never been a prerequisite for either cultural evolution or survival. We know of societies which have done both, without it.
Just as the Aztec's sacrificed people to keep the masses in high moral
The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice to appease ancient superstitions. This if anything should highlight the importance of distinguishing reality from fantasy, when it comes to decision making.
I believe that the elimination of woman's rights in ancient Europe/Arabia was a ploy to save their ability to bear children from the dangers of the world.
How so?
Why assume they did it for an illogical reason instead of a logical reason?
Because many ancient and classical societies did things primarily for illogical reasons, this requires no assumptions.
Especially considering that women in the Bible weren't the characters commonly being killed, after all. It was always the male soldier, citizen, ruler, etc. Back then, the powerful, while being powerful, were far less safe then the people whom were sheltered and without as many rights as the powerful.
Yes, because the very act of suppressing peoples rights seems to motivate the masses towards regicide.
If they didn't need a second class to perpetuate their culture, then what that says to me is that they ended up developing a culture that needed a second-class to survive.
Do you have anything of more substance besides "The have a second-class, therefore they must have needed it to survive."? This ignores all the other reasons why oppression tends to occur.
Yes, People's values do change, but God's value should not change, this implies fallibility.
It does. I'm not arguing that God is real. I'm arguing that the Bible was written to guide the masses of ancient peoples in a way that would allow them to sufficiently evolve.
Yes it absolutely does. Logic does not rest upon people's values, and it certainly doesn't depend on what year it is. Logic, like math, is universal. It applies equally to all cultures at all times.
No it absolutely does not. Logic isn't as simple as people like to think.
Is it logical to kill a human being who is innocent of a crime? Today, we'd say that's not logical. There's no reason to kill a human being when they are innocent. In the old days, it would be just as logical to spare his life as it would be to kill him, because killing him would scare other people into behaving better.
Like said, it being illogical today doesn't mean it wasn't once very logical. Or, a better way of saying it would be, it was always logical, just inefficient by today's standards and morals.
I sincerely hope you do not actually believe what you are saying. You cannot truly mean this.
Of course I don't believe that. I just told you I'm arguing with consideration for the lifestyles of ancient peoples.
Enslaving children is morally reprehensible, and repugnant.
I agree. The problem is that it wouldn't be necessarily these things in ancient times.
Why not kill a child that will one day grow up and kill the sons of your own children? Have you ever thought outside the box that is the modern era of perceiving things?
I don't believe in anything that ancient peoples believe in, but what I'm saying is to put yourself in their shoes and imagine what it would be like to live like one of them. Nothing that applies to our modern viewpoints has anything to do with how they lived. Therefore, you have to think totally unlike what you'd really think to understand the issue of whether the Bible is logical to the audience it was intended for.
No people is inherently evil. Even so, to enslave the children of others would make you just as evil if not more so.
Once again, I'm speaking from the shoes of an ancient civilization. Also once again, you are not imagining the conditions those people lived in.
Fortunately most of the western world has progressed past this medieval mindset, I had hope that you had too, but it seems I am mistaken.
I expected you to be smarter then this, Bo.
Did Martin Luther King Jr, not say that we should judge others based on the content of their character? What character are you judging when you condemn an entire generation of children to slavery?
Not an entire generation, just the generation of children that belong to a village that threatens the existence of my own village. If I had to fight and kill these children's parents so that I would not die, surely if I let these children go, my children will one day have to fight and possibly die against these opposing children.
That's a logical way to survive. Animals do these things, and that's what ancient people were: animals. They fought and murdered and raped so that the strongest among them would survive and become what the human race is today.
I would never trade this time for any other, especially any point in the ancient past. I would not enjoy living in a time period where I would have to be a murderer to stop my children from being murdered.
If you don't understand my points yet, I don't think we'll get anywhere.
You don't have to like it, that is how things were done back then, but that certainly doesn't make it right or moral.
Ah, but the question is not of morality, but of logic. Back in a time as ancient and as brutal as the Biblical audience, sometimes, being a killer was a logical way to survive.
And like I said, I don't like it, but that's what they had to do to survive.
Slavery has never been necessary to human survival. The only thing it has been necessary for is the comfortable lifestyle of the ruling class.
It's necessary if you enslave people who would kill you if they were not in shackles. I know that's probably outrageous to say, but once again... put yourself in their shoes. They couldn't afford to be as moral as we would require them to be these days. Back then, the world was even more grey then it is today; killing an innocent person if it helped you and/or your kin survive. Evil? Today we might say yes. But if you didn't kill them, you yourself and/or your kin would die. Does that make it still evil? Yes? No?
Back then, in those times, it was not evil. They couldn't afford for it to be evil. They had to do extremely horrible things to sustain themselves. I don't like it, but that's what they had to do. If they hadn't had to do it, it wouldn't have happened, and if they hadn't done it, we wouldn't be in the position we are now. We are the product of our ancestors.
And just like all parents want for their children, I'm sure they'd have wanted us to have better, more moral lives, like what we do in fact have now. So even though they were 'evil', they still succeeded in giving us better lives that do not require us to act like they did.
True and Living? Living perhaps, but it's never been particularly true.
It's true if most of the stories are metaphors, real history, or in fact, sarcasm.
The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice to appease ancient superstitions. This if anything should highlight the importance of distinguishing reality from fantasy, when it comes to decision making.
And they developed the tradition of appeasing ancient superstitions because they needed to rally and order the masses. If anything, this should highlight the importance of what was effective back then when it comes to decision making.
How so?
Can a person whom has had their license revoked and their car repossessed die in a head-on car collision?
Because many ancient and classical societies did things primarily for illogical reasons, this requires no assumptions.
Or they had illogical reasons in their head but evolution was driving them to do these things for logical reasons.
If humanity as a whole was driven to do things based only on what they think and believe and not what evolutionary instinct programs them to do, we wouldn't have gotten to this point in our prosperity. In fact, we would have gotten nowhere NEAR this type of prosperity.
But we have. We're here because of our ancestors. That means they were doing something right, no matter how horrible those things were.
Yes, because the very act of suppressing peoples rights seems to motivate the masses towards regicide.
Today is does, sure. Not back then. Back then, people committed regicide so they could claim the thrown themselves, not so that they could free everyone. It was about having more things then your competitors so that your kin would prosper, even if it means that you will die young and bloodied with no pride.
Do you have anything of more substance besides "The have a second-class, therefore they must have needed it to survive."? This ignores all the other reasons why oppression tends to occur.
Not really. What makes you think terrible, horrible reasons for oppression weren't necessary back then to preserve your people? It's a horrendous thing to do, to act like Hitler, but that's because 1932 was 1000% more prosperous a time then 932. Back then, Hitler would have been a terrible thing to suffer, but it wouldn't be a nearly as bad a thing as it was in 1932, simply because earlier, more savage times called for more vicious, animalistic behavior to survive.
So your whole view of this debate is to defend a piece of ancient, wise, metaphorical literature, because of the morals that it tries to teach to the people of those times, and not because of the God that it claims to exist. In fact, you believe that they use this 'God' as a tool to help spread this message. But of course it does contain old practices of slavery and countless other things of that time, but you can't blame them for it because those morals of that time were different to the morals of this time and how we see things. Am I right? Is this what you mean?
So your whole view of this debate is to defend a piece of ancient, wise, metaphorical literature, because of the morals that it tries to teach to the people of those times, and not because of the God that it claims to exist.
Correct.
In fact, you believe that they use this 'God' as a tool to help spread this message.
Probably. I'm pretty sure the original people's who though up these faiths during the start of their civilizations did so only because they knew it would help order and control the masses. Did it matter if people actually believed in it as if it were real if it stopped them from being chaotic? Not really.
It was a logical way to slowly put and end to barbarism. And it has, since we now have an exponentially increasing technology rate and relative unity in the world in relation to how horrible it was in ancient times.
But of course it does contain old practices of slavery and countless other things of that time, but you can't blame them for it because those morals of that time were different to the morals of this time and how we see things.
Right. Moral values are relative to logical ways to efficiently survive. Slavery and war were okay in the those days in certain situations because people had to act far worse then we do today so that they would survive. Since their conditions were so much harsher then they were now, logically their moral values had to be much lower so that they could employ survival competition techniques that today we'd find vile.
I'm not arguing that God is real. I'm arguing that the Bible was written to guide the masses of ancient peoples in a way that would allow them to sufficiently evolve.
So is God a metaphor as well?
No it absolutely does not. Logic isn't as simple as people like to think.
I don't know what you think Logic is, but I would like to inform you that Logic is not abstract, it does not vary from person to person, it does not vary from time to time, and it does not vary from culture to culture.
Logic is in essence a sort of verbal math, which is guided by a number of general and particular rules. Logic is a pretty straightforward. You seem to think Logic is this nebulous concept of "This makes sense in this situation", but that's not logic, that's intuition.
