I have now met a real life creationist.

[Learner]

How much more would you do to prove you rose from the dead?

There'd be the advantage (If Jesus was here now) with the likes of James Randy to see with his own eyes.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How much more would you do to prove you rose from the dead?

There'd be the advantage (If Jesus was here now) with the likes of James Randy to see with his own eyes.

That's what Judas asked in Jesus Christ Superstar. WHy appear in a little Imperial backwater full of unrest? Why not appear NOW, and take full advantage of television?

Or maybe in 1950? Show up and perform a miracle like broadcasting in Color, even to B&W television sets! That'd be freaking impressive. Wouldn't have to do anything else, just have a talk show that NEVER was interrupted by static, that always showed in color, that needed no sponsor and even the original tapes would pplay in color on intentionally color-hampered sets.

 

[Learner]

So, it's still true that you have to let your Hebrew slave go free after a certain time, but you can keep his wife and kids?
But if he wants to stay with his family, it's okay to pound an awl through his ear and keep him forever?
This, God's law for keeping slaves, is still 'true' and needs no update?

Ok I gather this is the Hebrews themselves during exodus. The times when the Israelites were given harsh laws by going against God by wickedness.

Slaves according to God were treated better than the far distant treatment in comparison to the racial version of slavery as we know much later :

Colossians 4

4 Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

2 Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving;


Ephesians 6:5-9

5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;

7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:

8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing

 

[blastula]

So God's a moral relativist. I hear that leads to nihilism and marijuana.

 

[Learner]

That's what Judas asked in Jesus Christ Superstar. WHy appear in a little Imperial backwater full of unrest? Why not appear NOW, and take full advantage of television?

Or maybe in 1950? Show up and perform a miracle like broadcasting in Color, even to B&W television sets! That'd be freaking impressive. Wouldn't have to do anything else, just have a talk show that NEVER was interrupted by static, that always showed in color, that needed no sponsor and even the original tapes would pplay in color on intentionally color-hampered sets.

As it is written in the bible according to Christianity, Jesus will be seen by the "masses" when he returns again. Till then people will only see these events; miracles or perhaps Jesus himself individually as many believed they have witnessed and have given testimony.

 

[Ford]

That's what Judas asked in Jesus Christ Superstar. WHy appear in a little Imperial backwater full of unrest? Why not appear NOW, and take full advantage of television?

Or maybe in 1950? Show up and perform a miracle like broadcasting in Color, even to B&W television sets! That'd be freaking impressive. Wouldn't have to do anything else, just have a talk show that NEVER was interrupted by static, that always showed in color, that needed no sponsor and even the original tapes would pplay in color on intentionally color-hampered sets.

As it is written in the bible according to Christianity, Jesus will be seen by the "masses" when he returns again.

And when's that?

 

[bilby]

Middle-class, Western, secular atheist hypocrites lecturing me about biblical slavery while they reap the rewards of wage slavery. Where was your smartphone made?

Atheists can't own slaves because...why?

Because natural selection requires a "fair go" ?
Because the human species is more 'special' than the others you enslave?

Because the love of money is the root of all evil?
Because slavery is theft and that's a sin?

Atheists shouldn't own slaves, because like anyone else, they can tell that it's morally wrong to own other people.

This we can tell by applying the golden rule, which despite the claims of a number of religions, is a secular rule, and requires no Gods in order to apply.

I don't think anyone should own slaves, because I would not like to be owned as a slave.

But oddly, your un-editable 'truth' can't even manage to get that simple idea right.

Oh, and Tu Quoque is STILL a fallacy.

Can I take it from your repeated diversions and deflections that you cannot actually reconcile your claim that the Bible contains truth that needs no editing, with the clear evidence that the Bible holds slavery to be acceptable (as long as you do it according to the rules)?

Because you seem really, really keen to avoid calm and reasoned discussion of this point.

No matter how emotional you might be over the poor wage slaves who built my iPhone, the fact remains that your book of morals is in desperate need of revision, and anyone with an ounce of decency can see it.

And even if you could prove that I am the worlds biggest hypocrite, that would not detract one iota from your hypocrisy.

 

[Lion IRC]

..."If Christ were here he'd camera check. He'd cry so loud the planes would stop.
He'd cry so loud the earth would shake. And men would fall in tinsel town."

Who can stand in the way? When there's a dollar to be made?

 

[DrZoidberg]

..."If Christ were here he'd camera check. He'd cry so loud the planes would stop.
He'd cry so loud the earth would shake. And men would fall in tinsel town."

Who can stand in the way? When there's a dollar to be made?

But God according to Christian theology is omnipotent. So the fact that he isn't tells us that he wouldn't. So it's just wrong.

Anything God or Jesus would do he does, and all the stuff he wouldn't he doesn't. All that's left is for making bullshit excuses for why he sucks so much.

