Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:I have to apologize. I made a mistake on my last post. In my analogy, I said, "If my brother owed me money that he couldn't repay, then he'd offer himself as my slave to work off the debt. If my brother became lazy, and stopped working to pay off what he owed me, and the punishment that the law required was a physical beating, then that's the punishment."

I don't know where I got that from. A physical beating wasn't a required punishment for slaves. So I took outlaw's bad analogy, and made my own bad analogy.

Let's get back to the verses that outlaw originally had a problem with.
Exodus 21:20-21
20 “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies [a]at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 If, however, he [c]survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his [d]property.

First off, these verses are not condoning the beating of slaves. They just lay out the required punishment if a slave is beaten and dies. For someone to say God condones slavery or beating of slaves from these verses, just shows your bias, outlaw.
Verse 20 is fairly simple to understand. If a slaveowner kills a slave in cold blood, the slaveowner needs to die as punishment.
Now let me try to explain verse 21 in a modern context.
A man owes a debt of $200,000. Outlaw, being a wealthy man, agrees to pay off the man's debt, if the man agrees to be outlaw's worker for 6 years, then he will go free with the debt paid. The man agrees.

One day outlaw and the hired worker (slave) get into an argument. In the heat of the argument, outlaw hits the man with a baseball bat. The worker dies. Outlaw must be put to death for murder. But if the man lives, he's sent to the hospital.

Then outlaw and the man appear in court for the incident. The judge sees the man's injuries, pain, and suffering. The judge requires outlaw to pay the man $200,000 in damages. Then outlaw tells the judge that the man agreed to work for him to pay off $200,000 in debt that the man owed. But since the man owed outlaw $200,000 as compensation for the debt, it's a wash.

Keep in mind, these verses lay out the punishment for the crime. They don't condone the crime. Only someone such as outlaw, with his anti-God, anti-bible bias, reads something into these verses that isn't there, to fit his agenda. And since he has been told this multiple times, and still continues to use these verses to say God condones slavery and beating slaves, it's pretty obvious that outlaw has no desire to learn.

For anyone else reading this thread who wants to understand the verses in question, this is where I got my analogy from.
http://www.revelation.co/2013/06/09/bib ... s-2120-21/

outlaw wrote:Of course if you want to believe that the god that gave these rules is loving and just then you have to sugar coat these verses in order to hold those views, you have to find a way to explain away the harshness of these verses and I've gotta say you've done it exceptionally, I just don't buy it and it's not because I want to continue to think god isn't just, it's just because to me a god who doesn't tolerate sin and a god who is said to be loving would of made rules against keeping slaves in the first place not allowed it but made rules for slave keepers. It would be like me instead of making a rule that my kids aren't allowed to fight, instead I let them fight but make rules about how much they can hurt each other then punish them if they go too far, it's a ridiculous way of going about attempting to protect one of my children.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

outlaw wrote:Of course if you want to believe that the god that gave these rules is loving and just then you have to sugar coat these verses in order to hold those views, you have to find a way to explain away the harshness of these verses and I've gotta say you've done it exceptionally, I just don't buy it and it's not because I want to continue to think god isn't just, it's just because to me a god who doesn't tolerate sin and a god who is said to be loving would of made rules against keeping slaves in the first place not allowed it but made rules for slave keepers. It would be like me instead of making a rule that my kids aren't allowed to fight, instead I let them fight but make rules about how much they can hurt each other then punish them if they go too far, it's a ridiculous way of going about attempting to protect one of my children.

You don't understand, and you never will. It is impossible for those who hate God to understand the things of God. I was an atheist, an atheist proselyte no less, so I understand you very well. I can assure you that no amount of explaining will convince you to see things from our point of view. The Biblical evidence to support my point:

- Da 12:9-10, the wicked - those who do not believe - are unable to understand.
- 1Cor2:14,15,16, here is very clearly stated that the unregenerate (that's you) are unable to understand.

The mistake you are making is that you don't accept our answers at face value. You ask a question from people who have intimate knowledge about the Bible, and you criticize the answer! We are not discussing football or something equally silly where your opinion is just as worthless as mine. I've already told you that you are ignorant about the Bible, so just listen to what we say and learn. I hate seeing atheists making fools of themselves...it reminds me of what I used to be.

FL

outlaw wrote:

RickD wrote:I have to apologize. I made a mistake on my last post. In my analogy, I said, "If my brother owed me money that he couldn't repay, then he'd offer himself as my slave to work off the debt. If my brother became lazy, and stopped working to pay off what he owed me, and the punishment that the law required was a physical beating, then that's the punishment."

I don't know where I got that from. A physical beating wasn't a required punishment for slaves. So I took outlaw's bad analogy, and made my own bad analogy.

Let's get back to the verses that outlaw originally had a problem with.
Exodus 21:20-21
20 “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies [a]at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 If, however, he [c]survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his [d]property.

