Is the bible the most immoral book ever written ? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is the bible the most immoral book ever written ?
in Religion

By DeeDee 382 Pts

Is the bible the most immoral book ever written ?

The bible is a truly despicable book which has a god who commands in his name abortion , infanticide , child abuse , misogyny, pestillance , famine ,drought , child sacrifice etc ,etc , it's a truly horrendous book that most Christians haven't read yet claim it's the word of a loving god and its possibly the most immoral b
SlanderIsNotDebate1995PogueanonymousdebaterBaconToeswith_all_humilityZombieguy1987PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
«134



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • But there isn't a nice god out there, so do you want the book to lie?
  • @someone234
    There isn't any god, the book is lying
    PogueZombieguy1987PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
    i fart cows
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    @someone234

    Ah yes Nom , ignore the question and troll , that’s ok it’s cool , I’m just trying this place out and I see it’s just the same old trolling so I will be out of here pretty soon 
  • someone234someone234 629 Pts
    edited March 2018
    @Dee no idea what you mean by Nom.

    As for answering the question, your question is ignoring some serious horrible and Gore books to compare to.
  • someone234someone234 629 Pts
    edited March 2018
    @BaconToes so all came from nothing for no reason and youryo a worthless hyperevolved monkey on a spinning ball destined to amount to dust.
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    edited March 2018
    @someone234

    “no idea what you mean by Nom.“

    really ? 

    “As for answering the question, your question is ignoring some serious horrible and Gore books to compare to.”

    Its ignoring nothing , it’s a question who’s purpose is to open up a dialogue regarding the issue which might encourage members to post up their ideas on the most immoral books ever written ; I wonder why I bother as it seems the objective of this site is trolling and who’s best at it 
    SlanderIsNotDebate1995
  • someone234someone234 629 Pts
    edited March 2018
    @Dee if you wanna be a crybaby then run along and cry. If you wanna be a real G then fight until you die.

    It's an old saying in the gangster world.
    SlanderIsNotDebate1995
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    @someone234

    Yeah , I guess it was a bridge to far expecting debate here , an old saying from the gangster world does not have the same impact on a debate about the Bible 
  • Can you give some supporting material, verses of the Bible, don't need them all. However, just throwing out some conjectures does not lend to good debate/discussion.
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    @with_all_humility

    I presumed most people would have a fleeting knowledge of the countless examples of immortality in the Bible , however here is some material from .......Evil Bible 

    God orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there.  He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).  He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses (Joshua 6).  In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!

    Just about every other page in the Old Testament has  God killing somebody!  In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church!  In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered

    The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 & Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).  This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.

    Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says it’s OK.  If more people would actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more atheists like myself.  Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven:  For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (Matthew 19:12).  I don’t know why anyone would follow the teachings of someone who literally tells all men to cut off their privates.

    The  God of the Bible also was a big fan of ritual human sacrifice and animal sacrifice.




    SlanderIsNotDebate1995with_all_humilityBaconToesAlofRI
  • edited March 2018
    Thanks Dee,

    I'll start by answering one of your misconceptions. "The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11)

    - Slavery or some translate it as Bondservant or not what you think of slaves, it is not like what happened here in America. In Exodus 21.1-11, v2 is critical in understanding the early Jewish society. is stats "When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh, he shall go out free, for nothing.

    So the question should be, why is a man a bondservant for only six years?  Men who sold themselves, as well as, the family were men who got into financial destitute.  All Jew received an inheritance if you will one, by the riches that were given to them to get out of Egypt, two by the land that was promised to them going into the promise land. Well, some men squandered their portion or were too lazy to work for themselves. This concept of slavery/servitude was enacted so that a man could pay off his debt.  In fact, God did not want anyone to remain a "slave" not of his own choosing.  So if a man sold himself and/or family into servitude the maximum time they could be a bondservant was 6 years, in the 7th year regardless if they had paid all of there debt, there were to be set free, and forgiven of their debt.  

    Now you might be asking why would God do this? The Old Testament accounts were to by shadows of things to come.  I other words, Israel is a physical example of what happens in the spiritual realm. You're probably rolling your eyes, think what the *@#! is he talking about.

    Look at Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
    What Paul is saying Adam's physical death, represent Spiritual death brought by sin and Moses bring the children of Isreal up out of the bondage of Egypt (suffering) is a type of Christ who has come to deliver the faithful followers unto Heaven.

    Slavery is a type/representation of sin; look at Romans 6:20  For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. Therefore Exodus 21 is telling us that God never intended mankind to be in a sinful nature for all eternity. Through His grace, He has provided us today a type of Moses (Christ) a means to be forgiven of our sins.  Just as God ensured the bondservant was freed.  

    Now as far as the form of slavery; it was not limited to just daughters, sons could be sold as well, notice is a man wanted to say with his master (of his choosing) he could do so.  But it was not forced up him. (v5)

    Notice in v8, a person or girl could not be sold to a foreigner, why, because then they would be treated as slaves.

    Exo 21:9  If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. Notice, if a girl was sold to a master, and she was to marry into the masters family.  She was to be treated as his daughter, in other words, a dowery and all the other customs of the time.

    This is a physical example of the relationship we have with God. Look at  Gal 4:7: So you are no longer a slavebut a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

    God never intended for any of his people to be mistreated and to be enslaved like those who were enslaved here in our county.  Look over in the NT in Col 3:22  Bondservants, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. (followed by) Col 4:1  Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

    So, where the OT is not quite as straightforward as the NT clearly shows God never intended nor condoned the mistreatment of fellow mankind.  In fact, I would say that Col 3.22 & 4.1 is what we would employee/employer relationship.   

    To show that God does not condone the type of "Slavery" you are thinking of... 

    1Timomthy 1:8-11: Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (So the NT make clear it was wrong, as sin to enslave someone)

    See, those who enslave people are in the same category as murderers. 

    Which one do you want me to debunk next?

    @Dee
    BaconToes
  • Dee,

    Is your reference to "Evil Bible" a publication that you non-believers have.  I would not think a non-believer would spend a whole lot of time reading the bible to find it's so-called flaws.

    I see sever non-believers/atheist regurgitate stuff from Rational Wiki.  It even talks about tactics when challenging people who believe in God/Bible.        

    You can proof my material if I use a source I'll give you references.  Just so you, know I appreciate you taking time to share your viewpoint.  

    @Dee
  • Answers for Deuteronomy 3 and Joshua 6

     First, the Promise that God made: Gen 15:13-16:  Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years.  But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward, they shall come out with great possessions.  As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age.  And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

    In the promise to Abram we see it mentioned he would judge (punish) Abram decedents nation the serve (Egypt). Notice why Abram could not go to the land at that time the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.  The people occupying the land (Deu 3) had not digressed (sin) against God completely.  The people could have chosen to obey, but as God knew, they would continue to become fully corrupt nations.

     Concerning the purging of the promise land i.e. Due 3, Jos 6.  Keeping in mind that the OT is anti-type or a shadow of things to come.  To get to understand how Israel’s journey parallels with that of a sinner & a Christian.  Read Romans chapters 9-11, especially 11:11-36, it is pretty straightforward and gives you a big picture take on why things happened the way they did.