Logic:
If "All X are Y" is false, then "Some X are not Y" must be true.
The above statement will always be true no matter who says it or when they said it.
Is it logical to kill a human being who is innocent of a crime?
This is not logic, this has nothing to do with logic. Logic is the systematic study of inference. You are asking a question about morality, a different issue entirely.
Today, we'd say that's not logical.
Today, we'd say that's not moral.
Of course I don't believe that. I just told you I'm arguing with consideration for the lifestyles of ancient peoples.
Arguing with "Consideration" for lifestyles of ancient peoples, means becoming ignorant of all that we have learned over the past 2,000 years or so. This will lead us to a less accurate conclusion, not a more accurate conclusion.
I agree. The problem is that it wouldn't be necessarily these things in ancient times.
What people believed thousands of years ago does not necessarily correlate to what was actually true. People did many things which they believed to help them, which in reality, actually hurt them.
I don't believe in anything that ancient peoples believe in, but what I'm saying is to put yourself in their shoes
To put myself in their shoes would require me to unlearn that which I have learned, of course many things 'seem' sensible when you are lacking vital information. If I become incredibly intoxicated, riding down the stairs in a bathtub may seem like a sensible thing to do, but is it?
Once again, I'm speaking from the shoes of an ancient civilization. Also once again, you are not imagining the conditions those people lived in.
I understand their conditions perfectly well, I have a pretty good understanding why they did many of the things they did, but this doesn't require me to agree with everything they did. For I have the advantage of retrospect and several thousand years of scientific discovery and I know better. They did not.
I must make the distinction between what seems right, and what actually is right.
We wouldn't say that a child's irresponsible and wreckless actions were actually sensible, simply because they lacked the information and experience to make an informed decision. No, we would say "He/she didn't know any better" which is exactly how we should view ancient societies.
Not an entire generation, just the generation of children that belong to a village that threatens the existence of my own village.
Children are not a threat to your entire village, and even if they were a threat enslaving them would not mitigate that threat. Enslaving children would just create even more motivation for violence to be brought against your village.
If I had to fight and kill these children's parents so that I would not die, surely if I let these children go, my children will one day have to fight and possibly die against these opposing children.
And how would enslaving children change that? It could very well be the case that these children having seen such violence, and seeing the fact that their lives were spared will wish to pursue peace --or-- you could take the children in as your own, assimilating them into your village.
Ah, but the question is not of morality, but of logic. Back in a time as ancient and as brutal as the Biblical audience, sometimes, being a killer was a logical way to survive.
Again, you confuse the term 'Logic'. This is not a matter of logic. Logic is the systematic study of inferences, this is not what you are referring to.
You are referring to what is useful, helpful, sensible, or moral.
It's necessary if you enslave people who would kill
How is this preferable to just killing one's attacker? What about women who were enslaved? Are they a threat as well?
And they developed the tradition of appeasing ancient superstitions because they needed to rally and order the masses
There are much better ways to do this than killing one's own people.
Can a person whom has had their license revoked and their car repossessed die in a head-on car collision?
What does this have to do with subjugating women?
Or they had illogical reasons in their head but evolution was driving them to do these things for logical reasons.
The process of evolution is not sentient, it does not think or reason, and therefore the outcomes of evolution are neither logical nor illogical.
What makes you think terrible, horrible reasons for oppression weren't necessary back then to preserve your people?
Because we have examples where societies were/are preserved, both then and now, without resorting to such horrendous practices. We have no reason to think slavery was ever necessary for the preservation of society.
I don't know what you think Logic is, but I would like to inform you that Logic is not abstract, it does not vary from person to person, it does not vary from time to time, and it does not vary from culture to culture.
I know this. My statement is that you're not thinking of the bigger picture of logic. You were inserting your own moral values into your logic earlier without considering that logic has nothing to do with your moral viewpoint; it has to do with efficiency.
Even if that efficiency includes things that we would find evil by today's moral standards.
This is not logic, this has nothing to do with logic. Logic is the systematic study of inference. You are asking a question about morality, a different issue entirely.
Logic has an involvement with morality. Logic has involvement with everything.
Today, we'd say that's not moral.
And that's it's not logical.
The fact that you don't understand this is unexpected.
Arguing with "Consideration" for lifestyles of ancient peoples, means becoming ignorant of all that we have learned over the past 2,000 years or so.
So what? What we've learned over the past 2,000 years has nothing to do with what the Bible was trying to tell people. It is irrelevant to understanding what makes the Bible logical or not.
What people believed thousands of years ago does not necessarily correlate to what was actually true.
No, what people believed thousands of years ago does not necessarily correlate what is relevant today. People back then didn't do things senselessly, or we wouldn't be here today because of their actions.
People did many things which they believed to help them, which in reality, actually hurt them.
People are no different today. It's not illogical to do something you are sure that will help you when it actually ends up backfiring in the end. All animals take risks like these to survive. What makes our ancestors more illogical then us?
To put myself in their shoes would require me to unlearn that which I have learned, of course many things 'seem' sensible when you are lacking vital information.
No, it requires you to realize what you've learned today would be irrelevant back then and imagine what was actually relevant back then. Nobody can truly put themselves in somebody's shoes, but you aren't even trying to have an empathic imagination towards their living conditions.
If I become incredibly intoxicated, riding down the stairs in a bathtub may seem like a sensible thing to do, but is it?
Yes, all our ancestors had the sensibility of drunks. That's why they never got anywhere and now we're no better off then they were.
Oh, wait.
I must make the distinction between what seems right, and what actually is right
No, you must make the distinction between what was relevant then and what's relevant now. Animals must adapt based on what's relevant to their existence. We are no different. We were able to learn more things because our ancient ancestors did what was relevant and logical to perpetuate their existence at the time.
Enslaving children would just create even more motivation for violence to be brought against your village.
Unless the only thing remaining of your enemy village the children that you enslave.
And how would enslaving children change that? It could very well be the case that these children having seen such violence, and seeing the fact that their lives were spared will wish to pursue peace --or-- you could take the children in as your own, assimilating them into your village.
They won't pursue peace because that is too big a risk to their existence. They cannot afford to do that if they wish to continue their existence. The attackers cannot, therefore, afford to let their enemies live in freedom or live at all.
It would be efficient to be peaceful if all creatures hadn't evolved from the very beginning to be violent, competitive animals. But they did, and ancient humans couldn't afford to be any different. We can nowadays only because our ancient ancestors competed like animals until we eventually found the prosperity to discontinue competing... as harshly, at least.
Again, you confuse the term 'Logic'. This is not a matter of logic. Logic is the systematic study of inferences, this is not what you are referring to.
How does efficiency consideration not involve logic?
How is this preferable to just killing one's attacker?
You get labor out of it, and they get to live. In a way, it can be more efficient then killing your enemies. In other cases, it's not.
What about women who were enslaved? Are they a threat as well?
I don't get what you mean. Women who were slaves to your enemies? The enemy of your enemy if your friend, so freeing the slaves of your enemies would give you more resources against your enemy. Another solution would be to take your enemies slaves as your own slaves, except treat them better, giving you more resources and your new slaves better living conditions.
If this situation is not what you mean though, please clarify.
There are much better ways to do this than killing one's own people.
I doubt that. Hatred and fear are some of the most powerful influences to date. When you have as much chaos as ancient people's did, there's nothing inefficient about using these things to control people.
It's inefficient, and therefore wrong, to that today though because of our modern prosperity.
What does this have to do with subjugating women?
I'm trying to give an example of how taking away some people's rights can protect them, not just oppress them.
The process of evolution is not sentient, it does not think or reason, and therefore the outcomes of evolution are neither logical nor illogical.
The quality of being logical does not necessarily require that you be sentient. I can't believe you'd deny this.
The outcomes of natural selection are nothing but logical. Creatures that do not adapt cannot survive and go extinct. Creatures that adapt properly continue surviving until they must adapt again.
That gives natural selection the quality of being logical.
Because we have examples where societies were/are preserved, both then and now, without resorting to such horrendous practices. We have no reason to think slavery was ever necessary for the preservation of society.
I'd like an example then of a society that has survived to this day without resorting to violent competition with other groups of humans. May I please have a citation?
My statement is that you're not thinking of the bigger picture of logic. You were inserting your own moral values into your logic earlier without considering that logic has nothing to do with your moral viewpoint.
2 sentences later...
Chatturgha: "Logic has an involvement with morality."
I'm well aware of the fact that Logic is independent of morality, this is the point I was trying to impress upon you. Now you have contradicted yourself. You were framing a moral question as if it were a question of logic. Nothing you've said, as far as I can recall, has pertained to Logic.
If you want to talk about whether ancient people were logical or illogical you need to point out some specific inferences made by those people, only then can we evaluate their logic.
So what?