First off, these verses are not condoning the beating of slaves. They just lay out the required punishment if a slave is beaten and dies. For someone to say God condones slavery or beating of slaves from these verses, just shows your bias, outlaw.
Verse 20 is fairly simple to understand. If a slaveowner kills a slave in cold blood, the slaveowner needs to die as punishment.
Now let me try to explain verse 21 in a modern context.
A man owes a debt of $200,000. Outlaw, being a wealthy man, agrees to pay off the man's debt, if the man agrees to be outlaw's worker for 6 years, then he will go free with the debt paid. The man agrees.

One day outlaw and the hired worker (slave) get into an argument. In the heat of the argument, outlaw hits the man with a baseball bat. The worker dies. Outlaw must be put to death for murder. But if the man lives, he's sent to the hospital.

Then outlaw and the man appear in court for the incident. The judge sees the man's injuries, pain, and suffering. The judge requires outlaw to pay the man $200,000 in damages. Then outlaw tells the judge that the man agreed to work for him to pay off $200,000 in debt that the man owed. But since the man owed outlaw $200,000 as compensation for the debt, it's a wash.

Keep in mind, these verses lay out the punishment for the crime. They don't condone the crime. Only someone such as outlaw, with his anti-God, anti-bible bias, reads something into these verses that isn't there, to fit his agenda. And since he has been told this multiple times, and still continues to use these verses to say God condones slavery and beating slaves, it's pretty obvious that outlaw has no desire to learn.

For anyone else reading this thread who wants to understand the verses in question, this is where I got my analogy from.
http://www.revelation.co/2013/06/09/bib ... s-2120-21/

Of course if you want to believe that the god that gave these rules is loving and just then you have to sugar coat these verses in order to hold those views, you have to find a way to explain away the harshness of these verses and I've gotta say you've done it exceptionally, I just don't buy it and it's not because I want to continue to think god isn't just, it's just because to me a god who doesn't tolerate sin and a god who is said to be loving would of made rules against keeping slaves in the first place not allowed it but made rules for slave keepers.
It would be like me instead of making a rule that my kids aren't allowed to fight, instead I let them fight but make rules about how much they can hurt each other then punish them if they go too far, it's a ridiculous way of going about attempting to protect one of my children.

outlaw wrote:...Of course if you want to believe that the god that gave these rules is loving and just then you have to sugar coat these verses in order to hold those views, you have to find a way to explain away the harshness of these verses and I've gotta say you've done it exceptionally, I just don't buy it and it's not because I want to continue to think god isn't just, it's just because to me a god who doesn't tolerate sin and a god who is said to be loving would of made rules against keeping slaves in the first place not allowed it but made rules for slave keepers.

It would be like me instead of making a rule that my kids aren't allowed to fight, instead I let them fight but make rules about how much they can hurt each other then punish them if they go too far, it's a ridiculous way of going about attempting to protect one of my children.

B. W. wrote:

outlaw wrote:...Of course if you want to believe that the god that gave these rules is loving and just then you have to sugar coat these verses in order to hold those views, you have to find a way to explain away the harshness of these verses and I've gotta say you've done it exceptionally, I just don't buy it and it's not because I want to continue to think god isn't just, it's just because to me a god who doesn't tolerate sin and a god who is said to be loving would of made rules against keeping slaves in the first place not allowed it but made rules for slave keepers.

It would be like me instead of making a rule that my kids aren't allowed to fight, instead I let them fight but make rules about how much they can hurt each other then punish them if they go too far, it's a ridiculous way of going about attempting to protect one of my children.

Sounds to me like you are making all the rules here...

You are viewing things from a modern ethnocentric point of view against a bygone era and attempting to frame God (put God on trial) by bearing false witness by taking his word out of context to build a case to crucify God on, albeit, only in your mind. You appear to be fair minded, so what would you call a person who attempts to frame another and falsely strings that person's words together, out of context, so you can convict them of a crime and kill them - tell me how you are not doing the same here?
-
-
-

outlaw wrote:No matter how you want to explain it, making rules in regards to how slave owners are punished for treating their slaves is immoral as far as im concerned. The fact that rules were made is enough it doesn't matter whether it's if or when they die or what the punishment is it's irrelevant.

Allowing people to own other people as property is immoral as far as i'm concerned making rules around it doesn't change it.

None of you would accept these rules today as a good way to treat people so there's no reason to excuse them then.

They're terrible rules no matter for who for what for where and when they were made.

Stop telling me i don't understand, i understand perfectly fine, and i still think it's immoral. Do you understand that?

B. W. wrote:

outlaw wrote:No matter how you want to explain it, making rules in regards to how slave owners are punished for treating their slaves is immoral as far as im concerned. The fact that rules were made is enough it doesn't matter whether it's if or when they die or what the punishment is it's irrelevant.