     With that being said there are some important events that take place during this time, that will have an impact on the ushering in of the Christian age.  Let look at Due 3 a little closer.

     One thing we learn is God means what he says. The Israelites we told that would be delivered unto the promise land, a promise given to Abraham several hundred years ago.  While coming to the promise land the Israelites tested God’s patients rose up against Moses (a messenger of God, to go against Moses was to go against God) We find out in Numbers 14:28-30

     “Say to them, As I live, declares the LORD, what you have said in my hearing I will do to you: your dead bodies shall fall in this wilderness, and of all your number, listed in the census from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against me, not one shall come into the land where I swore that I would make you dwell, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun.”

     What had happened is back in Numbers 13, the people rebelled like I mentioned earlier. It is called THE REBELLION AT KADESH, for their rebellion/disobedience, God will not let them enter into the land until everyone above the age of 21 dies.  God, punishes on those who sin, the next generation, their children would be the ones to enter into the land.  (So, this shows that God is serious about what He says and expects you to obey him, of course, you have your free will to not obey, which leads to spiritual death)

     Next the entry into the Land, God said, “Do not think I’m giving you this land because you are better than the inhabitants. It is for the wickedness of these nations that I drive them out.” (Deuteronomy 9:4). Remember back in Gen 15.13-16, well the people of the land had become wicked enough to warrant their decimation.  It’s not that God is evil, God holds people accountable and punishes those who are wicked/sinful.  Another thing, that will become apparent in the future, exposure to corrupt people, bring about the corruption of your own.  This is another reason God wanted the land purged of evil, so as to protect Israel from becoming corrupt.

     One of the best references for why God commanded the destruction of the nations within the promised land is in 2 Kings 17:6–20, in the explanation to Israel and Judah as to why God was allowing (or commanding) their destruction as a nation. In short, Israel and Judah (as nations) had become as evil as the nations before them. The "gods" of the Amorites, Canaanites, etc., had engaged in child sacrifice, and multiple other perversions. They served Asherah and Baal, and graven images. Romans 1 talks in generalities about the unrighteousness of humanity, saying that we "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (verse 25) and that "although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (verse 21). So, what is the big deal? Worshiping and serving idols will never lead to life, which is found in God alone (John 10:10; 14:6). Worshiping and serving self is not conducive to loving others. Not honoring God leads only to death. God's desire is that we seek Him in repentance and reliance upon Him, so that we may truly live and truly love others.

     We also see that God held His people to the same standard.

     We can see that not only did God care about the nations that did not know the truth, He also held Israel to the same standard of judgment. The only difference is that God protected the promise of the coming Messiah. Since Israel was the carrier of that promise, the Lord preserved a remnant, so the promise could be fulfilled. That ultimately came to fruition in Jesus Christ. In fact, if you read Daniel 9, God sends an angel to Daniel during his prayer of repentance. The angel Gabriel reveals that the nation will return, and 490 years later the Messiah would present Himself to Israel and would be cut off. We know this as the crucifixion.

     Joshua 6 – The Walls of Jericho come tumbling down

     The significates of Joshua 6 are that it is a shadow/anti-type of what it is to have Faith in God.

    We can read about these significates of the faith starting in Heb 11.30-31: By faith, the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days. By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe when she had received the spies with peace.

     So out of this account, we see that God had the Israelites do what some would consider being crazy and embarrassing. Now Israel had obviously gained a reputation, because we read that the city was shut up both inside and out.  Joshua had them to do exactly what God said to do and through their trust/faith in God, the walls fell on the seventh day.  I read an article several years ago, and scientist speculated that this could indeed happen. Because of the blowing of the horns. If the horns resonated at the right frequency the wall would have weekend and eventually give way and crumble apart.

     A surprising inclusion is the mention of Rahab, a prostitute who had faith in a couple of spies that told her God would see she was not harmed.  Because of this great faith (I would argue Rahab displayed more faith because she had not seen the power of God) and the following three facts are really significant because Rahab would integral part of the New Testament. First, she was a Gentile (in fact a Canaanite) not a Jew or Israelite, she was not of the chosen people, she was a woman, and a prostitute (prostitution is sexual immorality and therefore a sin). Rahab name is also mentioned positively in Matthew’s genealogy (Mat 1.5) and in Jas 2.25.

     Mat 1.5: and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, (Rahab ended up being part of the lineage of King David, who was the lineage that Christ’s Earthly father came from. Thus, fulfilling a prophecy that was made a thousand years before His birth. will be a descendant of David, the first great king of Israel, who reigned about 1000 B.C. (1 Chronicles 17.11-14; Psalms 89; 132; Isaiah 9:6-7). The Prophet Jeremiah called the Messiah a branch of David.  “Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.” Jeremiah 23.5

     The third significant thing about Rahab, she is mentioned in James 2.25: “And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?”  Here we see she is an example of how we are to be as Christians, not only did Rahab believe in God, she acted upon that belief.  And because of this she was forgiven of her sins (justified) and end up being a key person in the scheme of redemption.  See this is where a lot of people don’t understand what it is to be a Christian and what God expects.  It’s not enough to believe, we have to act upon those beliefs just like the Israelites at Jericho and that of Rahab.   

    @Dee
  • You have built a strawman argument that has presumptuous claims taken completely out of context.  When evaluation the Bible you have to read more than a single verse.  Just like your assumption on Judges 21, you have to go back almost two chapters to understand what is taking place and who is telling whom what to do.  

    In Judges 21, You are confused as to whom is telling who what to do.  This whole episode starts in chapter 19.22. A man and his wife from Mizpah come to visit another man from Gibeah.  Some men from town come banging on the door asking the master of the house to send out his guest.  They plea with the drunks to go away, in fact, the master of the house offers his daughter to them.  The next day the man from Mizpah goes outside and finds his wife has been killed, presumably by the drunken men from Gibeah the town that belongs to the tribe of Benjamin.

     Needless to say, this leads to war, several thousand people get killed.  At first, the Benjamites were whining most of the battles, after several days of loss.  The men of elders of Israel got to God in the tabernacle and ask for His guidance, God tells them on the 3rd day to go out one more time and that He would be with them to aid in punishing the Benjamites. Now that’s all that God says, in other words, God would aid the men in defeating the men of the tribe of Benjamin.

     Thing got carried away, now mind you the tribe of Benjamin was on about 30,000 men where Israel was 400,000 soldiers strong.  That day, Israel defeated the Benjamites all except for 600 men, evidently, during this battle the men of Israel took it upon themselves to kill all of the women of Benjamin.  This was not God’s doing, this was the men of Israel. Before the battle, the men of Israel made an oath with Mizpah that they would not give any of their daughters to the men of Benjamin.  Well after the battle is done, the men of Israel realize what they have done and that the tribe of Benjamin would cease to exist.   

     Well to rectify the situation the elders come up with the dumb idea of a second war this time with a town called Jabesh-Gilead.  They send 12,000 men who kill everyone except for 400 virgins. Who are brought back by force and given to the surviving men of Benjamin?  Still not having enough women, the elders ordered (not God) the two hundred Benjamites to lie in wait in the vineyards, and when the girls come out to dance, each of them is to abduct one of the women and then return to his own land. Several elements in the directions call for comment.