Well in order to evaluate logic, it is useful to determine the veracity of premises. To determine the veracity of premises we need the most accurate information. Much of this accurate information has only been discovered in the last 2,000 years or so.
No, what people believed thousands of years ago does not necessarily correlate what is relevant today.
If we are talking about logic and morality, then what bearing does relevance of belief have to do with either of these? Does an action become moral only when the belief about it is relevant? No. So why should it matter? is something only logical when it is relevant? No. So why should it matter?
People back then didn't do things senselessly
I agree, but people did do things based on faulty information.
It's not illogical to do something you are sure that will help you when it actually ends up backfiring in the end.
What you mean to say is that is that it's not unreasonable to do something that you believe will help you (even if it doesn't). Please note that it is entirely possible for something to be reasonable but illogical.
They won't pursue peace because that is too big a risk to their existence.
Except for the times in history where exactly this has happened.
It would be efficient to be peaceful if all creatures hadn't evolved from the very beginning to be violent, competitive animals.
Peace can and does persist when there is mutual benefit, as is often the case when two sides are equally matched or when trading results in prosperity for both peoples.
How does efficiency consideration not involve logic?
please visit link above.
You get labor out of it
Let me rephrase the question. How is it MORALLY preferable to just killing one's attacker?
If this situation is not what you mean though, please clarify.
Many nations, cultures, clans, and peoples would take the women of a conquered land as their own slaves. If slavery was about threat mitigation, they would not do that. Explain why.
I doubt that.
You doubt that human sacrifice is not a good way to improve moral?
Hatred and fear are some of the most powerful influences to date.
Hatred and fear had nothing to do with human sacrifice by the Aztecs, for the most part. Human sacrifice, only existed in the Americas because religious practices prescribed it. In many regions in the world where such religious practices did not prescribe human sacrifice, unsurprisingly you did not see it.
I'm trying to give an example of how taking away some people's rights can protect them, not just oppress them.
Unless your example or analogy pertains to how the way in which women were subjugated protected them, then your example is of no use.
The quality of being logical does not necessarily require that you be sentient. I can't believe you'd deny this.
Yes it does.
A rock rolling down a hill is neither logical nor illogical, it's just a fact. If you were to draw some inference from this fact, then it may be considered logical or illogical.
For example:
1. A rock is rolling down a hill.
2. I did not push it down the hill.
3. There are animals present on the hill
C. Therefore an animal must have knocked down.
Logical is a description of inferences or inference-makers.
I'd like an example then of a society that has survived to this day without resorting to violent competition with other groups of humans.
How is it that slavery was rendered in your a statement as 'violent competition'? I think you know that i can find societies that were preserved without slavery, so you chose to broaden the term to given yourself some leeway.
When writing both these sentences, I supposed that if I didn't word it properly, you would interpret them as being contradictory. Logic doesn't have direct correlation with moral principle, but it does influence moral principle to a degree. Sometimes moral principle is senseless, but does boil down to something that does or once did make sense.
I'm well aware of the fact that Logic is independent of morality, this is the point I was trying to impress upon you.
And yet you framed moral situations upon ancient situations based upon your modern moral ideas without thought for their cultural situations. You don't need to impress anything upon me if you don't know what I'm trying to explain to you.
Well in order to evaluate logic, it is useful to determine the veracity of premises. To determine the veracity of premises we need the most accurate information. Much of this accurate information has only been discovered in the last 2,000 years or so.
Evaluation of logic does not require the scientific method or any amount of scientific knowledge. You said that logic is constant, meaning logic was the same 2,000 years ago that it is today. People do not need 2,000 more years of information to have a logical thought process.
With this reply, you are mixing up 'logic' with 'knowledge'.
If we are talking about logic and morality, then what bearing does relevance of belief have to do with either of these?
I incorrectly talked about relevance of belief. I meant relevance of existence, forgive my improper sentence structure.
Does an action become moral only when the belief about it is relevant?
Actually it does. Things are moral or immoral based on what sort of relevance they hold at the time in society.
It's immoral to enslave now because slavery is not necessary to perpetuate existence. It wasn't as immoral in ancient times because slavery in some areas was necessary to perpetuate existence.
I agree, but people did do things based on faulty information.
It doesn't matter if you're doing things based on faulty information, you can still have a logical thought process which you act upon. Whatever information you're limited to is irrelevant.
What you mean to say is that is that it's not unreasonable to do something that you believe will help you (even if it doesn't). Please note that it is entirely possible for something to be reasonable but illogical.
Then I am taking reasoning into account, forgive me. Though I don't feel entirely at fault because the context of logic in debate wasn't of mathematical properties, leaving the word up to slight personal redefinition.
Except for the times in history where exactly this has happened.
And they have existed all the way up to this modern era without being destroyed or disrupted? (I'm getting to your replies one at a time, I haven't seen your citation at the bottom yet)
Peace can and does persist when there is mutual benefit, as is often the case when two sides are equally matched or when trading results in prosperity for both peoples.
Of course, I know this. It happens even in nature as mutual symbiosis. But just because some species can do this doesn't mean it tends to happen in nature more then competition happens in nature, nor was is necessarily prone to happen commonly in human society right after they finished evolving from brainless apes.
Of course it happens more these days and should happen more and more as time goes by because there's no reason anymore for us to violently compete like in ancient times.
How is it MORALLY preferable to just killing one's attacker?
In relation to morals, it's not necessarily preferable; it's an alternative. You spare the attacker's life in exchange for labor, or, you kill your attacker and spare them the agony of forced labor. Either way, you make the attacker no longer an attacker.
By today's standards, both are reprehensible, unnecessary, and wrong.
Many nations, cultures, clans, and peoples would take the women of a conquered land as their own slaves. If slavery was about threat mitigation, they would not do that. Explain why.
Laborious slaves or reproductive slaves?
But then again, it doesn't matter either way.
you mitigate the threat by taking away your enemies ability to produce more soldiers. That may sound preposterous, but if you thought people are frisky these days, they were far more inclined to be fruitful and have 10 - 20 children back then. If a woman has 20 children in a lifetime, assuming up to half are boys, that's 10 more enemy warriors a woman.
That makes woman valuable thing to steal and enslave even more so then men.
Not to mention that in some cultures, women were also able-bodies warriors themselves.
Either way, I explained why it's threat mitigation for the purpose of competition.
You doubt that human sacrifice is not a good way to improve moral?
No, I doubt that human sacrifice to appease the all-powerful polytheistic deities is not a good way to improve moral in ancient society.
Human sacrifice, only existed in the Americas because religious practices prescribed it.
Not really, more so because the religious leaders prescribed it.
I may have not made it apparent in my argument, but a big point I want to put out in the open is that ancient religion was probably started only by very good storytellers whom only wished to keep order by brain-washing the population of the empire as to get rid of chaos that would otherwise threaten progress.
Human sacrifice was just one idea that some Aztec priest thought might be a good idea in relation to all other stories he and his recent ancestors made up to get people under control. So he suggested and then used it successfully to order people.
The original people who made up Judaism and Christianity did not write up their stories and teachings in a way that human sacrifice as a tradition would be compatible with the rest of the religion, so they had to come up with other tradition to control the masses effectively.
... unsurprisingly you did not see it.
I did not expect you, of all people, to be rude.
Unless your example or analogy pertains to how the way in which women were subjugated protected them, then your example is of no use.
How does it not pertain to the subjugation of women to give an example of someone having their rights taken away and yet are protected from danger?
You can't possibly be that oblivious, Bo. Or are you just mocking me, again?
Logic is a description of inferences or inference-makers.
Then that makes the inferences and inference-makers logical. Inferences are not sentient by themselves, they are ideas. Just because ideas must be produced by a sentient creature doesn't make the ideas sentient themselves.
It's the same reason that logical things can happen without a human thinking about it. Just because we don't observe doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I think you know that I can find societies that were preserved without slavery, so you chose to broaden the term to given yourself some leeway.
... Did you really just accuse me of having an ulterior motive? I didn't and don't. It was a coincidental word choice.
That says a LOT about your mindset. At least you being paranoid and presumptuous somewhat excuses you from being rude.
The Tarahumara
They still live in a Stone Age. They are not a proper example.
At best you are arguing that the bible seemed logical, not that it is logical which is the topic of the debate.
Even at that you would have to ignore any direct contradictions.
For instance Why treat your enemies children any different then your enemies themselves?
I don't like it, but that's how they did things back then.
It may have seemed logical for them to believe
these verses
Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9
I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me
Or these
Deuteronomy 24:16 - Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
You make a good point, until you consider that the Bible was written over the course of hundreds of years and from the views of many not-necessarily aligned authors. It was a collaboration by the Church to form the Bible from various ancient scriptures. It's only a Biblical contradiction if you look at the Bible like you'd look at any book.
