• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

presuppositionalism question

Very long ages do not have mornings and evenings
Neither could days that happen before the sun and moon came into existence to define the morning and evening... unless you're in a mythological story, and the literal length of the day isn't really the point.
It says God created the day and night on the first day. It just involved light and darkness.
The point about days of non-standard length not having a morning or night seems moot without a sun or moon, though, doesn't it?
I don't see why God couldn't have just had 12 hours of day and 12 hours of night before the sun was created then made the sun match that pattern. BTW day and night implies that is the same for the entire Earth which fits the flat earth model better than an Earth where it is constantly day and night somewhere....
Creationists have said that God did it that way to discourage sun worshippers.
They sure get tired of their supposed "add nothing to Scripture" rule in a hurry, don't they? Thank the Lord we have half-educated preachers to inform us of God's Machiavellian scheming.
"Well, Scripture doesn’t say, but cultures have always tended to worship the sun as a god. Maybe God created it on day four to show that the sun isn’t god—only the Creator is."
It's a theory not definite theology...
 
Matthew 24:29.
Jesus tells his apostles that in the last days, the sun shall darken, the sun will not give off light and the stars shall fall from the sky. The writers of this trip knew dirt all about any of this. Most certainly nothing about the distance, size, and nature of the visible stars.
 
Matthew 24:29.
Jesus tells his apostles that in the last days, the sun shall darken, the sun will not give off light and the stars shall fall from the sky. The writers of this trip knew dirt all about any of this. Most certainly nothing about the distance, size, and nature of the visible stars.
That fits the flat earth theory - like the rest of the Bible…
 
Lerner

I do not know how mny kinds of Christians you have known. Over here in the USA there are many for whom the bibkle is the one and only authority.

If an issue does not directly fit into scripture an interpretation is cobbled together
G'day Steve

I should say... I also take to the bible (having faith in) as the Authority . In my previous post, I was sort of agreeing with BH's OP to some extent, in the vein that there are 'some' people out there who maybe... as you put it... cobble together some thought-up idea to fit their personal narrative... which could be a most obvious of a contradiction, if going against something that is widely accepted among the rational public - including other Christians, who would also not agree with the cobbled together interpretation either.

It does depend on what's being said. The earliest example of an interpretation I recall, about 30 years ago, and haven't forgotten since: was when I was sitting in our vehicle on a lovely Sunday afternoon listening to the radio. There was an interesting sermon from an American radio programme which got my attention. According to this preacher, he explained the dividing waters where the planets. The concept here, is that ALL the planets in our solar system, at one time, had water or oceans in all of them.Can't remember everything else, but I recall another sermon from the same radio station, where the host mentioned tracing the bloodline of David which goes right through Europe and to Queen Elizabeth....

... (Not that I was quite a believer back then, but it was interesting to me nevertheless... more so, something to listen to, admittedly because it was entertaining. I'm thinking if I should try and look them up for the curiosity, and if they still exist, I would wonder if they or anyone of that congregation of listeners, still believe in the dividing waters explanation they gave back then)

Abortion is a good example. The Christian pro lifers say abortion is against god's will.

Well yes, naturally, that is the understanding of the scriptures to certain believers - 'Life is sacred.' There are various influencial aspects to this, which are written in the texts that convinces those, as to why 'abortion is against God's will' :

Thall shalt not kill (murder) - taking an innocent life (viewing in this regard, for conveniency)

Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed you, I knew you, and before you were born I constructed you: I appointed you a prophet to the nations

God was against the abominations of nations that sacrificed babies to Molok, Baal etc. & etc.. (hence the destruction of those nations and peoples).


American Christian slave owners justified slavery of blacks based on interpretation of the Mark Of Ham.

By making things fit, distorting the scrptures for this type of "justification" is abhorrent to many Christians. Slaves (mainly bond-servants) were treated better under the Hebrews because that was commanded by God. Even under the Romans, although still harsh - you could still earn your freedom and become a Roman citizen, (although I think there was limited rights to getting into political positions, their children however, would get those full rights). Compare that with the many centuries later of Black Slavery who were thought to be sub-human just in the last couple of centuries.

The problem with Christianity is there is no consistent morality in the bible.

Its not the bible thats not consistent, its people as humans, who don't really follow what Jesus teaches. Even the old atheist debates, where atheists use to tell us this too!! Asking theists: "Didn't Jesus say you shouldn't judge others..?" or "Shouldn't you give the shirt off your back to the poor like Jesus commanded... ?"