    Interpreting positively these women may have simply been doing a cultic dance in joyful celebration of Yahweh’s favor, especially if this feast is one of the three festivals obligatory for all males. On the other hand, the emphasis on the vineyards as the hiding place for the Benjamites may be intended as more than a topographical note. It may also provide a clue to the time of this festival - the grape harvest, which would be characterized by drinking, music, and dance. In the context seems to be increasingly the people of Israel becoming a Canaanized society, this interpretation would certainly fit. It may also explain the unusual identification of the dancers as “daughters of Shiloh.” If these were ordinary young girls accompanying their parents at the annual festival, the elders would have referred to them as “daughters of Israel.”

     But “daughters of Shiloh” sounds like a special professional class of female dancers associated with the cult of Shiloh. The inspiration for such cultic personnel and such cultic activity may well have come from Canaanite religious customs, in keeping with the characteristically abusive manner in which men (not God) treat women in the Book of Judges, the elders of Israel sanction violence against their own daughters.

     Although the elders may claim a stroke of genius in their solution to the problem of the Benjamites, viewed from the perspective of the young virgins what they have sanctioned is an unspeakable crime. In the midst of joyful celebration, these young women are suddenly to be abducted and dragged away from home. It does not seem to matter to the elders that these same Benjamites have only recently defended their fellow tribesmen after they had gang-raped a young woman.

     In v. 22 If the fathers or brothers of the abducted girls lodge a protest to the elders, they have prepared a standardized response. Unfortunately, the meaning of their prepared statement.

    Although the elders accept responsibility for the fate of the girls, this answer is clearly crafted to serve their own and the Benjamites’ interests. But in the clarifying comment, the elders admit that in the war (i.e., the attack on Jabesh-Gilead) they had been unable to provide wives for the two hundred men.

     Although the elders’ solution transgresses every standard of morality and decency, this rationalization satisfies the letter of the law of the oath. No Israelite will have given his daughter in marriage to the Benjamites. At the same time, the rationalization puts the protesting fathers and brothers in a bad light for putting personal and family interests ahead of the interests of the tribe and the nation.

     Some takeaways: To the reader it sounds so casual and inconsequential, but this report must be interpreted in light of Deut 13.13–19, which describes how cities and regions that have been subjected to the law of holy war are to be dealt with: they are to remain a ruin in perpetuity, and they must never be rebuilt (v. 16) as a warning of the grave consequences of abandoning the standards of covenant commitment and life. Through Moses God had warned that if the Israelites stoop to behaving like Canaanites, then they can expect the same fate (Deut 8.19–20).

     The narrator never declares so out rightly, but the present account, coming as it does at the end of the book affirms the total Canaanization of the tribe of Benjamin and the Israelites’ falsely based sympathy for their brothers. Having taken what, they deemed appropriate steps to revive the fallen tribe, the Israelites broke camp and set out for their respective tribes and families and their own patrimonial holdings as if everything was in order (v. 24).[1]

     In just about one to two generations after Moses, the Tribes of Israel are becoming like the nations that were driven out, God treated them like the nations that were driven out. But the promise was given as a sure covenant and wasn’t based on Israel’s worthiness but on God’s promise to Abraham. That promise was fulfilled in the coming of Christ and the ushering in of the New Covenant and now we are partakers of that promise through Christ.

     

    Now, I have refuted 80% of your claims and proven that you have done nothing to prove your arguments other than list a bunch of pretext arguments because you have not read the verses in context.  Do you want me to proceed in exposing your fallacies or would like a chance to reexamine your arguments and provide a more dependable position?

    [1] Block, D. I. (1999). Judges, Ruth (Vol. 6, pp. 580–583). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers

      @Dee
  • evilbible.com Claim: God Commands Burning Humans: “The one who has stolen what was set apart for destruction will himself be burned with fire, along with everything he has, for he has broken the covenant of the LORD and has done a horrible thing in Israel.” (Joshua 7:15 NLT)

    Again another pretext 

    HOMILIES BY E. DE PRESSENSE

    The accursed thing

    Immediately after the taking of Jericho, Israel found itself suddenly arrested in its career of conquest. Its advanced guard received a humiliating repulse from the inhabitants of the small town of Ai. Joshua was driven almost to despair by this defeat, because it seemed to doom the army of Israel to feebleness and failure, by the withdrawal of the presence and power of God. It seemed as if the heavens were closed against him, and he could no more reckon upon that invincible Divine aid which had been hitherto the strength of his arms. He rent his garments and called upon God, and the answer came, "Israel hath sinned … for they have taken of the accursed thing." This trangression of the covenant was the cause of their defeat, and this alone. And in our own day it is "the accursed thing" which is still the sole obstacle to the victories of the people of God, and to His blessing resting upon them. Let us look at flits sin in its cause, in its effects, and in its reparation.

    I. THE CAUSE OF THIS SIN is covetousness born of the selfishness which leads to rebellion. The unhappy Achan could not resist the desire to secure for himself a share of the booty, he sought his own selfish ends in the cause of God. That cause requires to be served with complete self devotion, and with an eye to God alone. Achan thought first of satisfying his own avarice. A holy war must be waged holily. From the moment when the base passion of selfishness creeps in, it ceases to be a holy war. It is then even worse than any other war, for God will not suffer His name to be profaned. Whenever the so-called defenders of the Church have sought their own glory, when they have aimed at securing power or fortune for themselves, they have paved the way for defeat. This is equally true of individuals. To make use of the cause of God for one’s own ends is not only to dishonour, but fatally to compromise it; for it is then no longer the cause of God, but the cause of the devil.

    II. THE EFFECT of intermeddling with the accursed thing IS TO LOSE THE HELP OFGOD, and to bring down His anger. The heavenly Father is no blind and unjust parent, who has favourites whose transgressions He winks at. He chastises those whom He loves, and because He loves them; He does not allow them to harden their hearts in rebellion against Him. Hence He makes them feel the Father’s chastening rod (Heb 12:16). It is not tolerable, moreover, that the cause of God should be confounded with that of ambition and self seeking, or that His name should be used as a cloak for covetousness. Therefore, as soon as Israel violates the covenant of God, it is visited with condign punishment. The victory of the rebel who makes use of the name of God would be, for that very reason, worse than his defeat. Defeat will show that the honor of God cannot be sullied by the sins of His people, for He repudiates them. We must not be suprised at finding that in every age God has made His people pass through the sharpest ordeal of chastisement. The heaviest of all chastisements is the interruption of communication with God. The heavens are pitiless iron and brass so long as the accursed thing is tampered with. The sin forms a wall between God and the soul, which there is no passing through.

    III. THE REPARATION OF THIS EVIL IMPLIESTWO SUCCESSIVE ACTS.

    1. Its confession. Achan must acknowledge his sin before all the people.

    2. The utter putting away of the accursed thing. Under the stern discipline of the old covenant, the guilty man perished with his unlawful prey. Under the new covenant, the justice of God is satisfied with that inward death which is called mortification, and which ought to be a true sacrifice of self. It is equally true now, however, that mere confession is not enough; that the idol must be consumed in the sacrificial fire. Any one who keeps in his possession the accursed thing, places himself under condemnation from which there is no escape. It does not signify whether the forbidden thing be materially of much or little value. It might have been thought that the theft of a single garment and of two hundred shekels of silver was of small account amidst all the rich booty of Jericho. It is the act itself which God condemns. The smallest forbidden thing retained is enough to shut up the heavens, and to draw down upon our Church, our home, and ourselves the severe judgment of God till it has been confessed and put away.—E.DE.P.