The problem is that the Bible isn't just any book, since most books have one author with one goal, and on the rare occasion, multiple authors with multiple goals. But the authors of the books of the Bible weren't necessarily aligned as people, meaning you can't consider contradictions in the Bible real contradictions unless the contradictions exist within the same book of the Bible, not just the Bible itself.
Why does it matter that the Bible was written thousands of years ago? As the Bible states very clearly several times, your god does not change.
The fact that it says god doesn't change means nothing. It doesn't mean the Bible wasn't a tool to shepherd ancient peoples and make them follow directions that contributed to their evolution.
Just like a Christian, picking choosing, revising. The way you make slavery acceptable is astounding. In actuality, Jesus was against all of these things. The law if not of God would have been ignored.
Just like a Christian, picking choosing, revising. The way you make slavery acceptable is astounding.
I don't think slavery is acceptable today. But in ancient times, some things were necessary based in evolution to continue surviving, one of those things including the complete domination of your competition. That's why people used to enslave other people.
The reason we don't enslave anyone anymore is because we've outgrown the need to be barbaric animals.
In actuality, Jesus was against all of these things. The law if not of God would have been ignored.
I don't know about you, but I'm not a Christian.
I'm merely arguing with consideration for how ancient people's had to live day by day.
People don't do things for totally irrational reasons. Especially in ancient times.
People in fact, are more irrational and therefore refrain from logic, especially when they're religious minded.
Correction, they are nowadays when they're religious minded. Today, we don't need the rituals of religion to have our prosperity grow. Back then, they had to stick to religious rituals so they could survive.
That's the entire point of the Bible.
The only truly irrational people are the religious folks today who treat specific verses of the Bible as being literal and yet think it's wrong to stone people to death for working on the Sabbath.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Keeping slaves is one thing, but condoning the mistreating of slaves seems a little illogical. It says that if you beat your slaves hard enough to kill them, then that calls for punishment, but if you were to beat them mercilessly till the brink of death, then that's just fine.
Exactly. If you want to punish them to near death but don't kill them, then you have saved your laborious slaves from dying so that they may work more and again once they get better. The efficiency of their work will be higher once they recover because they'll be scared to make mistakes.
Not if you injure them severely because that would be mighty useless if you don't want them to crawl with their bleeding hands in agony over their mangled, broken legs so they won't be able to work no more. Not to mention the child slaves...
Not if you injure them severely because that would be mighty useless if you don't want them to crawl with their bleeding hands in agony over their mangled, broken legs so they won't be able to work no more.
Then the punished slaves' agony will serve as an example for all the other slaves so they don't act defiantly out of line like the one you just punished.
Not to mention the child slaves...
I've explained one times too many times why it's a sensible thing to do in ancient times.
Why is the Bible worth defending again?
It's worthy defending because you're just as much a radical as neophyte Christians. I'll defend the Bible from you just as I will defend the scientific method from religious idiots.
Wow, these are some very nice values, lets teach them to everyone else! If the bible says so, why not?
You seem determined to debate about a book of flawed values. Are you sure you are defending this book of it's values? Because surely you must have some kind of religious point of view to even think of protecting a piece of old literature.
Wow, these are some very nice values, lets teach them to everyone else!
I'd believe in this statement if I were living a thousand or so years ago. That's not the point of my debate. I'm surprised you forgot my point while you were away from this subject.
You seem determined to debate about a book of flawed values. Are you sure you are defending this book of it's values?
I'm defending it's purpose, and therefore, it's values in the face of ancient reasoning. It's purpose was to contribute to shepherding troves of ancient peoples, people who were only a few strands of hair away from being cavemen.
Because surely you must have some kind of religious point of view to even think of protecting a piece of old literature.
I am not Christian, nor atheist. I am Pantheist, and a strong believer of neutrality in the face of issues that are not black nor white. Like I said, I will defend the Bible from you just like I will defend the scientific method from Christian neophytes.
For the matter of slavery, the bible did contain instructions of how to handle and beat slaves, so surely it must of condoned it because if you were to condemn something you didn't like, you wouldn't start talking about how to do it. Having power over another being can't be justified, if it were of slavery or of sexism.
From what I mean about "The bible is illogical" is that it not only doesn't make sense, but it is fictional and shouldn't be deemed as "True and logical."
Now, for sexism, we can both agree that it was written by men, for men in a male dominated society, but stopping women from taking part in normal practices in society is not what I'd call 'protection.'
When you agreed with my statement that the bible was man made and said that it was based on the ideas of people that lived thousands of years ago, you practically supported the bible's illogicality which is the basis of this debate. Which side are you truly on?
Having power over another being can't be justified...
Yes it can. How can it not be, ever, at all?
From what I mean about "The bible is illogical" is that it not only doesn't make sense, but it is fictional and shouldn't be deemed as "True and logical."
From what I mean 'the Bible is logical,' I mean that the Bible was totally logical and sensible for the audience it was intended for.
And for the record, metaphors are not illogical. They're just metaphorical. Just because Aesop's Fables were fictional doesn't mean they weren't logical; they were totally logical, if you attempt to look at them as metaphors and not as an attempt to record history as accurately as possible.
...but stopping women from taking part in normal practices in society is not what I'd call 'protection.'
Then apparently you have no idea exactly how dangerous ancient society was.
The more rights you have, the more freedom you have. The more freedom you have, the more likely you are able to get hurt and/or hurt someone else. If you stop people from being able to do certain things, other things in turn become impossible to perform or happen.
It's the same concept as 'if you repossess someone's car and revoke their driver's license, it's nigh impossible for them to die in a head-on car collision.'
When you agreed with my statement that the bible was man made and said that it was based on the ideas of people that lived thousands of years ago, you practically supported the bible's illogicality which is the basis of this debate.
No I didn't. Just because something seems logical and impractical now doesn't mean it wasn't once totally logical and utterly practical at some point.
Which side are you truly on?
The side that says the Bible is logical.
I'm frankly tired of people interpreting the Bible improperly. Whether you're a religious cook who thinks the Bible is proof for demons, or an atheist snob whom thinks everything the Bible says is a violation of humanitarian rights, I don't agree.
And the kicker is that I'm not Christian. Some Christians might even label me a Pagan. No, this is not ironic. I merely support what the Bible really tries to teach as opposed to what the extreme sides of the argument thinks it teaches.
Are you serious? Having power over another being is outrageous! So you are saying that it is right to own slaves and take their rights away from them? (well obviously you would deny this in the next reply)
Aren't people all equals and deserve the same rights as others? I can't believe that there are still slavers out there who would like think this.
Why do you sound like an immature kid that always says "You can't do that because you're a girl!!!" What is it that makes you think that women are inferior? Are you just a sexist? Do you bear a grudge against women? You say that society is dangerous for women, but wasn't it just as dangerous for men as well? The bible just insulted the rights of women. They made Eve the sinner and transgressor for a reason- because they loathe women, not because of protection.
What makes you think I take everything in the bible literally? I understand what metaphors are but some things in the bible take it too far, like prejudice and discrimination. I will not stand for slavery and sexism and I have enough of people who try to sugar coat it with reassuring lies as they hold on blindly to their beliefs.
Why do you try to protect the fictitious writers of the past who are not without evil and prejudice, I know that the bible tries to spread a message of peace and love but it does so with lies. I am not here to debate about the bible's flawed teachings and morals of life, I am here to debate the existence of God. Now I'm regretting the name of this debate.
I'm a former Christian, and don't really go with Atheism, I only wish to highlight and inform the hard-head Christians that their bible is embarrassingly and terribly flawed that it's no longer funny, and I only want truth.
Are you serious? Having power over another being is outrageous!
I am serious. No, it's not necessarily outrageous 100% of the time.
So you are saying that it is right to own slaves and take their rights away from them?
No, I never said that. I said that it's not necessarily wrong to hold power over someone. Why do you automatically equate that to slavery?
Aren't people all equals and deserve the same rights as others?
They do nowadays. Today, people can afford to be equal without horrible things happening to society.
The same wasn't true thousands of years ago. Order had to be kept in different ways as to perpetuate their prosperity of the time.
I'm glad we're so unified and technologically advanced now to avoid that though.
Why do you sound like an immature kid that always says "You can't do that because you're a girl!!!"
Why do you sound like a whiny feminist that always says, "You hate all women because you're a man!!!"
What is it that makes you think that women are inferior?
I don't think they're inferior. What makes you think that I said this?
Are you just a sexist?
I'm not. Are you just a sexist?
Do you bear a grudge against women?
I don't. I love my wife very much. She hasn't done anything for me to hate or dislike, and nor has her biology.
Do you bear a grudge against men?
You say that society is dangerous for women, but wasn't it just as dangerous for men as well?
I said that society was dangerous for women. And yes, it was just as dangerous for men back then.
The difference is that women bear children, which made them less expendable back then then men.
What you fail to realize is the fact that ancient times had few powerful women because in ancient times, all powerful people died young, or, they made all other powerful people around them die young.