You see, it seems a lot of atheists seems to understand this, and rightly highlight people, who are calling themselves Christian, who are NOT actually doing what Jesus & Christianity teaches...

... but oddly enough at the same time - when self-claimed Christians are doing the opposite to what Jesus teaches, atheists will then make arguments (for the sake of debating), claiming Christianity is "evil" because Christians are apparently "following" their faith, according to the letter.


 
Last edited:
.....Slaves (mainly bond-servants) were treated better under the Hebrews because that was commanded by God.
What about Exodus 21:20-21?
“Suppose a person beats their male or female slave to death with a club. That person must be punished. But they will not be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two. After all, the slave is their property."
Normally the penalty for murder is death.... in this passage it just talks about some kind of punishment.
 
Last edited:
Say for example: no one has any 'video footage', documenting the universe coming into being - to then, be able to offer the footage, showing either the BB or creation taking place. It depends on the type of confliction there is, of a truth that's being argued for.
Are you suggesting that one needs "video footage" of a cosmic event to determine whether an event happened, and how it happened? Do you have any idea what methods have been used by scientists to study the age of universe, and the nature of the early universe? The answer is obviously no.

I understand that you don't have a high school level education in the sciences, and it shows. I suggest that you either do some basic research to educate yourself before you post such nonsense and embarrass yourself, or not post at all.


The bible isn't anti-science and science is not anti-biblical, they're two different types of discriptive observations.
They are nothing alike. Science is a tried and tested process we use to discover facts about the universe. The Bible is a book of mythological stories cobbled together some 2,000 years ago, and is completely unreliable when it comes to the subject of cosmic origins. The Bible may provide valuable insight into the lives and ideas of people at the time, but it has virtually no ability to provide reliable information about how the universe works.

As I understand. God put the conscience into our hearts (and minds) - people go against the conscience for self-gratification on the detriment of others, by their own wills to do so, whilst knowing this could be painful for the victim etc.. The truth as Jesus describes, is the knowledge and acceptance of His existence and what He presents to us. '

The truth will set you free,' can be in terms of you overcoming these selfish acts. 'The truth will set you free' also overcomes the fear of death - or in terms of having NO fear of the tyranical. Tyrants and dictators, do not like Jesus or His followers!
Why are you so reluctant to pursue the truth, as the Bible advises? Why is it that you have spent years on these forums reading information on how the universe works, yet remain immune to such truth and continue to stubbornly repeat your debunked falsehoods? Hypocrite!
 
God was against the abominations of nations that sacrificed babies to Molok, Baal etc. & etc.. (hence the destruction of those nations and peoples).
How many people has the god of the Bible murdered, or had murdered? For fucks sake, Biblegod killed every single living person on the planet (except for a small handful on a boat). Why should anyone take lessons in morality from a god that commits genocide on a planetary scale? What possible abominations by humans could possibly justify such a horrific act?

Please don't lecture us on morality and how women should not be terminating their pregnancies when you get your morality from a fucking genocidal tyrant.
 
Last edited:
I understand excreationist. But I fail to understand why it would matter. Why couldnt the devil give us bad scriptures too?

Right? The entire Christian pantheon should be capable of bad writing and lies.
😬
 
For fucks sake, Biblegod killed every single living person on the planet (except for a small handful on a boat). Why should anyone take lessons in morality from a god that commits genocide on a planetary scale?
That is what I wrote. Do my statements accurately communicate the point I was trying to make? If so, why do we need a derail on the nuances of the meaning of the word genocide? Do you agree that it is hypocritical for mindfucked Christians to be opining about the morality of abortion rights while proclaiming that their deranged, mass-murdering God should be considered the standard bearer for perfect morality?

I wouldn't call that genocide because I think genocide involves targeting specific ethnicities or nations.
 
I understand excreationist. But I fail to understand why it would matter. Why couldnt the devil give us bad scriptures too?
Right? The entire Christian pantheon should be capable of bad writing and lies.
😬
There are some examples of later additions to the Bible... e.g. the end of Mark -
The NIV says "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20"

"[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]" (about the adulteress and throwing the first stone)

It doesn't make sense that God would inspire the original then add more later.
 
Well I guess it means "everyone who is a Jew"
... And Gay... And Roma... And Black

Eventually it would have become "Germans who aren't proper enough Nazis."
 