  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    @with_all_humility ;

    I’ve heard it all before and substituting the term slavery for bondservant is a pretty pathetic ploy and sadly typical , modern versions of the Bible have the term slave re-interpreted to become bondservant as it seems so much more palatable doesn’t it ?


    You sound exactly like a plantation owner would and did  whilst defending slavery and hilariously you’re using the self same tactics as in softening the terminology to suit your narrative 

    let’s attempt again to correct your defence of the indefensible ,


    Selling your daughter as a sex slave , no doubt this will translate into “ actually that’s a way of saying servant “ ?

    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

    So these are the Bible family values!  A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and has sex with them!


    What is the correct “ context “ for sex slavery ? 



    What does the Bible say about beating slaves?  It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing


    So beating a slave or bondservant as you call them is alright ?

    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)



    You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

    Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

    In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.

    The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)


    The Bible states clearly it’s opinion and gods opinion regards slavery so your amusing dance attempting to re-interpret what’s clearly written into something that’s not is amusing but pretty sad to be honest 

    Your smarmy comment at the end as in “ which one  do you want me to de-bunk next “ was noted , I play fair in debate but I always say “ if you throw the first insult well anticipate the same back “


    Incidentally I’m a former Catholic and trained and tutored by the intellectual branch of the church as in the Jesuit’s I know the Bible back to front in my native tounge , English and Latin 

    I may be leaving this site as my experiences have not endeared me to the site , I will address the rest of your argument dependent on your reply to my counter to your defence of biblical slavery 

    with_all_humilityBaconToes
  • “I’ve heard it all before and substituting the term slavery for bondservant is a pretty pathetic ploy and sadly typical, modern versions of the Bible have the term slave re-interpreted to become bondservant as it seems so much more palatable doesn’t it?”

     21:1 In saying, “These are the laws [mišpāṭı̂m, also translatable as “regulations,” “statutes”] you are to set before them,” God did not imply that what preceded—the Ten Words/Commandments and the reminders/implications of 20:22–26—were not also laws for Israel. Rather, the new term mišpāṭı̂m simply helped demarcate a corpus of law, the Book of the Covenant (21:1–23:33; cf. 24:7) that begins to provide greater specificity to the general sense of holy behavior required by the Ten Words/Commandments.[1]

     21 “Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them: 2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh, he shall go out free and pay nothing[2]

    ·      Notice a more modern translation uses Hebrew servant.  How many people work as servants for the rich today?

    ·      You never address the later clause that clearly shows this was not meant to be a permanent relationship, unlike slavery in the modern context

    21:2 Type of law: casuistic (its specific circumstance does not apply to people who do not employ or are not employed as servants). Paradigmatic application: virtually any contractual work arrangement.

    ·      The normal contractual arrangement for an Israelite (or, more broadly, as here, Hebrew) worker involved a service period of six years, which was “bought” by an employer who would normally be an individual with a large enough farm or other enterprise to be able to use the services of employees beyond the work his family members could do. There is no specification about how the money would be paid. Some servants may have agreed to a lump sum payment at the end of their six years of service, akin to what Jacob thought he was agreeing to when he obtained permission to marry Rachel (Gen 29:18–20). Others may have bargained for a lump sum payment at the very outset of their employment, which they then “worked off” over the next six years (akin to the arrangement Jacob was tricked into by Laban in Gen 29:23–30). Still, others must have agreed to periodic payments during the six years of their term of service.[3]

     Again, concerning Exodus 7-11 here is some scholarship on the text:

     7–11 The expectation of seventh-year release appears was denied to women (note however the later provision of Deut 15:12, where the man and the woman are both accorded the right of freedom in the seventh year). Though an owner may be unhappy with a female servant he has bought for himself (on the uses to which such female servants were put, see Mendelsohn, IDB 4:385–86), he is to permit her to be freed by the payment of a price, apparently by her family, or he is to make provision for her to remain within his own family, perhaps as a daughter-in-law. Despite his own dissatisfaction with her, he has no right to sell her to “a strange family[4]

     Notice how the Word commentary points out women/girls even at the dissatisfaction of the master had two options, sender her back to her FAMILY for price paid, or keep her in his own family as like a what “daughter-in-law” and despite his objections, he could not sell her to a “strange family”

    “You sound exactly like a plantation owner would and did whilst defending slavery and hilariously you’re using the self-same tactics as in softening the terminology to suit your narrative”

     ·      Fallacy of ad hominem; got to reduce to personal attacks…sad

    “self-same tactics as in softening the terminology”

    ·      I have not used my own terms, the Hebrew language was limited in vocabulary, unlike today’s English, so their words often had many of meanings and one has to take into consideration the context, use and description in other parts of the bible and excreta.

     “Selling your daughter as a sex slave, no doubt this will translate into “actually that’s a way of saying, servant “?”

    ·      Notice I provide the New King James Version (NKJV) that clearly uses the word servant, not slave

    ·      I showed again that she was not a sex slave, but like a member of the family (see above)

    ·       The Bible also forbids sexual relations outside of marriage but requires it within marriage, demonstrating that marriage represents a genuinely different state from singleness in God’s eyes, with sexual intimacy serving as the covenant seal of marriage, and regular sexual relations functioning as a small-scale but important and required periodic marriage covenant renewal.[5]

     

    You appear to avoid the answering of my evidence that this was NOT like plantation ownership.

    ·      Col 4.1 Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.[6]

     Commentary on Col 4.1:

     “No doubt these last words led Paul to address masters in terms of justice to their slaves. If they were to avoid judgment, they had to have a concern for fairness. Paul might well have inserted another proverb at this point: “The laborer is worthy of his hire.” Although slaves did not receive salaries, their basic needs were to be met in keeping with the value of human effort, time, and life. Such considerations would radically change the attitude of slaves to masters and of masters to slaves.

    The motivation given to masters (4:1b) reminded them that they, too, were slaves. The heavenly Master rules over all. Since presumably, they had read the words regarding the slaves’ heavenly Master, Paul could speak briefly to the masters with a cryptic comment. He obviously meant that the heavenly Master was all-seeing, sovereign, and just. Thus, in reality, earthly masters were slaves and were to treat their slaves like they would like to be treated.

    Two matters beyond the interpretation of the text call for comment. The first regards the institution of slavery. The second is the application of this passage to those for whom there is no slavery. Regarding the first, clearly, Paul sowed the seeds of equality. While it was impossible for the slave to effect equality, other than by the hard work which he would expect if he were a master, masters had a responsibility to treat their slaves fairly. When Paul said they were to do what was fair and right, he called on a sense of morality which, in time, spoke against the institution itself. Treating others, the way they wanted to be treated would mean the release of slaves. As discussed earlier, however, the Roman Empire was not ready for that message, and to preach that kind of rebellion in those circumstances would have hindered the message of the gospel. The deeper matters of fair dealing had to come from the heart anyway, and Paul spoke directly toward that end.