Do you really wish that women had held such positions back then? You shouldn't. Men back then didn't, because they didn't want women, the bearers of our children, to be murdered or be murderers.
I can guarantee that if they had held those positions, though, gender views would be no different today; only proportionally opposite.
What you're supposed to do nowadays is share with everyone what makes you similar with them, no matter their race, religion, or gender.
So far, all I see in you is a person who wants to label people based on what they believe and what their gender is. This is supported by the fact that you think I hate women or some stupid shit when I said nothing of the sort, nor gave the impression.
You just wanted to read what you wanted to read, not what I actually said.
The Bible just insulted the rights of women.
The Bible gave a logical guide of metaphors for people of the time. Apparently you are incapable of understanding things without applying your modern viewpoint to everything, even if that thing you're applying it to has nothing to do with the modern era.
They made Eve the sinner and transgressor for a reason- because they loathe women, not because of protection.
It's a creation story. It's the only story in all of mythology that perpetuates bullshit. Every creation story of a fairy tale meant to stop people from being unproductive idiots who ask questions about the universe as opposed to hunting and gathering like they should be.
The fact that the creation story of the Bible is so ridiculous shows exactly how devoted it's author(s) was to shutting people up and getting them back to work.
What makes you think I take everything in the bible literally?
Nothing does. I never said that you do.
I understand what metaphors are but some things in the bible take it too far, like prejudice and discrimination.
Prejudice and discrimination were sometimes necessary back then. I don't like them, but we wouldn't be here today if our ancient ancestors hadn't acted like they did in the Bible and other ancient scriptures.
I will not stand for slavery and sexism and I have enough of people who try to sugar coat it with reassuring lies as they hold on blindly to their beliefs.
Neither will I. Not today I won't. I can't really do anything thought about stuff that happened in the past and was then paraphrased in a book.
Why do you try to protect the fictitious writers of the past who are not without evil and prejudice
I never said they were without evil. The problem is, you don't know if they were without prejudice or not because you don't understand what it was like to live in an ancient society.
I know that the bible tries to spread a message of peace and love but it does so with lies.
Metaphors are not lies. They are metaphors. The only reason you can consider them lies today is because we aren't the audience the Bible intended.
I am not here to debate about the bible's flawed teachings and morals of life, I am here to debate the existence of God.
Well it's too late, you're debating about something that has nothing to do with a monotheistic deity.
Now I'm regretting the name of this debate.
I'm sorry that you are.
I only wish to highlight and inform the hard-head Christians that their bible is embarrassingly and terribly flawed that it's no longer funny, and I only want truth.
The truth is that you're just as prejudiced against the Bible as Christians are for the Bible. You may want to rethink your approach to finding 'the truth'.
For the first answer, you sound like a slaver for some reason, but your answer does have some truth on some levels, like a psychotic criminal per say, because some must be confined for the safety of others. So that is one thing to agree on.
For the second, you have to understand what I mean by "Having power over someone."
I don't mean it lightly where you tell someone what to do, I mean where you take away all their privileges, and use them and mistreat them. The bible even says that you can beat them, just so long if they don't die from it.
Okay, now that's just silly, since when was I a "Whiny Feminist" Now you're just taking it too far. I never even mentioned calling you a misogynist. But the problem is, you support the bible- and where did it say the bible condones rape? Ah, here it is-
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
And this...
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
Oh, and also this...
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
Not to mention this...
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".
Do you take matters of rape lightly? And is it wrong to stand up against rape? The bible just loves condoning rape, even God does.
I don't bear a grudge at men because well, I am a man- well, a boy. Do you just automatically assume that my sympathy towards women makes me a woman?
Why do you think the bible gives guides through metaphors. How is RAPE a metaphor?
For the first answer, you sound like a slaver for some reason, but your answer does have some truth on some levels, like a psychotic criminal per say, because some must be confined for the safety of others. So that is one thing to agree on.
I suppose you hear only what you want to hear.
For the second, you have to understand what I mean by "Having power over someone.
I could already tell from a mile away you meant something stupid. I could already tell that you equate power over someone to something as idiotic as slavery, even though 'power over someone' has far more meanings then to enslave someone. I talked from the standpoint of 'power over someone' being the general term that it was supposed to be in an effort to correct you.
But I guess I failed, because for an entire comment you'd have rather have me read your mind instead of correct yourself.
Okay, now that's just silly, since when was I a "Whiny Feminist" Now you're just taking it too far. I never even mentioned calling you a misogynist.
Sure you didn't call me one, but you treated me like one.
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
What's illogical about defiling the things your enemies were trying so desperately to protect? Your enemies back then were always evil after all. It's totally logical to insult their loss after they threatened to harm your existence.
I don't like it, but that's how they did things back then.
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB
This verse says nothing of rape. The fact that you think it mentions rape makes you look like the feminist you likely are.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
This doesn't mention rape either.
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
This isn't about rape either. Both of them were stoned to death because they were both adulterous. 'The girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city' means that she consented to sex with a man that was not her husband.
This verse is about the punishment for adultery for both man and woman. It's pretty fair treatment since they both were punished the same way.
Today I would not stand for stoning for adultery... but that's today. Society couldn't afford children out of wedlock in ancient times. Adulterers had to be made examples of to keep order. I don't like it, but that's how they did things.
It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property"
No, what's clear is that you don't give a damn about trying to see this all from the views of an ancient culture. You are only concerned about hating the Bible for what it isn't.
Do you take matters of rape lightly? And is it wrong to stand up against rape?
I take rape very seriously, but I can't do anything about what was paraphrased in a book for the guidance of ancient peoples. It's not wrong to stand up against rape, but it's silly to stand up against rape that may or may not have been paraphrased in a book as guidance for ancient peoples.
After all, two of those verses you sighted had nothing to do with rape.
I don't bear a grudge at men because well, I am a man- well, a boy. Do you just automatically assume that my sympathy towards women makes me a woman?
Why do you just automatically assume that you have to be a woman to bear a grudge against men and/or be a feminist? Men can bear a grudge against their own gender and they can also be feminists. Thank you for demonstrating how much the genders are separate from each other in your male mind.
I am a Biblical scholar and I will submit to you that, when it comes to slavery, the Bible was on the cutting-edge of justice and mercy for slaves. Here why:
- The Bible taught that everyman, even a slave, had an immortal soul. Pagans sometimes claimed that their enemies, or slaves, did not have souls
- The Bible states that one can only have a slave for seven years and then they must be released. A slave can choose to willingly become a slave for life, but it was their choice to do so.
- First, the Jews, and then the Christians were known to have treated their slaves with far more kindness than the Pagans, including the Greeks and the Romans
- In Biblical culture, it was extremely frowned upon to have sexual relations with a slave and cases of rape were prosecuted before the Jewish Sanhedrin. In contrast, a Greek or Roman slave-owner could just bend them over whenever they felt the urge to do so.
The Bible is not neutral about slavery and obviously disapproved of it by restricting its use to 7 years.
Fuck the people who misinterpret a book of metaphorical teachings that was meant to guide primitive people and their primitive thoughts in the Dark Ages.
Biblical literalism is disgusting, and so is the opposing idea that Biblical literalists represent Jesus Christ.
No, you think the Bible is just a fictitious book written by prejudiced men.
His point was that the Bible was written with only one thing in mind. Since you don't know what that thing is, it is only you who thinks, not the Bible.
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?
Come on, don't you think this is enough to show that the bible is corrupt?
How am I mad when you support a book like this, and don't make up excuses because there is NO excuse when trying to justify rape.
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Cite the verse please. I will correct your misconception about it.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker?
Come on, don't you think this is enough to show that the bible is corrupt?
Since it's nigh impossible that you understood the verse correctly, I doubt this will convince me the Bible is corrupt.
And even if this verse does actually does seem to support rape, it will still not convince me the Bible is corrupt. What's corrupt today was not corrupt to the audience the Bible was intended for.
How am I mad when you support a book like this, and don't make up excuses because there is NO excuse when trying to justify rape.
There are a few excuses from ancient times that could logically justify rape at the time. I don't like it, but that's how they kept order back then.
What misconception? It says it all right here. If you are referring this to a metaphor, then that is just unheard of. Read it again. It's Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Ah, I see. Well you didn't put the verse's citations, so you may have been paraphrasing. I checked now and see you posted it correctly.
As for the verse, it has been misread and written. I look up several Bible versions after I read your reply, and I also looked at some commentary on it.
There are a few Bible's that do not use the word 'rape' in the verse. One or two did, but of 5 times I read the verse, I saw the word rape in 2 of the 5 different re-writings.
This mean the verse may have nothing to do with rape, and probably doesn't. YES, 2 of 5 is very close to half, but that's not the point. If the verse was rewritten so many times that the words in the verse are drastically different in between Bibles, then we don't actually know what the verse says.
