|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
I'm sorry, but did I miss something? Where does Phage mention omnipresence?
...so he is most certainly not omnipresent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Flyer, would you mind quoting some of the best pieces of evidence from Mcdowell's book for me please, or provide a link to where I can read it (entirely or excerpts) online? I'd love to give my opinion on it, but I can't seem to find anything from it. I have found a youtibe series called "The Authenticity of the Bible" by Mr. Mcdowell. I'll give you my oppinion in a separate post, with links to the vids.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
.
Edited by Huntard, : Was double post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
This is about his video series The Authenticity of the Bible. To which I've linked the first part.
1st question he asks: Is what we have written down today, what was written down 2000 years ago? Answer: We don't know. None of the manuscripts survived from that time period, and we can date them back reliably to no earlier then 70 AD for the earliest. Anyway, this question is largely irrelevant. And indeed a bunch of irrelevant comparisons follow. His most important observation follows near the end of this segment (near the end of part three). He says: "Now this doesn't mean that it is true" and he couldn't be more right. Making this whole segment rather pointless. His second, and most important and really only relevant question: Is what was written down true? Answer: I will take this in the order in which he brings it up. Allright! On with the actual evidence, I'm escited about what he will bring up. His first evidence isn't evidence, but an argument. The argument is that the writers wrote as if they were eye wtinesses.My response to this is: "So what?" What does that matter, unless they were actual eyewitnesses, and unless they can corroborate their stories, why should this matter in the first place? He says He believes Matthew Mark and John were eyewitness accounts. Ok, all nice and dandy, but where's the proof they were? He continues in this vein quite some time, without offering any evidence that what he is asserting is true. We're now into the 4th part, and he bring sup the second evidence. What he cites is again not really evidence but another argument. He claims the evidence is "sufficient". He mentions a verse by John in the bible that says that not all things Jesus did have been recorded. Ok, fine. Don;t care. Why not? Because you ahve to give evidence for that which was recorded. Brings up eyewitnesses again. Why i don't know. Quotes from the book of acts. That Christ appeared to the apostles with many convincing proofs. Ok, great, care to show me any of those? He again starts talking about eyewitnesses, Look, that's all nice and dandy, Mr. Mcdowell, but please, do you have any evidence that these are actual eyewitness accounts? The third evidence is again not evidence. He says that the hostile witnesses agreed with what the apostles said about Jesus. I would like to know where he found this report by the hostile witnesses, because I have never seen any. So, again, no evidence is offered. He quotes from the bible, why I don;t know, becuase I'd find it very weird for there to be any reports by hostile witnesses to be in there, and then says that this proves there were hostile witnesses that agreed with the bible. I'm sorry Mr. Mcdowell, but that's not how it works. He treats the bible as if it is already true! That's not how you determine if the thing you are trying to prove is actually true! Seriously. Any independent sources that confirm this? Thought not. I'll leave it at that for now. Tell me Flyer, ae any of these things, things he brings up in his book, Because I sure as hell don;t see where you can claim any evidence has been shown if his book is of the same quality as these videos.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Flyer75 writes:
Thank you Flyer, I'd appreciate that. I'll be sure to participate in that thread. I'll try to help you out as much as possible by detailing clearly any faults I see with the arguments, so that you can do some more studies on it, perhaps for better answers.
Huntard, Here's what we can do. I'll start a new thread on the evidences of christianity. The thread might get lengthy but I'll go through McDowell's book and do as you requested. I'll pick some of the stronger pieces of evidence (some are certainly stronger then others) and you or DA or whoever wants can refute and we'll go back and forth. I just hope I get some help from my side on this as I'm sure I'll be bombarded from every angle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
So, because ytou suck at debating, or just didn;t know enough to "best" these Chrsistians, evidence is suddenly worng? Again, as christians bested me on subjects, I turned from evolution. And please please PLEASE, click the peek button to see how I did that quotebox and use it yourself, it makes posts so much easier to read and looks so much better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
So, god, disaproving of slavery so greatly, did not go and tell the Isrealites that they can't keep slaves, no he goes and tells them they can and as long as they don't beat them so severely that they die, just so severely that they can get up again in a couple of days, it's all nice and dandy for them to treat human beings as property. Why not just tell them it is wrong, if it is in fact wrong? He told them plenty of other far less important stuff was wrong, yet this rather major thing, he never condemned. but the point is that God did not approve of slavery and so placed very strong conditions on how it was to be practiced among the isrealites. I don't like this god fellow, nor his logic, nor his morals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
Yes it was.
You are misunderstanding what he is saying completely. Slavery was not, in most cases FORCED. Since the most recent form of slavery (blacks) was forced, not allowing them to educate, or own any possesions of any kind, we view slavery as brutal, and demeaning to the person or race.
No. I view it as bad because it means that a person is property of another person.
This is not the case. Slaves in the Bible sometimes initiated the agreement. In fact, Kings would refer to anyone working under them as slaves, even though they were free men.
Evidence? This doesn't mean treating another human being as property is in any way right.
Exodus 21:5 But if the servant plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go free,' 6 then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.