    This passage has no direct parallel application outside of slavery. The binding relationship of slave to master forms the context for a deep trust in the sovereignty of God and the value of human effort. The fact that slaves were considered part of the household called for masters to care for slaves as they would family members. Those dynamics generally do not exist today.[7]

    “What does the Bible say about beating slaves?  It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrongdoing.  So, beating a slave or bondservant as you call them is alright?”

    Intentional and Unintentional Homicide Laws (21:12–14)

    Type of law: casuistic (situation cited limited to homicides). Paradigmatic range: homicide in general, with an interest in protecting society from murderers while protecting those who committed accidental homicide.

    This compound law is structured chiastically, with the first and last assertions dealing with murder and the required response to it (capital punishment) and the middle assertion dealing with accidental homicide and the required response to it (protection of the one at fault by means of temporary residence at a city of refuge). Verse 12 envisions purposeful homicide, that is, murder, and requires, as is consistently the case in all Old Testament law, the juridical death of the murderer. The subject is indefinite, so no exemption is possible by reason of class or status or gender or age.[8]

     Laws on Life-Threatening Injury (21:18–21)

    Again, three closely related laws function together to present an overview of how people of any status are to be treated relative to inflicting serious harm that cripples someone.

    Type of law in all three cases: casuistic (addressed circumstances wherein someone had inflicted fatal or potentially fatal blows to someone else, including in the case of disciplining a servant). Paradigmatic range: virtually any situation where one person inflicted an injury on another that did not result immediately in death or permanent injury.[9]

    “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)”

    21:20–21 A somewhat parallel situation must then be considered because a righteous Israelite might ask, on the basis of the previous verses, “Can I not, then, use corporal punishment (“a rodbeing the paradigm word for any corporal punishment from slapping to caning) to discipline my servants or my children, for that matter?” Without the present law, this question could arise even though the situation of corporal punishment is not specifically a matter of fighting arising from an argument. This law does not doubt the legitimate right of an employer to punish a servant physically.  But it addresses the question of how far any physical punishment could go by using the example of a “slave”—whether male or female—who was beaten, presumably for some sort of serious wrongdoing (e.g., stealing from his employer, but cp. Lev 6:2–4). What the employer could not do was beat the servant so severely as to cause either permanent injury or death, for both such eventualities are clearly forbidden by this law.[10]

     Maybe the commentator’s notes make it clearer, the punishment of “slaves” was equal to the punishment of one’s child.  If this meant more than that, there would be contradiction and confusion within the whole law.  The big take away is whatever a person did to “slave” or child it could not leave permanent injury.  So, the idea of whipping a slave with a bullwhip and stripping the flesh from their back is not a proper view of how the Jewish nation was to treat one another.

    Perhaps a comparison of the laws for a Free Hebrew vs laws for Master/Slave will help show a succinct difference between “slavery” of the Old Testament vs 19th Century slavery

    Free men could likewise be punished by the legal system by rod-beating (Deu 25.1-3; Pro 10.13; 26.3), as could rebellious older sons (Pro 13.24; 22.15; 23.13). Beating by a rod (shevet) is the same act/instrument (flogging (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 89.32). This verse is in parallel to verses 18-19.  If two people fight but no one dies, the aggressor is punished by having to 'retributively' pay (out of his own money--"silver", ksph) for the victim's lost economic time and medical expenses. If it is a person's slave and this occurs, there is no (additional) economic payment--the lost productivity and medical expenses of the wounded servant are (punitive economic) loss alone. There was no other punishment for the actual damage done to the free-person in 18-19, and the slave seems to be treated in the same fashion. Thus, the 'property' attribute doesn't seem to suggest any real difference in ethical treatment of injury against a servant. Let's structure out the parallel:[11]

    Aspect

    Two "Free Hebrews"

    Master/Slave

    Victim:

    Freeman

    Slave

    Perp:

    Freeman

    Master

    Extent:

    "Confined to bed"

    "cannot get up"

    (i.e., Confined to bed)

    Bodily Harm:

    Wounded to point of needing a 'staff';

    Wounded to the point of needing medical attention and 'healing"

    [Unspecified, but sounds similar to the other case]

    Instrument used:

    Stone or fist

    Disciplinary rod

    (like elders used on criminals; and parents used on sons)

    Motive:

    "Brawl"

    Discipline

    Punitive Compensation:

    Loss of time;

    Cost of medical attention

    (paid in 'money'--'silver')

    Loss of time;

    Cost of medical attention

    (borne 'internally' - 'silver')

    If a victim dies"

    Perp Executed

    Perp Executed

    It should be obvious that the 'slave' in this case is raised to at least as high a level as is the Free Hebrew! [The context actually may raise the slave HIGHER, due to the eye/tooth passage[12].

    The aggressor must indemnify the victim for loss of income, here called 'idleness', and for medical expenses as well. This text (about the Freeman) is curiously silent on the law governing the infliction of permanent injury." It may be only the slave who is protected in the case of permanent injury?

    ·      The discipline of free men (and older sons) by the community MIGHT form the backdrop (and boundary?) for this type of rod-usages. Here are verses to compare with this master/slave discipline:

    ·      When men have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty.  If the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall make him lie down and have him flogged in his presence with the number of lashes his crime deserves, but he must not give him more than forty lashes. If he is flogged more than that, your brother will be degraded in your eyes. (Deut 25.1-3)

    ·      “I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. (2 Sam 7.14)

    ·      “Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath! I send him against a godless nation, I dispatch him against a people who anger me" (Isa 10.5f)

    ·      He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.  (Pro 13.24)

    This Exodus passage is very instructive because it places slaves (both Hebrew and foreign, apparently) on a legal-protection par with full, free citizens. It no more 'authorizes' a master to abuse a slave, than it 'authorizes' a Hebrew to bash his fellow's head with a rock, knocking him unconscious for a day or so! Notice some of the commentators on this passage:

    First, the JPS Torah Commentary 

    "This law-the protection of slaves from maltreatment by their masters-is found nowhere else in the entire existing corpus of ancient Near Eastern legislation. It represents a qualitative transformation in social and human values and expresses itself once again in the provisions of verses 26-27. The underlying issue, as before, is the determination of intent on the part of the assailant at the time the act was committed.

     ·      his slave The final clause of verse 21 seems to indicate that the slave in question is a foreigner. Otherwise, the terminology would be inappropriate, given the conditions under which an Israelite might become enslaved.

     ·      a rod Hebrew shevet, the customary instrument of discipline [2 Sam 7.14 (to the sons of David!); Isa 10.5,24; Pro 10.13; 13.24; 23.13-14; 26.3]. The right of a master to discipline his slave within reason is recognized. But according to rabbinic exegesis, it is restricted to the use of an implement that does not normally have lethal potentiality, and it may not be applied to a part of the body considered to be particularly vulnerable.

     ·      There and then Literally, "under his hand," in contrast to "a day or two" in verse 21. The direct, immediate, causal relationship between the master's act and the death of the slave is undisputed. The master has unlawfully used deadly force, and homicidal intent is assumed.