And since you're right, it's just a little illogical, in only one way or two though, to be forced into a relationship by your rapist, I'm going to go with the the more logical translation of the verse.
The logical translation of the verse is approximately, 'If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.'
'Lay hold on her, and lie with her' doesn't automatically equate rape. It equates some sort of force, but that force isn't necessarily violent, nor damaging, nor without mutual consent.
This verse is probably about marriage as a punishment, actually. The man made advances upon the virgin woman until she decided to give her purity to him. This is wrong and chaotic, so the woman's punishment is to be married to this man without any say, and the man's punishment is to pay a huge fine to his new wife's father and then be married to his new wife without any say.
And if the fine of fifty silvers, which was actually a huge amount of money at the time, was not able to be paid to the father, then what? Then the husband of the father's daughter would be the father's slave until he had done work equal to his debt.
Even if the verse may have been written in relation to rape, which would make no sense, it would still be to an extent a punishment for the rapist.
You can't say that the 2 out of 5 verses don't count, because that in it's self would be illogical. The 3 verses that don't contain meanings of rape can't just automatically mean something else, they all have to mean rape because the other way around wouldn't make sense. It says that the man who raped or 'lay' with the virgin would have to pay 50 Shekels for the crime he has done, and yet the woman wouldn't have to pay anything, this means that it was only the man's wrong doing and not the woman's, because she did not want do it. This is called rape. If she did want to do it she would get punishment just the same, or even worse.
But since this is an act of fornication, they would have to marry against their will, but the rape victim would suffer more emotionally as she was forced into this by her attacker against her will and now cannot go out of it. Then she would be stuck in the world's most terrible marriage, for the rest of her life.
The 3 verses that don't contain meanings of rape can't just automatically mean something else, they all have to mean rape because the other way around wouldn't make sense.
It makes plenty of sense the other way around.
It says that the man who raped or 'lay' with the virgin would have to pay 50 Shekels for the crime he has done, and yet the woman wouldn't have to pay anything, this means that it was only the man's wrong doing and not the woman's, because she did not want do it.
No, it was the man's wrong doing because he took her virginity; even if it was with her consent, it was without order and wedlock. The man made the advance, she foolishly agreed, and they resorted to chaos. The man took up more a punishment then the woman because women and their ability to bear children are more valuable then a man's ability to plant the seed that becomes the child.
Well, were more valuable. In those days.
There is not enough evidence that the verse talks about rape. You're not thinking of the living conditions of these ancient cultures.
No it doesn't because rape means rape and the other verses say "Lay with." which could mean rape. Obviously, this would mean they are meaning rape as said in the other verses. So what I mean is, if the bible says that the 2/5 verses say it's rape, and the 3/5 verses that say that it most likely means rape, that means it is rape, because if it was the other way round, the 3/5 verses that say "Lay with" would have to be the same as the 2/5 that say rape. But since it clearly says it's rape in it's self, and not "Lay with" which could be mean rape, then it doesn't work because that would mean contradiction, and contradiction in a so called logical book makes things illogical.
For your second answer, you justify by saying that "the woman doesn't get as punished as the man because she is the one who can bear children." I see what you mean, but as explained from above, this is more likely to be about rape, and women of those times were not treated well. And forcing the rape victim to marry the attacker and become husband and wife for the rest of their lives still doesn't seem... logical. Even if the man has to pay the heavy amount of 50 Shekels, the woman would still suffer a considerably more burdening punishment. This is about rape, okay?
No it doesn't because rape means rape and the other verses say "Lay with." which could mean rape.
'Lay with' means to have intercourse. You just want to translate that into your head as 'rape' when it means something much more general then that.
But since it clearly says it's rape in it's self, and not "Lay with" which could be mean rape, then it doesn't work because that would mean contradiction, and contradiction in a so called logical book makes things illogical.
It's not a contradiction. It's a mistranslation. You must blame the translators, not the book.
In fact, the book has been mistranslated so much, that people have interspersed the word 'homosexual' with 'animals rapist' and 'misogynist'. Those three words have nothing to do with one another. Which is the truth? We'll never know unless we all learn Latin, the original language the Bible was first written in.
The point is that we were not the intended audience of the Bible. The translators of the Bible in some cases were idiots, but if more of them said 'lay with' instead of 'rape', then the original text meant something more along the lines of 'lay with'.
To lay with is not to rape.
This is not about rape.
You just want it to be about rape because you're frustrated and want to win the argument.
And forcing the rape victim to marry the attacker and become husband and wife for the rest of their lives still doesn't seem... logical.
It's logical if you don't think of rape as apart of the picture, which is probably isn't since, like you said, that wouldn't make sense. It also probably isn't since 'lay with' like I explained, does not mean rape.
This is about rape, okay?
I'm sorry, but it's not.
You don't have to go on trying to force an untrue point. I know what it's like to be in your position, especially since I myself am stubborn, but it would be best if you just surrendered so you don't end up saying something you wish you hadn't. It happens to the best of us.
'Lay with' does mean intercourse, it just doesn't cover everything, for all we know, it could mean rape, but we are sure that rape means. You can't just ignore the verses that speak of rape. The original bible uses the word "Shakab" Which could mean "Lay with" Or "Rape." But we do know that in some verses, they use "Shakab" as in context of rape. Read this:
Isaiah 13:16
Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished (shakab).
(This clearly means that they were forcibly raped, because why would you kill babies, loot houses and then ask politely to the women after destroying their homes)
And this is actually an order directly from God who doesn't care, he just wants them raped. And it violates the rule of sex before marriage.
Wouldn't you find it creepy if, God, the all perfect and all loving being who is the basis of the bible wanted you to be raped? I don't mean any offense, I'm just showing how much nonsense this is.
Illogical. Illogical and Illogical.
"You must blame the translators, not the book"
So that's what you have come to. Blame the translators you say? I'd say you're struggling. The bible is riddled with countless contradictions which make it illogical, and we all know that the bible was is worse as it gets. They were brutal in those days you see, so future translators decided to substitute the outcome of "naughty" words so it would be easier to believe. You've shown it your self how they have "Lay with" and "Rape." They also decide to change "slave" to "servant" to lighten the blow and ignore verses where they beat them. The bible, and I mean the original bible was as worse as it got. It makes sense that people would change the "naughty" words of the bible, but it wouldn't make sense if they changed "lay with" to "rape" because that would be mocking their own bible. But blaming the translators doesn't seem like a full-hearted debate, it just seems desperate. It shows that there is not much evidence to stand with against all the flaws of the bible.
It's impossible to think that the bible is 100% flawless because of all the outbursts of blasphemous verses that need to be straightened out, but they don't get anywhere because we all know that the bible contains contradiction, and contradiction leads to illogicality.
Why do really want to protect the bible so much? It just has too much problems.
Okay, now that is just wishful thinking. You say "Well there HAS to be a special meaning" What about in the bible when it says that the world is 6000 years old. They didn't even have any technology to support that and we already know for a fact that it is wrong. How is there any special meaning to that? There are some metaphors in the bible but some don't apply to some verses. Why do people make up so many excuses?
Once again, creation theories were meant to get people to stop wondering about the pointless and instead tend to their societal needs. The Bible was not being literal about it's creation theory. Just because some cook of a Christan says it was literal doesn't mean it was literal.
Oh, but whole countries and societies are full of people who take this literally, even the Vatican so saying that would be a huge let down for them. But you are right. Too bad loads of people fail to realize this.
Every Catholic with authority I've ever talked to or read words from has always said the Bible wasn't literal just because many followers believe it literal. Every Catholic priest, bishop and cardinal I've heard speak don't believe in Biblical literalism, and believe that any Biblical literalists are getting it wrong.
And twice as many religious scholars from all walks of faith have said the same thing.
Don't get the opinions of the sheepherder from the sheep themselves. All they'll say is 'baahh' and you won't understand what the sheepherder really thinks.
Only recently has the Vatican said that evolution 'could' be true, and that it could coexist with religious faith. The official stance of the Vatican since the beginning of the Catholic church has been that of a literal creation story.
That was them taking into consideration the opinions and feelings of their sheep. I don't care for the opinions of sheep though, I care for the opinions of the sheepherder. Just because the sheepherder cares about his sheep doesn't mean I do. I only care about him and his opinion.
And after talking and listening to him, his opinion seems to be that Biblical literalism is idiotic.
The only thing I regret about this reply is that I cannot remember the sheepherder's name...
That was them taking into consideration the opinions and feelings of their sheep.
When the catholic church vehemently supported biblical literalism for over a thousand years they were just 'taking into considerations the beliefs of the sheep' but when the Vatican finally accepts Evolution as a valid scientific theory, they did that without considering the sheep?
It seems the Vatican only considers the opinions of the sheep, when that opinion differs from your own, but when the Vatican agrees with you, that is something they just genuinely believe. Surely you can see the arrogance is this assertion, yes?