.....Slaves (mainly bond-servants) were treated better under the Hebrews because that was commanded by God.
What about Exodus 21:20-21?
“Suppose a person beats their male or female slave to death with a club. That person must be punished. But they will not be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two. After all, the slave is their property."
Normally the penalty for murder is death.... in this passage it just talks about some kind of punishment.
If you go a little further, you may see some context to the degree of punishment that's implied here.

Exodus 21:23-25

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.



(In the ESV bible, the context understanding of the same verse, you highlighted in Exodus 21:-20-21, suggests a similar degree of punishment: as in the above verses 23, 24 and 25:

Exodus 21:20 ESV

20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he (or she) shall be avenged. )
 
Exodus 21:20 ESV
20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he (or she) shall be avenged. )
Yes they are "punished" if the slave dies but if they get up after a day or two they should not be punished. i.e. if the slave lost a tooth or an eye, the perpetrator would still receive no punishment. "After all, the slave is their property"
 
Exodus 21:20 ESV
20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he (or she) shall be avenged. )
Yes they are "punished" if the slave dies but if they get up after a day or two they should not be punished. i.e. if the slave lost a tooth or an eye, the perpetrator would still receive no punishment. "After all, the slave is their property"

Reading the two verses below Ex:21: 26-27, we can see that... slaves were to be set free, after recieving such physical injuries, caused by their owners. Now... what is of interest here, is the kinds of intentions and reasons, that these owners would have, for punishing their slaves.

Were there good reasons to punish slaves, like for example, when a slave is breaking strict rules, causing trouble or fights with other slaves, commitng a crime like stealing etc. & etc..? Although the owner may have had a good reason to punish his slave... And IF he went overboard on the punishment, would he, the owner then have to 'set the slave free' after causing such injuries? There seems to be some justly balance shown in the verses below, even if you were to consider the times back then, as being harsh.

Exodus 21:26-27

26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.

27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.



And these verses below, 23,24, & 25, look different in context. The owner gets punished in a 'likewise manner' ... for having poor, or no-good-reasons, badly treating his slaves....

Exodus:21:24 - 25

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
 
Last edited:
Exodus 21:20 ESV
20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he (or she) shall be avenged. )
Yes they are "punished" if the slave dies but if they get up after a day or two they should not be punished. i.e. if the slave lost a tooth or an eye, the perpetrator would still receive no punishment. "After all, the slave is their property"
Reading the two verses below Ex:21: 26-27, we can see that... slaves were to be set free, after recieving such physical injuries, caused by their owners.
Yes it actually talks about losing a tooth or an eye (like I mentioned in my example) though unlike a regular person (an eye for an eye, etc) they just have to set them free.

BTW are you aware of any verses in the Bible that say that slavery is immoral? I think in the civil war many pastors used the Bible to justify slavery. The Bible even commands God's people to take slaves - e.g.
Deuteronomy 20:10-11
Suppose you march up to attack a city. Before you attack it, offer to make peace with its people. Suppose they accept your offer and open their gates. Then force all the people in the city to be your slaves. They will have to work for you.
 
Say for example: no one has any 'video footage', documenting the universe coming into being - to then, be able to offer the footage, showing either the BB or creation taking place. It depends on the type of confliction there is, of a truth that's being argued for.
Are you suggesting that one needs "video footage" of a cosmic event to determine whether an event happened, and how it happened? Do you have any idea what methods have been used by scientists to study the age of universe, and the nature of the early universe? The answer is obviously no.

I understand that you don't have a high school level education in the sciences, and it shows. I suggest that you either do some basic research to educate yourself before you post such nonsense and embarrass yourself, or not post at all.

I AM indeed suggesting that one needs the 'video footage', i.e., so that someone could for example.. 'put an end' to the 'Big Debate'... once and for al! I thought you'd realise, the blatant & obvious reason why W.C. Lane and Nicholas Kraus, and other people like them, or these threads on the forum still have debates? I suspect it's because those methods you mention, 'the study in the age of the universe etc.,' just doesn't seem to be enough for that debate to finally be rendered obsolete!