Yes, that's a very nice loophole built into the system. You have to set your slave free after a number of years, but if you make him fall in love with a woman, marry them and perhaps let them have children, then you can just keep on being its master. Also, how nice of the master to pierce someone's ear.
Ever heard of a slave that did NOT want to be free?
No.
Thats because modern slavery is different from previous. Even the Encyclopedia Brittanica talks about slaves, and how they produced much of the worlds cotton, and other commodities.
So? It's still wrong to treat another human being as property.
Exodus 21:16 He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:20 - 21: Proverbs 29:21 He who pampers his slave from childhood Will in the end find him to be a son.And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. Tells you that it's ok t beat a slave, as long as he can get up again in 2 days. Calls the slave someone's money Leviticus 19:20-22:And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. Tells you that if you as a master rape a slavegirl,she will be whipped, and if she's not engaged, the master will have to do absolutely nothing, if she is engagaed or married, he has to make a small offering. Leviticus 25:44-46:Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour. Tells you that the Israelites were allowed to buy slaves and that they could be inherited as property. Clearly, god doesn't want slavery to take place. Oh wait, no he doesn't, he's fine with it. As long as you obey certain rules.
All this aside. Slavery is irrelevant. God does not see his creations as slaves.
But his creations see each other as slaves. So, what does god do? Does he make it perfectly clear that we should not treat each other as property? Nope, in fact, he allows it and sets up rules for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Dr. Sing writes:
It was forced on the slaves. That's what I meant. Nobody was forced to take slaves, but you can't say that a slave was not forced into slavery.
Slavery was neither forced nor advocated, it was only tolerated and allowed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
Well, thanks for supporting me in my stance that god condoned slavery. Here we even see him commanding it. When Joshua was waging war on the land, the Gibeonites fooled Joshua by dressing in old clothes and telling him that they were from a far land, and that Joshua should make a pact with them. Joshua agreed, and because he gave them his word, God did not let Joshua destroy Gibeon. Instead, God commanded Joshua to take the Gibeonites as his slaves. People have been forced to take slaves. This can all be found starting in Joshua 9:3. Thank you very much Denis! You just destroyed Dr. Sing's point completely. How nice of you. So, here we even have god directly telling his subjects they must take slaves. Yet he is against such things. How very clear he makes that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
Yes, that's my stance, he at least condoned it. Thank you for confirming it once again.
God was neutral on the subject of slavery because it was not BAD.
Slavery wasn't bad? Treating other people as your property is not BAD?
In fact, God wanted Joshua to kill Gibeon, along with the other tribes. God commands Joshua a number of times to leave no one alive, to kill the animals, and destroy the crops.
Yes, god's a very nice guy, I've always said that.
Lets put it into perspective for a moment. If you and I knew each other, and I lost everything in a fire. All my cattle, my house and crops...everything. Would you take me in at your house, and pay me to work for you?
1) slaves don't get paid.2) no, I can't afford you. I would try to help you in any way yI could. Because Biblically, this is slavery. Slaves were paid, allowd to have families, and leave with everything they came with.
No they weren't. And even if they were, they were still property. And I say it is wrong treating other people as property.
Even if slavery were seen as evil or bad (and in was in the case of the israelites and the egyptions), God does not turn a blind eye, but loves you for loving and obeying him, no matter the conditions.
He's a bit of a dick then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
Slaves didn't get paid, that's what slavery means, afterall. You are property and you o work without getting paid. Also, your son is not your property.
I have a nine month old. He's really cute right now, but when he gets older, he will learn responsibility, and work ethic, by doing chores around the house, and listening to his mother, and myself, when we ask something of him. The government says I am responsible for him until he is 18 years old (pretty sure it's the same in the US). So this person, of whom I am responsible for, performs work, for no money. How does this relationship work? He cares for me, and I care for him. Only difference between slaves in the Bible, and my son is this: Cole is not getting anything for his work when he is free to go, other than the lesson. {ABE}: Also, what does this have to do with the fact that treating another being as property is not BAD according to you?
Not modern ones.
Ah yes, I can see the reasoning right now: "It's just and fair that my slave, who is, afterall, only property, gets nothing". See, slaves didn't get paid.
Colossians 4:11 Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. Thats an opinion, not a fact.
Well, if you treat people like that, I think you're a dick.
But God loves the humble man. To serve others is held in the highest regard by God.
I've been told the only thing required to go to heaven is to accept Jesus. That's it. I can work my ass off my whole life, doing nothing but good things, live according to god's laws, and I still won't go to heaven if I don't accept Jesus. This is irrelevant, therefore. Edited by Huntard, : Added {ABE} bit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dennis780 writes:
No, that's not what Theo was getting at. I'll give you a hint. Your fallacy likes haggis.
Theo, go back to the science threads. There is no logical fallacy, because I am not proving my religion correct, by showing that others are wrong. My point to Jar was that grouping different religions together is not right, since these particular religions differ on major points (there is only one God, Jesus was human, etc.). If it appeared that I was making an attempt to prove my religion correct, I apologize.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024