Did you ever consider the possibility the Catholic Church just changed after over a thousand years of being primitive? Perhaps the sheepherder finally woke up one day and decided he was too old to think of his pet sheep as anything more then just sheep he had to herd, as opposed to them being the things that define him.
What is arrogant about actually believing that the Catholic hierarchy isn't necessarily a crock of corrupt shit? Is it impossible to believe that a governing body might actually be truly virtuous and not be a fool? Do I have to mistrust them even though they've been successfully guiding people for over a thousand years, making them one of the oldest, continuous governments in existence?
I'm sorry, but I think they're sincere. I see no reason to assume they're fooling everyone. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I have no reason to believe they don't have harmonious intentions. I don't think they're perfect, but they certain aren't the demons that atheists want people to believe they are.
Did you ever consider the possibility the Catholic Church just changed after over a thousand years of being primitive?
Consider it? yes. Believe it? No.
Perhaps the sheepherder finally woke up one day and decided he was too old to think of his pet sheep as anything more then just sheep he had to herd, as opposed to them being the things that define him.
I think the more likely explanation is that the Catholic church was losing followers and chose to save itself by changing the official dogma to be more digestible to the modern public.
I think the more likely explanation is that the Catholic church was losing followers and chose to save itself by changing the official dogma to be more digestible to the modern public.
It had just as many followers after saying they approved of evolution as they did a year before they approved of it. If they had even seen a slightly significant drop, such as thousands and thousands, the media would have reported this. They've had over a billion church members for some time. It's not hard for an observer of their numbers to spot such a change in their numbers so vast that the Church would make such a dramatic change within it's stance by saying evolution is plausible.
You know what I think is most likely? That as the years went by, more young Catholics came into the Church and gained power, it got to a point where there were so many powerful, wise, and elderly Catholics with modern views that the Church finally woke up and smelled it's millennium-old outdated stance.
Is it impossible for it to be a sincere change in opinion?
Because if we are looking at a group of people we must think sociologically and sociologically there must be cause and effect. A person may come to a spontaneous epiphany, but a group of people (the Vatican, in this case) will not all simultaneously come to the same epiphany spontaneously. There must be an environmental cause, that would cause this general shift in thought. I have given what I think to be a very plausible cause. The potential loss of followers as well as European social and cultural pressures.
I have also given what I think to be a very plausible cause. Their observation and involvement with modern culture has caused them to realize that the modern opinions of many of their leadership and sheep are more important then the outdated beliefs of their leadership and sheep.
Is it impossible for them to do this without having an ulterior, politically-corrupt motive? Or would your logic have them not be sincere just because they're theists?
I have also given what I think to be a very plausible cause. Their observation...
This observation could have been made at any time, why the change now? There must be some other cause.
involvement with modern culture
This falls more in line with what I was saying earlier. That being, European social and cultural pressures upon the Catholic church as well as making the dogma more digestible to the modern public. These two factors combined, I think, is the cause. I don't see anything inherently corrupt about that, but to say outside opinions played no role, is untenable.
This observation could have been made at any time, why the change now? There must be some other cause.
Now you're the one assuming they can change fast. What if it took the, a hundred years to digest and accept their observation?
This falls more in line with...
Then perhaps our theories on this aren't particularly different. I just find something inherently wrong about suggesting that they would lie about their actual beliefs just so they could hold onto more followers. It can't be just that, and it sounded to me like you were saying it only was that, which translates into my mind as you demonizing them.
Yes, because certainly you of all people have proven yourself to know about logic. Do you know the difference between an invalid argument and an uncogent argument? This is a rhetorical question. Any answer you give to me will be the result of a google search.
And nobody knows google better then the man that googles everything.
Still hunting for excuses Bohemian? I'm surprised you didn't yell fallacy. Invalid and uncogent must be today's words for the day. I'm sure we will all see them used in other debates throughout the remainder of the day. Can't wait and see what is tomorrows word.
To say that BS is anything I say, classifies as ipse-dixitism. Were is the proof? Are we just suppose to take your word for it? Please provide a link for all the world to see. I have nothing to hide. Can you say the same?
1) Just a post ago you said "When you run out of BS..." committing the very thing that you accuse me of now. Can YOU prove that what I say is BS? Fucking hypocrite.
2) What I said is that BS is that which you disagree with, not that which you say. Note the difference.
I read it, and it said nothing. "What I said is that BS is that which you disagree with, not that which you say. Note the difference."
To say that BS is that which I disagree with you on, is merely stating that you think your views are better than mine. I say BULLSHIT, not bullshit. Note the difference.
To say that BS is that which I disagree with you on, is merely stating that you think your views are better than mine.
They are. Your views are almost almost entirely based on anecdotal or sentimental factors and have very little if any research to support them. 9 times out of 10 your arguments are just a slur of personal attacks. Take for instance the anti-religion debate, or the evolution debate, where your arguments consist of attacking atheists, instead of arguing the actual topic. Atheists are not the only people to accept evolution, nor the only ones to be anti-religious. You've made several statements which I have disproven by citing statistical facts to the contrary. How many times have you done that for statements I've made? You don't seem to use sources at all.
As far as you providing links, that's a joke. Where is the link on Christians believing in evolution?
When it comes to copying and pasting someone else's words I leave this to you, I can think on my own. Experience will always triumph over the lack of it.
You claim to be superior, that is a true sign of inferiority.
To claim victory here is pathetic, this site is but a pimple on someone's ass.
There is no victory here to claim, because the only one that fired any shots is you.
This means there are about 45 Million Protestants who believe in Evolution, 32 Million Catholics, and 4 million born-again Christians.
Total 81 Million Christians who accept the theory of evolution. There are only 35 Million non-religious folks so even if every single non-religious person believed in Evolution, they would still be the minority amongst evolutionists.
I predict a No True Scotsman to follow....wait for it....
In these surveys, who decided if these people where in fact Christians. I would bet that it was the same person that answered these questions. Most people cling to an idea of what is the right thing to say, whether it is true or not.
For example, how many of those that claim to Catholic actually are? To be considered Catholic by the Roman Catholic Church one must meet these requirements:
1) Be baptized
2) Have completed conformation
3) Be a member of a Catholic Church
Who verified that these requirements were made? Nobody. Because of this, these surveys are meaningless in regards to religious people. The only valid results that can be obtained from a survey like this, is when people are asked a question they responded in this way. No factual information can be obtained without facts.
Are you just dense or just plain dumb? You have to do this for all religions that are Christian. (Methodist,Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.)
I didn't say anybody was lying. I'm sure these people believe they are what they said they are. I said, one cannot be classified as something they are not. If your grandmother told you, you are native American; Does this mean you are? No, you have to have an actual family member that is native American to be one. One must be one to be one.
When are you going to pull your head out of your ass?
You my friend is the only thing illogical here.
Let me put this in terms that even you can understand. What makes one a citizen of the USA? If one merely says they are, does this make them one? According to your logic there are no illegal aliens in the USA. To be a citizen you must meet the criteria, the same has to be done to be a member of a religion.
I'm aware of this, I was demonstrating the sheer numerical discrepancy, it would actually take for your argument to hold water. A point which has evidently eluded you.
Literally 1 out of every 2 Christians would have to be lying, in order for them to NOT constitute the majority of Evolutionists. That's a pretty big leap.
I clearly showed that the poll was biased and the out come was made to be in favor of evolution, those rendering the entire poll null and void. And yet you still attempt to claim victory for a loss. Talk about miracles.
You haven't shown anything, you've simply said that it's biased. You are actually trying to argue that the poll is inaccurate, which is not the same thing as being biased. The reason it is not inaccurate for the reasons you give, is because the poll only claims to represent self-identified religious affiliation. Unless you have good reason to believe the number of self-identified Christians differs from the number of actual Christians by 50%, then you are only digging yourself deeper into this hole of denial.
Most evolutionists are Christians, just admit it already and move on.
Christians believe in the Bible or they cannot be Christians. What chapter does one find evolution? None. Does one find creation in the Bible? What do they believe? Read Genesis and get back with me.
If a Christian can believe in evolution, than it must be possible for an atheist to believe in God. Admit it, you know God exists.
So now you've decided to back away from your argument over statistics (because that is an argument you will never win) and have instead begun insisting your opinion of what a christian is, excludes belief in evolution. You neglect the fact that not all Christians interpret the Bible quite as literally as you do. Your argument then begins to look a lot like a No True Scotsman argument.
I already proved that the poll is invalid and you believe that an invalid poll has correct statistics. To date this is the dumbest argument you have ever posted. Knowing you, I'm betting this won't be the dumbest for long. Since you have been on a down-ward spiral for sometime, I'm looking forward to reading what comes out your mouth next. I'm sure whatever it is that mentally challenged will still deem you their idol.
In case you haven't noticed I don't take the Bible literally, but I can tell you do.