What you understand was hopeful thinking... I did science in High school and wasn't too bad at it, as it goes. Not top of the class but a just little more than average. And.... I have never been immune to research. Although, these last few years, at least 7 years now, I have shifted my focus of study, (if the little spare time allows me) to things biblical (where I sometimes feel the need to correct you when you're in error of the bible.;))
The bible isn't anti-science and science is not anti-biblical, they're two different types of discriptive observations.
They are nothing alike. Science is a tried and tested process we use to discover facts about the universe. The Bible is a book of mythological stories cobbled together some 2,000 years ago, and is completely unreliable when it comes to the subject of cosmic origins. The Bible may provide valuable insight into the lives and ideas of people at the time, but it has virtually no ability to provide reliable information about how the universe works.
What is it you're saying?

You: "They're nothing alike.., science is atried and tested process..., the bible may provode valuable insight.., no ability to provide information on how the universe works?"

You're not plagiarising the gist of my post are you?

Mine: "The bible isn't anti-science and science is not anti-biblical, they're two different types of discriptive observations."

As I understand. God put the conscience into our hearts (and minds) - people go against the conscience for self-gratification on the detriment of others, by their own wills to do so, whilst knowing this could be painful for the victim etc.. The truth as Jesus describes, is the knowledge and acceptance of His existence and what He presents to us. '

The truth will set you free,' can be in terms of you overcoming these selfish acts. 'The truth will set you free' also overcomes the fear of death - or in terms of having NO fear of the tyranical. Tyrants and dictators, do not like Jesus or His followers!
Why are you so reluctant to pursue the truth, as the Bible advises? Why is it that you have spent years on these forums reading information on how the universe works, yet remain immune to such truth and continue to stubbornly repeat your debunked falsehoods? Hypocrite!

I have learnt quite a few things actually - one seems to be... falsehoods could be a strong point of yours - evident in the above.
Don't be a potato!
 
I admit, this kind of thinking is not my thing. As an atheist I only look at the god claim. "religious stuff" is like politics like politics to me. There is way to much personal need/agenda mixed in.

The only thing this shows is that bible is like asopes fables. The stories can be used to help guide us and taking it literally (for or against) can be nonsensical in using to evaluate the reliability of a god claims (in terms if there is one or not).

The slavery issue is good for showing how people think. "slavery", as wrong as it is, was used by many back then. Kind of like currency. No debts allowed so they use people. We remove the ability for a country to have debt past what they can pay and we will be back to slavery. In my opion anyway.

Slavery does show us how a person can think through problems. Or if a person is actually basing their position on a personal agenda. Ignoring historical context is a huge indicator to me. That tells me people willfully ignore some data so their beliefs remain in tact.

Other wise ... believing in "something more than humans", whatever that is to a person is, by far, more reliable than the reverse claim.
 
:staffwarn:

75 posts arguing about whether Yahweh is a genocidist or a holocidist have been moved to

 
Exodus 21:20 ESV
20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he (or she) shall be avenged. )
Yes they are "punished" if the slave dies but if they get up after a day or two they should not be punished. i.e. if the slave lost a tooth or an eye, the perpetrator would still receive no punishment. "After all, the slave is their property"

Reading the two verses below Ex:21: 26-27, we can see that... slaves were to be set free, after recieving such physical injuries, caused by their owners. Now... what is of interest here, is the kinds of intentions and reasons, that these owners would have, for punishing their slaves.

Were there good reasons to punish slaves, like for example, when a slave is breaking strict rules, causing trouble or fights with other slaves, commitng a crime like stealing etc. & etc..? Although the owner may have had a good reason to punish his slave... And IF he went overboard on the punishment, would he, the owner then have to 'set the slave free' after causing such injuries? There seems to be some justly balance shown in the verses below, even if you were to consider the times back then, as being harsh.

Exodus 21:26-27

26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.

27 And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.



And these verses below, 23,24, & 25, look different in context. The owner gets punished in a 'likewise manner' ... for having poor, or no-good-reasons, badly treating his slaves....

Exodus:21:24 - 25

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
A prime example of how Christians believing every word in the bible is inspired by god can justify almost any kind of behavior.

The ancient Hebrew morality and punishment was more lie the conservative Islam we see today in laces like Saudi Arabia and Iran,
 
A prime example of how Christians believing every word in the bible is inspired by god can justify almost any kind of behavior.

The ancient Hebrew morality and punishment was more like the conservative Islam we see today in laces like Saudi Arabia and Iran,
Well that morality involved Moses and in Islam he is an "important prophet and messenger of God"
 
Back
Top Bottom