Allowing people to own other people as property is immoral as far as i'm concerned making rules around it doesn't change it.

None of you would accept these rules today as a good way to treat people so there's no reason to excuse them then.

They're terrible rules no matter for who for what for where and when they were made.

Stop telling me i don't understand, i understand perfectly fine, and i still think it's immoral. Do you understand that?

You are ethnocentric supremacist in your views and therefore completely unable and incompetent to understand the bible in ancient historical context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacism

...and because of this, you better believe I have the right to call you whatever I like.

Listen, it is up to you to prove that Christians own slaves today, hold slave auctions, and condone slavery, and then you will have a case. Other than that, you're just another modernist ethnocentric supremacist judging ancient culture, times, era by modern day standards all done with an ax to grind with pure vitriol spite.

Again...

It is human beings, who enslaved others, not God and you are trying hard to indite God of the crime of allowing free moral agency in human beings and then lecture us how noble you are toward your own children. Do you put rules on them and do what is necessary to steer them to become better human beings guiding them through their short comings and flaws? Isn't that the goal of all good parents? ...and now you condemn God, as criminal, for what you yourself condone!

That is if you really are a decent parent...
-
-
-

outlaw wrote:....Ok now your totally reading too much into it and totally misunderstanding me.

Im not trying to say Christians own slaves, or condone slavery or whatever, your getting carried away.

....That's why i ask if you agree that these rules are good for what was happening in those times?

Do you agree they would also be good today? if not why not?

Im giving you the opportunity to explain it in "non ethnocentric supremacist" ways but you don't seem to want to, instead like always, you just want to try to make it about me.

outlaw wrote:

B. W. wrote:

outlaw wrote:No matter how you want to explain it, making rules in regards to how slave owners are punished for treating their slaves is immoral as far as im concerned. The fact that rules were made is enough it doesn't matter whether it's if or when they die or what the punishment is it's irrelevant.

Allowing people to own other people as property is immoral as far as i'm concerned making rules around it doesn't change it.

None of you would accept these rules today as a good way to treat people so there's no reason to excuse them then.

They're terrible rules no matter for who for what for where and when they were made.

Stop telling me i don't understand, i understand perfectly fine, and i still think it's immoral. Do you understand that?

You are ethnocentric supremacist in your views and therefore completely unable and incompetent to understand the bible in ancient historical context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacism

...and because of this, you better believe I have the right to call you whatever I like.

Listen, it is up to you to prove that Christians own slaves today, hold slave auctions, and condone slavery, and then you will have a case. Other than that, you're just another modernist ethnocentric supremacist judging ancient culture, times, era by modern day standards all done with an ax to grind with pure vitriol spite.

Again...

It is human beings, who enslaved others, not God and you are trying hard to indite God of the crime of allowing free moral agency in human beings and then lecture us how noble you are toward your own children. Do you put rules on them and do what is necessary to steer them to become better human beings guiding them through their short comings and flaws? Isn't that the goal of all good parents? ...and now you condemn God, as criminal, for what you yourself condone!

That is if you really are a decent parent...
-
-
-

Ok now your totally reading too much into it and totally misunderstanding me.
Im not trying to say Christians own slaves, or condone slavery or whatever, your getting carried away.
Yes i know humans enslaved others, but god, instead of making rules which would abolish slavery decides instead to let it go on, but make rules on how slave owners who beat their slaves should be punished.

He could of made rules to eradicate it but instead made rules to control it.
In my opinion that is immoral, you can disagree, that's fine.

Read up some history how some southern slave owners used the bible to justify what they were doing, now whether their understanding was correct or not it doesn't matter, to them their bible justified it, now if god would of made it absolutely clear that this practice was not accepted then these crackpots that used the bible couldn't say "well its fine in the bible"

That's why i ask if you agree that these rules are good for what was happening in those times?
Do you agree they would also be good today? if not why not?
Im giving you the opportunity to explain it in "non ethnocentric supremacist" ways but you don't seem to want to, instead like always, you just want to try to make it about me.

PaulSacramento wrote:People can use ANYTHING to justify ANYTHING.
People have used the bible to justify doing bad things, just as people have used atheistic ideology to justify doing bad things.
That is irrelevant.

If people don't understand the difference between a Law or a rule that accommodates man propensity to do bad KNOWING that the thing in question can NOT be abolished at the time, with CONDONING something bad then those people really need to take a look at the laws being passed in THEIR names by governments.

outlaw wrote:No matter how you want to explain it, making rules in regards to how slave owners are punished for treating their slaves is immoral as far as im concerned. The fact that rules were made is enough it doesn't matter whether it's if or when they die or what the punishment is it's irrelevant.

Stop telling me i don't understand, i understand perfectly fine, and i still think it's immoral. Do you understand that?