     ·      He must be avenged The master is criminally liable and faces execution, in keeping with the law of verse…The verb n-k-m is popularly taken to signify "revenge." Actually, it means "to avenge," that is, to vindicate, or redress, the imbalance of justice. Its use in the Bible is overwhelming with God as the subject, and in such cases, it always serves the ends of justice. It is employed in particular in situations in which normal judicial procedures are not effective or cannot be implemented. It does not focus on the desire to get even or to retaliate; indeed, Leviticus 19:18 forbids private vengeance.

    ·      "Verse 21. Should the beaten slave linger more than a day before succumbing, certain new and mitigating circumstances arise. The direct, causal relationship between the master's conduct and the slave's death is now in doubt, for there may have been some unknown intermediate cause. The intent of the master appears less likely to have been homicidal and more likely to have been disciplinary. He is given the benefit of the doubt, especially since he is losing his financial investment, the price of the slave."

    Then, Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible

    ·      "The second case involved a master striking his slave, male or female. Since the slave did not die immediately as a result of this act of using the rod (not a lethal weapon, however) but tarried for "a day or two" (v. 21), the master was given the benefit of the doubt; he was judged to have struck the slave with disciplinary and not homicidal intentionsThis law is unprecedented in the ancient world where a master could treat his slave as he pleased. When this law is considered alongside the law in v26-27, which acted to control brutality against slaves at the point where it hurt the master, vs, his pocketbooka whole new statement of the value and worth of the personhood of the slave is introduced. Thus, if the master struck a slave severely enough only to injure one of his members, he lost his total investment immediately in that the slave won total freedom; or if he struck severely enough to kill the slave immediately, he was tried for capital punishment (vv. 18-19). The aim of this law was not to place the slave at the master's mercy but to restrict the master's power over him (cf. similar laws in the Code of Hammurabi 196-97, 200).[13]

    Then, Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch,

    "The slave's personal dignity is also evident in the prescriptions concerning personal injury (Ex 21.20-27). Since the punishments for mistreatment are meant to restrain the abuse of slaves…Clearly, the personal rights of slaves override their master's property rights over them."[14]

    Now, when I back up and look at this passage, factoring in these observations, I note the following:

    1.     This passage is unparalleled in its humanitarian considerations.

    2.     This passage is absolutely anti-abuse, in the strongest sense of the term.

    3.     This passage is completely parallel to the case of the freeman, under discipline by the community.

    4.     This passage is completely parallel to the case of a brawl between Hebrews:

    5.     It applies primarily to the foreigner.

    6.     The "because he is his property" is NOT about 'property', but about how the punitive payment was made (economic 'silver'--lost output, increased medical expense)

    7.     It is a remarkable assertion of human rights over property rights.

    Although the matter under discussion is Hebrew servitude, one verse about foreign slaves might also be illustrative of the heart of Yahweh in this issue of treatment: 

    ·      If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master.  Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him. (Deut 23.15-16)

    ·      This passage refers to slaves, without any mention of their origin. No matter what the cause of their servitude, nor the cause of their refuge, God still says that extradition is NOT to be done! (We will come back to this amazing verse, but note here that it is in abject disagreement with all other ANE codes:  ANE as in HumANE

       o   "According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to its master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not take advantage of (Deut 23:16-17). This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations and is explained as due to Israel's own history of slaves."[15]


    “You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show."

    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)”

    ·      You conveniently overlook verse 9 “And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.”[16]

    ·      This is a fallacy, because you are Cherry-picking verse, making pretext meaning “a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason.”

    ·      You have to READ more than just one verse


    “Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)”

    ·      You have to remember, this is a personal letter to Timothy.  Timothy was a very knowledgeable (Act 16.1; 2Tim 1.5) young evangelist, who had a Jewish mother and Greek father.  He was trained in the Hebrew scriptures by his grandmother.  He was with Paul on a good portion of his messianic journeys.   

    ·      Now being one who is supposedly knowledgeable in the Bible in two languages should recall other passages and precepts that allow for Paul to provide this vague reminder to Timothy. (Remember Timothy had spent several years with Paul)

    ·      With that being said Eph 6.9 and Col 4.1 are still applicable. 

    In the NT the people were under Roman rule, so their system of slavery was unavoidable.  With that being said, it was still a different concept of slavery as opposed to the 19th Century. So, the Holy Spirit had Paul and other apostles teach proper behavior.

    ·      Why? Because if you wear the badge/name of Christian and act out against authority you brought shame upon the church. 

    ·      Same thing applies today, look at the Me Too movement, people who are identified as committing sexual assault against someone, companies are firing those people. 

    ·      Why? Because they don’t want to be associated with the behavior because it appears as if they condone it. (look at Mat 5.13)

    o   Look to the Beatitudes of Christ sermon on the mount

    o    Mat 5:22: But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.

    o   Mat 5:41  And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.

    o   Mat 5:39:  But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also

    o   Mat 5:44: But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

    o   Mat 7:5: You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

    o   Mat 7:12: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

    So, a verse like 1Col 7.21: “Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.” Paul was just instructing people to not bring shame upon the church, it is by no means a declaration of endorsement for slavery; it contradicts too many precepts given by the apostles and Christ Himself.

     

    “In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong”

    The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

    Where are you drawing that conclusion? From your 21st Century understanding? Context, context, context…You have to remember two things here. 1) This is over 2000 yrs ago and it was a different time, Roman rule/law. 2) It is a parable, it’s a story, not reality.  Christ is speaking of a Jewish servant, under a Roman master if you will. In order to teach his disciples…future apostles, as well as Christian in the age to come, about the importance of being good ministers unto the church (church being the individuals).

    v42-44: This is the great design of the ministry, to feed the flock of God. All other duties are subsidiary to this…For souls need to be as regularly fed with the truth as the body with food. To this end, the Christian ministry should, therefore, direct all its effects, that the people may be fed. And need it be said that the truth which nourishes men’s souls is the truth as it is in Jesus.

    v45-46: Some in the ministry, it would seem, instead of living in expectation of the advent, will live as if the long-delayed advent would never come. In such a case selfish tyranny over the people committed to them will soon manifest itself; and upon the self-indulgent despot, our Lord shall come suddenly, to appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. A ministry that is not earnest, but self-indulgent and tyrannical, has before it a terrible doom.

    v47-48: He also shows that judgment in the world to come shall be graduated according to a desert. The difficulties about the Divine judgment have been partly owing to the forgetfulness of the fact that sinners are not to be cast indiscriminately into some common container but subjected to a series of graduated punishments of the most carefully adjusted character. The rhapsodies which are so plentiful against any thoroughness in punishing the impenitent are based mainly upon the false assumption of indiscriminating punishment. According to a person’s opportunities will be his doom.[17]


    “The Bible states clearly it’s opinion and gods opinion regard slavery so your amusing dance attempting to re-interpret what’s clearly written into something that’s not is amusing but pretty sad, to be honest”

    ·      I have given you contextual and historical arguments, supported by external scholarship, you have given me nothing but conjecture, no historical evidence to support your claim

    ·      No published work

    ·      So, how can you say I’m re-interpreting it? Prove it, don’t claim it.

     

    “Your smarmy comment at the end as in “which one do you want me to de-bunk next “ was noted, I play fair in a debate but I always say “ if you throw the first insult well anticipate the same back”

    ·      My apologies, I was not trying to smarmy, I was just trying to ask a question. If de-bunk was an offensive word, I sincerely apologize. 