You saying the poll is invalid, does not make it invalid. You have no reason to believe that the number of self-identified Christians deviates from the number of actual Christians by over 50%, none whatsoever, thus Statistics clearly show that Christians constitute the majority of evolutionists. Desperate ad hominems won't change that, and it's clear to me that this fact upsets you. When you think you can provide a challenge, feel free to come back. Otherwise your argument is done.
You want proof? I'll give you just that. You believe that all information produced on the Internet is infallible and so I'll give you what you worship. (See link)
No Christian believes in Secular Evolution. Now if you were to say that some Christians believe in Theistic Evolution, this is possible.
Also, do take note the difference of those that are active Christians and those that merely say they are Christians that believe in theistic evolution.
38% of 54% is a Majority, you imbecile! The article you posted clearly supports what I've been saying the whole time.
According to these statistics 54% of Americans believe in evolution and of those people, a majority (38%), believe in God-guided evolution aka, theistic evolution. Read the article. And because we know something like 81% of American theists are Christians, we can conclude that the majority of Evolutionists are Christian. This in addition to the the stats and statistics I've already provided which also confirm this.
Now if you were to say that some Christians believe in Theistic Evolution, this is possible.
Don't even try to back-peddle. Theistic Evolution is still evolution which you plainly said Christians could not believe. I find it amusing that you are suddenly changing your tune.
You cannot squirm your way out of this. You were wrong; Factually and objectively wrong! I have provided statistics in support of this and you have provided statistics against yourself. Admit your error, something you are not known for doing.
You apparently lack the ability to comprehend this. Let me break it down for you. 54% is the percent of ALL AMERICANS that are evolutionists. I didn't make a claim about all Americans, I only made a claim about Evolutionists. I stated that the majority of Evolutionists are Christians, which statistically is true.
The 38% is the percent of ALL AMERICANS that are theistic evolutionists, in other words it is including Creationists in that figure, so when we look at evolutionists exclusively theists (the vast majority being christian) do constitute a majority. Atheists are a minority of evolutionists. So when people characterize the evolution debate as "Christians vs Atheists" that simply isn't the case, and it is a gross oversimplification.
The bible is logical... I mean the world had to be created by some intelligent being. I mean our body it works all together and everything in our body fits in. The big bang is not real jesus is real and if anyone disagrees i don't give a shiz you beleive what you beleive and i shall beleive what i beleive.
i do not believe in God, but i think that religion is great thing to control society and avoid chaos. Bible or Koran is perfect book to develop human abilities: patience, life without bad habits, etc. Also religion gives power, hope, patience to go through problems, bad times.
Whenever someone quotes the Bible it always tends to be out of context. First, picking up a Bible and simply reading any passage sounds nice but a problem exists even in those days on how to interpret the texts in its FULL meaning. That is with the full intent of not only the one who wrote them but also of the Holy Spirit. Christians believe that the Bible was written by men and divinely inspired. So, of course you can expect parts of the whole text to be easily read and understood and others not. Which is why someone is necessary to translate/ interpret the scriptures with respect to the overall message of the Bible itself. I invite the person who started this debate to look into ACTS 8:30 & 31.
To anyone else interested in bashing the Bible ask yourselves why? It seems like most of the conclusions from this debate, arguing that the Bible is illogical, is not from an intellectual conclusion but from a series of premises that never end. Always reasons not to believe or prove that its illogical because of a few sentences but not because of its message.
The Bible is logical, for divinity is the fullness of reason. If we define logic as reason and divinity (i.e. God) being the fullness of reason (by definition he would have to be), then the text by which man was inspired by God, would also be logical. It doesn't matter, in fact it hardly ever mattered the types of men who composed it because the Divinity behind the messenger of the Bible still delivered the all perfect Word.
First off, its hard to decide things in this world as either completely logical or completely illogical. However, the bible is a complex collection of recollections and poetic aspirations, and within it contains various types of metaphorical references and deep abstract comparisons. The important to realize is that the bible needs to be treated as a symbol for something greater. The bible was written by "man", and it must be expected as imperfect. Finally, we must respect the bible as an articulated attempt for the "Word of God."
It isn't going to mean anything to someone who does not have the Holy Spirit. So to all you Christian, Christianity haters.....it is what it is, something you will never get.
I really don't know how you arrive at this conclusion, the reality is that most people including myself were indoctrinated into beleiving in Christianity during the early part of our lives and if it wasn't for our inquisitive nature would still be in its clutches so its something that i actually did get, and subsequently chose not to get when i realised it was completely untenable, its makes more sense the worship the sun than some fictional figure that only exists in a book some men wrote a few thousand years ago.
I am going to go with the logical side. The main reason being because it is losing and I love supporting the underdog.
I have been debating my own logic recently. I live with two people who were Law Justice and Society Majors in college. One of them is about to go to law school, the other works for the state government. And they debate logic all the time. Being around them I realize my logic sucks. I have a hard time getting my thought laid out in a clean and pretty form that makes sense and logically flows. Even now I am struggling with my thought process and how to type it out here.
I happened across this article through the google machine. I like a lot of the points on both sides and they both flow very well but I feel that you are all missing the point. Though I live with 2 law majors, i studied the Bible in school. My major was Bible. I have spent a long time studying this book and I must say that I question some of the logic. i have raised some of these same debates to my professors and colleagues and they have raised others that hurt my brain even more but I must say... who cares?
You are asking the completely wrong question about the Bible. As far as creation goes, a very common belief is that it was a poem and not meant to be literal. Why do you think Genesis contains 2 different creation accounts? And sorry I have no reference to which scholars believe either way. Feel free to discount me or go look it up yourself. But once again... why does it make a difference?
As a kid I was taught in school to follow logic. I was taught to use deductive reasoning and problem solving to get through life. That 1+1=2 so therefore 2-1=1 and so jonny can have 2 apples if Hank would leave the room and he can steal one. But like I said earlier... I am not that good at logic games, well at least not as good as some people.
So when I look at the Bible I am really not a good judge of logic. I can argue theologically that because I am human it is not supposed to make complete sense to me... but how can I walk away with that? That is not a satisfying answer...
But my question is: does it have to be logical? Why does it have to be 1+1=2? Why can't it be Apple+Pair=tuna fish?... now that makes sense... because the good book says that an apple and a pair caused the fall of man... and I think the fall of man is about equivalent to tuna fish... it stinks.
If your concern about the Bible and about Christianity is logic, then I am so very very sorry. If that is your concern with any religion then i am... very very sorry. Because you are missing the entire point. It is a love story. So whether it is real or made up or a poem or literal... why is that so important to you? You are 13. Where is your belief in magic? I never asked how logically a man and his people knocked down the walls of a city by marching around it and then blowing horns and screaming at it. That is the stupidest battle plan i have ever heard, and i was raised by marines. I have heard a lot of about battles and plans. But instead I enjoy the story about a man who was absolutely terrified of his new responsibility, terrified that he could not live up to the person he was following, terrified that his people would rather be enslaved than follow him, and was told over and over and over again that he was not alone. And then was shown through an illogical, unreal, majestic act that he would never be abandoned. Man that is beautiful.
So please I implore you to ask a different question! But I dont know, maybe I am just an uneducated blind fool who accepts what he hears... but what I do know is that there have been times when I am terrified of my new job, of not living up, of failing the people counting on me and I had someone to relate to... an old story passed down through tradition. Didn't matter at the time whether it was true or not, the point is that I wasn't alone, I wasn't abandoned.
I think the Bible is logical. i think it flows from one testament to others. But I am not gonna be upset or stumble in faith if you bring up an illogical point. The points about slavery and sexisim have nothing to do with logic, mainly morals. unless you argue that they contradict (i.e. how can God say he loves everyone equally but yet condone such acts) that is still more based morally though. The point about creation is a little more about logic, well more facts. It doesn't prove the bible illogical because it states one fact different than your information. It in fact makes a better logical argument by tracing genealogy (Adam living however long, having seth who lived however long, and finally to Abraham who lived however long and so on) The argument makes sense... if Adam is the first man and we know his family line and we have a clear date on someone in that line and we know their ages then we can trace the line and move back (Abram being around 4000 b.c. and moving backwards to find the date) It makes sense... though it may not be correct facts, the logic still flows rather flawlessly in my opinion.
For the record, if it isn't obvious, I am a Christian. I follow Christ as my Rabbi and
I guess what you are trying to argue isn't that the Bible is illogical but that it contradicts itself and reality so therefore it is a false book. Still the wrong question but better I think. However, once again, i suck at logic so what do i know.
I love my God more than anything else in this world... no matter how illogical it may seem.
Also just realized this article/debate thingy is over a year old, if not 2. Yikes! So you are no longer 13 and I feel silly for bringing this back up. But I guess i found it on a good night where I was debating logic. Helped me clear things up in my mind anyways. Thank you!