 

[Lion IRC]

Where's the 'hypocrisy,' though?
The atheists who've read the bible are the ones who think slavery is a bad thing.

Do they?
Or is it just part of the usual anti-bible polemic?
Why is slavery 'bad' according to atheism? Almost every atheist I've ever talked to thinks Darwinian natural selection is the gold standard - to the victor goes the spoils, law of the jungle, survival of the fastest, strongest, smartest, luckiest.
I saw the Global Atheism Conference agenda. Where was the topic "Slavery in the 21st Century"?

...Lion's the one who's been promoting the book, which endorses and codifies slavery, as a good thing, and NOW wants to whine about a different sort of slavery.

The bible does NOT endorse slavery.

...Have any atheists promoted their smartphones as a sign that science or a secular society or capitalism is perfect and needs no update?

Only when they're busy telling creationists that we should get off our computers if we don't worship science instead of religion. Only when they're busy boasting about how many scientists are atheists.

...If not, that's kind of a strawman as well as a tu quoque, isn't it?

It would be a tu quoque fallacy if I said yeah the bible supports slavery
...but so do atheists!

Except the bible opposes slavery.

 

[bilby]

It would be a tu quoque fallacy if I said yeah the bible supports slavery
...but so do atheists!

Except the bible opposes slavery.

That verse doesn't mention slavery at all. Where the Bible DOES mention slavery (which it does a LOT), it is very clear that it considers it a normal and everyday occurrence, that is to be done only in the proscribed fashion. Nowhere does the Bible condemn slavery, despite mentioning it on many occasions.

That's not opposition. That's qualified support.

What a missed opportunity for the 'truth that does not require editing'. Surely, IF the Bible opposes slavery, but the Bible only says "Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God." in opposition to slavery, it might be wise to edit this passage to at least MENTION the slavery it supposedly stands in opposition to? Why not say "Whoever owns slaves shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God."?

And saying 'Atheists support slavery' as a defence against claims that the Bible supports slavery is a Tu Quoque fallacy whether or not you agree with the claim under debate (that the Bible supports slavery).

We are not discussing what atheists do or do not support; and the reason we are not discussing that is that it makes NO difference to whether or not the Bible supports or does not support anything. What the Bible supports is independent of whether or not any other entity supports that thing.

 

[James Brown]

Anyone reading the Bible for the first time would conclude that slavery is acceptable when properly regulated.

If only Jehovah had taken as hard a line against slavery as he did idolatry. There was none of this "that was the standard at the time but they couldn't do anything about it back then because it would have been too disruptive" when it came to idolatry. It was forbidden, full-stop, and even encoded into the Ten Commandments.

There's a reason that Christians both for and against slavery are able to find verses supporting their position.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There's a reason that Christians both for and against slavery are able to find verses supporting their position.

Yes, Christains on both sides of the Civil War knew for certain that they were doing God's work, and the blasphemers on the other side weren't really Christains.

Hilarious, really, since both sides were using the same sourcebook for their platforms...

 

[bilby]

There's a reason that Christians both for and against slavery are able to find verses supporting their position.

Yes, Christains on both sides of the Civil War knew for certain that they were doing God's work, and the blasphemers on the other side weren't really Christains.

Hilarious, really, since both sides were using the same sourcebook for their platforms...

The same is true for a huge number of conflicts; The same sourcebook was used by both sides in the Northern Ireland Troubles; The Thirty Years War; and the English Civil War, to name but a few.

It's a shame nobody thought to edit the damn thing to make completely clear what the Truth was in each of these disagreements.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Bible does in fact support slavery in a number of verses, but.....

Exodus 21:16
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

So many people objected to the sort of slavery that existed in the United States because of this verse. Of course many slaves were people enslaved by various African kinglets who sold them into slavery for trinkets and gain. The slavers claimed not to have themselves stolen anybody.

 

[bilby]

The Bible does in fact support slavery in a number of verses, but.....

Exodus 21:16
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

So many people objected to the sort of slavery that existed in the United States because of this verse. Of course many slaves were people enslaved by various African kinglets who sold them into slavery for trinkets and gain. The slavers claimed not to have themselves stolen anybody.

So buying, selling and owning slaves is OK; But enslaving people is not. That implies that owning slaves born into your possession is AOK; And that the only people who are in trouble with God over the whole slavery thing, are those who capture and enslave people - but as long as those guys are heathens, it's really not a problem - they were doomed anyway. You may put them to death, if you can catch them.

What un-erring moral Truth that is. Clearly in no need of the slightest revision.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The Bible does in fact support slavery in a number of verses, but.....

Exodus 21:16
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

So many people objected to the sort of slavery that existed in the United States because of this verse. Of course many slaves were people enslaved by various African kinglets who sold them into slavery for trinkets and gain. The slavers claimed not to have themselves stolen anybody.