    ·      I was trying to be succinct in asking which assertions are most important to you because with the level of toughness/depth I put into my responses I not sure I’ll be able to answer everything.  But I can if you want.




    “Incidentally I’m a former Catholic and trained and tutored by the intellectual branch of the church as in the Jesuit’s I know the Bible back to front in my native tonged, English and Latin”

    ·      Well if you know the bible so well, why are you relying on someone else’s claims?

    ·      2nd If you know the Bible back to front, you would know the Catholic faith does not hold to the teaching of the Bible, but to traditions of fallible men

    ·      Catholicism does not teach the scriptures, but their own doctrine, the doctrine of men

    ·      I understand why you would leave such a denomination

    ·      I’m not trying to attack you, this is not a personal attack, it is easy to read into words without emotion attached to them. I’m just saying your measuring stick that you are comparing all Christians to is giving you a false reading, and you're causing yourself to come up short

    I may be leaving this site as my experiences have not endeared me to the site, I will address the rest of your arguments depending on your reply to my counter to your defense of biblical slavery 

    ·      Can you not come up with your own arguments for what you believe to be hypocrisy? You are doing nothing more than copying and pasting from evilbible.com

    ·      The author of that site has so many misconceptions and error it’s almost pitiful

    ·      Why not formulate your own opinion and provide some real textural arguments that might be of a challenge? Verse taking the easy way out, you say you know the bible, what about the bible caused you to leave it all together?

     



    [1] Stuart, D. K. (2006). Exodus (Vol. 2, p. 476). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

    [2] The New King James Version. (1982). (Ex 21:1–2). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [3] Stuart, D. K. (2006). Exodus (Vol. 2, pp. 476–477). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

    [4] Durham, J. I. (1998). Exodus (Vol. 3, p. 321). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

    [5] Stuart, D. K. (2006). Exodus (Vol. 2, pp. 483–484). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

    [6] The New King James Version. (1982). (Col 4:1). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [7] Melick, R. R. (1991). Philippians, Colossians, Philemon (Vol. 32, pp. 319–320). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

    [8] Stuart, D. K. (2006). Exodus (Vol. 2, p. 485). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

    [9] Stuart, D. K. (2006). Exodus (Vol. 2, p. 489). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

    [10] Stuart, D. K. (2006). Exodus (Vol. 2, p. 490). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

    [12] The JPS Torah Commentary (5vols). Nahum Sarna (gen ed). JPS:1989.

    [13] Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. James DG Dunn and John Robertson (eds). Eerdmans:2003. (1 vol).

    [14] Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (eds). IVP:2003. Ref “Slavery”

    [15] A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (2 vols). Raymond Westbrook (ed). Brill:2003: 2:1006

    [16] The New King James Version. (1982). (Eph 6:9). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    [17] Notes on the Bible, by Albert Barnes, [1834], at sacred-texts.com

    @Dee
  • PoguePogue 554 Pts
    I would not say it is the most for two reasons. 
    1. I have not read all books. 
    2. There are some good teachings in it. 

    Side note: I compliment and also despise the Church for not teaching everything and teaching only the good parts.

    Terrible thing in the Bible:
    1. “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
    2. “This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)
    3. “Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)
    4. “Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)
    5. “So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)
    6. “In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)
    7. “And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’” (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)
    8. ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)
    9. “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)
    10. “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Pogue said:
    I would not say it is the most for two reasons. 
    1. I have not read all books. 
    2. There are some good teachings in it. 

    Side note: I compliment and also despise the Church for not teaching everything and teaching only the good parts.

    Terrible thing in the Bible:
    1. “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
    2. “This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)
    3. “Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)
    4. “Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)
    5. “So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)
    6. “In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)
    7. “And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’” (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)
    8. ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)
    9. “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)
    10. “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
    Before we start running in circles, please explain what is terrible about these 10 verse that you picked out.  Are you applying your judgment in context of the time era in which these verses were recorded?  Also, by what or who's standard are you measuring these ten verses to warrant calling these things/events as bad?  Item/Verse #10 I have extensively explained Biblical Era concept of Slavery/Bondservant in previous arguments within this debate, just scroll up and read.  Let me know of any claims that your believe to be false.

    Tonight I will do one easy one.

    8. ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)

    What's bad about this?  I'll assume you are going to say Abraham was going to kill his son as an offering...Am I correct or close?

    1) I explained this earlier in this particular debate...The bible says the things of old were a shadow of things to come...What's that mean?  It means that the Old Testament times was a Physical Representation of events and spiritual things that would come with the establishment of Christ ministry and the New Testament Church.  It is also called types and anti-types or types and shadows.
    • Example: 1Pe 3:20-21  who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine long-suffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,[1]
    • So in the two verses we have Peter explaining the in the times of Noah during the Great Flood, eight souls were saved in through water (Type) and that just as those eight souls were saved, we today have a (Anti-type) that saves us through water and that is Baptism.
    • To put it in equation form (I know you like equations) :) Arc + water = Baptism + water = Saved souls.  The old A + B = C

    Genesis 22.2-19

    Keep in mind Types and Anti-types.  So in Genesis 22 we read of an account were a man name Abraham who all his life wanted to have heir (son) of his own.  So, we know Isaac was very special, loved and cherished by his father Abraham, after all he was over 100 yrs old when he and Sarah had Isaac. Having a son to pass on a "birth right" was a big deal back then. You were not a man if you didn't have a son to pass your heritage on to.

    One day, out of the blue, God calls to Abraham and tells him that He wants Abraham to offer up Isaac as an offering. Abraham without question gets his son Isaac, gets wood and fire, never telling his son. Issac even ask his dad "Where is the lamb?" Abraham respond "My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering."  Of they go, the get to mountain make all the preparations, from what I read Abraham never tells Issac what's going on, Abraham gets Isaac ties him up and puts him on the alter and draws his knife out and as Abraham starts to swing down with the knife. An angle of God's yells out. "Abraham, Abraham!" and Abraham says, "Here I am." and the Angle says, "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."stopping him and says." [3]

    Issac is saved in the nick of time, God provides a ram for a sacrifice and Abraham and Issac serve up an offering unto the Lord. Then an Angle calls out again saying "By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son—blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” [4]

    They left and Abraham called the place Beersheba (I've been there once, I spent 3 weeks with the Israeli Air Force just 20-30 mile North of there)

    So, this account of Abraham and Isaac how would this be a type / anti-type for the New Testament and what would the significants be to us?

    Abraham is quoted throughout the bible as righteous James 2.23-24: says "And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." [5] So James tells us Abraham through his actions made proof of his faith, in other words Abraham showed his faith (trust) in the Lord through his actions not just by mere lip service.  But that is not a Type/Anti-Type.

    In book of Hebrews we read over in 11:17-19:  "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son of whom it was said, "IN ISAAC YOUR SEED SHALL BE CALLED," concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense." [6]

    Did you catch what is said that Abraham knew had faith that God could do?  It says he knew God could raise his son up from the dead. (I know you don't believe in such a thing, but that's a really big deal, image you have so much trust in someone that you'd be willing to sacrifice your child for, because you knew in your heart, this person or being who could revive your child, though you did not know for absolute sure) Important message but still not a type/anti-type

    Here it is, we know from the Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke, John) that God offered up His son, Jesus.  Who did raise up from the dead.