So buying, selling and owning slaves is OK; But enslaving people is not. That implies that owning slaves born into your possession is AOK; And that the only people who are in trouble with God over the whole slavery thing, are those who capture and enslave people - but as long as those guys are heathens, it's really not a problem - they were doomed anyway. You may put them to death, if you can catch them.

What un-erring moral Truth that is. Clearly in no need of the slightest revision.

Except that it was just common sense back then that the losers of any wars would become slaves. So if it doesn't have a rule against it, then it supports the practice.

Anyway... that would be a source of new slaves.

 

[Lion IRC]

When healthcare professionals offer society their advice for harm minimisation approaches to illicit drug use they aren't "endorsing" drug use.
So it is in the bible where we see attempts to regulate the existing institution of slavery.

Many people in biblical times sold themselves into slavery. And many slaves had the option not to be slaves - they were free to run off into the desert and starve to death.

 

[DrZoidberg]

When healthcare professionals offer society their advice for harm minimisation approaches to illicit drug use they aren't "endorsing" drug use.
So it is in the bible where we see attempts to regulate the existing institution of slavery.

Many people in biblical times sold themselves into slavery. And many slaves had the option not to be slaves - they were free to run off into the desert and starve to death.

Healthcare professionals aren't omnipotent, nor omniscient. Harm reduction is based upon an acceptance that a certain problem cannot be solved outright. So they have to aim for the best they can do. But if someone is omnipotent there's no problem they can't solve. If they don't, it implies that they don't want to.

There's also the problem of context. The Bible is written in yea olden days. So reflects that context. It would be zero effort for an omnipotent God to just instantly rewrite every single Bible in existence to reflect modern society. But God doesn't. Doesn't that imply that God wants us to go back to a bronze age society? The fact that we're at all having this discussion implies that God is a useless communicator. Which implies that we can't trust anything in the Bible, even if God did write it.

There's just so many problems here.

 

[atrib]

Well said!

...If you think there's a conflict between science and religion you, by definition, think that religion is spreading lies.

Or science. In science they're not called lies, they're called 'mistakes' or 'tentative' claims.

Science is a process that builds incrementally upon the works of others who have worked before in any field. Scientists use the best tools and observations available to them at any given time, and as the technology and the quality of our observations improves, so advances our state of knowledge. I will give you an example. Over 300 year ago, Newton published his understanding of how the universe works using a series of laws. Newton's laws defined a clockwork universe that works well for most of the conditions we deal with in our day to day lives, and is still used today by engineers and scientists for many tasks. About 100 years ago, Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity, which superseded Newton's laws and introduced a much better description of how the material universe and macroscopic objects behave. General Relativity works over a MUCH wider set of conditions, and can address the behavior of very massive objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light, which Newton's laws cannot do. This does not mean Newton was wrong, or his ideas should be discarded as irrelevant. The exact opposite is true. Newton advanced our state of knowledge enormously through his work, and later scientists have been able to build upon these ideas and advance them further.

...I'm constantly waiting for the irony of this to hit home among religious fundies.... nope. Never happens. They just don't grasp the topic well enough.

I'm a fundy. And I love science.
Sadly, a lot of atheists falsely think that science doesn't love me back.
And a lot of atheistic/scientistic academics goes berserk when you suggest that intelligent design should be an available menu option in the science classroom.
If the quest for truth is so important, why the strident censorship of competing ideas?

Why should intelligent design be considered a scientific theory? What predictions does it make and how these predictions be verified? You claim to love science but you appear to lack an understanding of what science is.

...They're constantly saying stuff that implies that they're suspicious about truth, but have faith in falsehoods... and don't get what they just said.

Nope. They aren't "suspicious about truth".
They are suspicious of falsehoods - those mistakes which science itself keeps correcting.

Science is a self-correcting process. Scientific claims are subject to peer review and correction. This is a GOOD thing. How does one go about verifying and correcting the claims made by creationists?

...Add to that the misunderstanding of what science is. As if it's a person. So any statement said by any scientist that's proven wrong proves all of science wrong.

Oh. You don't like generalizations?
...but you happily label Fundies and knock down strawmen who are "suspicious about truth".

Based on your posts here, it is obvious to me that you don't understand what science is.

...Ehe... no. It proves that science works. But you need to understand how science works to understand that. The fundies clearly don't.

Aren't you just another science fundy?

If by science fundy, you mean someone who believes in and adheres to the scientific process, than yes, many of us here are science fundies. We are open to facts and reason, and we can change our beliefs when new evidence is presented that contradicts previously held beliefs. As opposed to creationists who are unwilling to consider any new information and evidence that contradict their dogmatic beliefs. Shutting your eyes and ears and going lalala may drown out what others are saying, but is this really how you want to live your life?