    Type (Abraham sacrifice son) + (believes God can raise son from dead)  Anti-Type (God sacrifice Son) + (Did raise from dead on 3rd Day)


    Conclusion:  

    Your claim:  "Despise the Church for not teaching everything, not the terrible things in the Bible."  Proof - None, just feel that way

    Close Exegesis of scripture reveals that Abraham was not even remotely close to murdering his son, that he consciously knew God could raise Issac from the dead after he sacrificed unto God as asked. Reality, God stopped Abraham was just testing him, but we also know that Abraham was correct in his faith (trust) in God, because God can raise the dead from the grave. Just like He did His own Son.


    Result:  Claim is a fallacy based on a straw man argument based on bias conjecture. 


    Scholarship Support for argument:

    James, Fausset & Brown Commentary

    his only-begotten son—Compare Ge 22:2, “Take now thy son, thine only son.” Eusebius [The Preparation of the Gospel, 1.10, and 4.16], has preserved a fragment of a Greek translation of Sanchoniatho, which mentions a mystical sacrifice of the Phoenicians, wherein a prince in royal robes was the offerer, and his only son was to be the victim: this evidently was a tradition derived from Abraham’s offering, and handed down through Esau or Edom, Isaac’s son. Isaac was Abraham’s “only-begotten son” in respect of Sarah and the promises: he sent away his other sons, by other wives (Ge 25:6). Abraham is a type of the Father not sparing His only-begotten Son to fulfil the divine purpose of love. God nowhere in the Mosaic law allowed human sacrifices, though He claimed the first-born of Israel as His.[7]

    The Word Commentary on Hebrews

    "Elsewhere in Hebrews ὅθεν is an inferential conjunction, with reference to what immediately precedes (cf. 2:17; 3:1; 7:25; 8:3; 9:18). On this understanding, the writer affirmed in v 19b that the direct result of Abraham’s firm conviction concerning God’s ability to raise the dead was that he received back Isaac ἐν παραβολῆ, “in a foreshadowing.” The restoring of Isaac by the unanticipated reprieve at the last moment was a specific instance of God’s power to raise up from the dead. The sacrifice is seen as a gift that God returns, guaranteeing the reception of what was promised according to Gen 21:12 (cited in v 18).

    What precisely is meant, however, by the problematic expression ἐν παραβολῆ, “in a foreshadowing”? The interpretation of this expression must take into account both the reference to the God who raises the dead in the immediate context (v 19a) and the writer’s previous use of the term παραβολή (9:9). In 9:8–9 he argued that the front compartment of the tabernacle provides a spatial metaphor for the time when the former covenant, with its daily and annual cultic ritual, was in force. As such, it was a παραβολή, “a foreshadowing,” of the present age (see above, Note tt). In that context, παραβολή connotes a past institution that foreshadows in some way a reality that is yet to come. This would appear to be appropriate for the meaning of ἐν παραβολῇ in v 19b: when Abraham received Isaac from the altar of sacrifice there was a foreshadowing of the future resurrection from the dead (cf. Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac, 119–21).

    This understanding appreciates the causal relationship between the inference drawn in v 19b and the reference to the resurrection in v 19a (cf. Windisch, 103; Moffatt, 177; Riggenbach, 365; Michel, 402–3). The expression ἐν παραβολῇ implies that the “foreshadowing” was veiled. It is not necessary to believe that Abraham recognized the connection between the receiving of Isaac from the altar and resurrection from the dead. But the Christian community is capable of recognizing the deeper import of the event." [8]


    References:

    [1] The New King James Version. (1982). (1 Pe 3:20–21). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    [2] The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 22:2–19). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    [3] The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 22:11–12). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    [4]  The New King James Version. (1982). (Ge 22:16–18). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    [5]  The New King James Version. (1982). (Jas 2:23–24). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    [6] The New King James Version. (1982). (Heb 11:17–19). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
    [7] Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 2, p. 472). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
    [8]  Lane, W. L. (1998). Hebrews 9–13 (Vol. 47B, pp. 362–363). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.


    BaconToes
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    edited March 2018
    @with_all_humility

    Interesting reply but totally void of meaningful implication as all you’re doing is the usual apologists dance of trying to justify the verses you find unpalatable by using the Bible to contradict the Bible which is amusing but childish 

    I have several questions you need to address if you wish to maintain your defence of the indefensible.

    My first question is simple and will demonstrate the weakness of your position , 

    Is it moral or Immoral to own people as property ?

    Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV)

    44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.



    How come the verses you find unpalatable were used by your “Christian “ ancestors to justify slavery ?

    Were they taking them “out of context “ also ?

    Why do you call my pointing this out an” ad hominem “ ?

    Why have modern versions of the Bible changed the word slave to bondservant ?

    Why do you attack me for using Evil  Bible and why do you claim I’m using copy and paste arguments that aren’t my own ?

    How do you know what content I’m  responsible for or not on that site , proof would be good ?

    Why are you criticizing my former church and asserting your position is superior when most Catholics would find your religious  egotistical posturing hilarious 

    I don’t need to use the anything to destroy your claims except the Bible and logic as in where did Jesus say people have to cross reference and go verse “mining “ to support controversial verses ?

    Your appeals to “ scholarly authority “ and apologist websites  are lamentable have you no other defence as in your own ?

    The verses are plain and simply stated and need no further commentary as slavery was part and parcel of life then and Jesus totally approved , either way the Bible is a deeply flawed contradictory book which clearly depicts an evil god who relishes immorality and evil 






    BaconToes
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    edited March 2018
    @with_all_humility

    What a merry dance you do in an attempt to justify another despicable bible verse , the words are plain and simple and your avoidance of such is a pitiful attempt to justify the immoral god you worship as in a god who asks his subject to sacrifice his son as a test of loyalty 

    It’s astonishing you Christians attack other religions like Islam and tear the Quran apart and never allow Muslims use the pathetic “ out of context “ defense so loved by christians  , also there are 33,000 denominations of Christianity worldwide and they all disagree with each other on mainly biblical interpretation, but of course you’re right  and the’re wrong no doubt 
    BaconToes
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    edited March 2018
    @with_all_humility

    Is your reference to "Evil Bible" a publication that you non-believers have.

    No it’s not a publication , a reading of the Bible would clearly demonstrate the veracity of the statement that the Bible is evil and depicts an evil god 

      I would not think a non-believer would spend a whole lot of time reading the bible to find it's so-called flaws. 

    I would not think a believer would spend a whole lot of times reading the Bible to find it’s so -called morality 


    I see sever non-believers/atheist regurgitate stuff from Rational Wiki.  It even talks about tactics when challenging people who believe in God/Bible.        

    I see several believers / Christians regurgitate stuff from Christian apologetics . It even talks about tactics when challenging people who don’t believe in God/Bible 



    You can proof my material if I use a source I'll give you references.  Just so you, know I appreciate you taking time to share your viewpoint.  


  • @BaconToes so all came from nothing for no reason and youryo a worthless hyperevolved monkey on a spinning ball destined to amount to dust.
    What do you mean "came from nothing." Do you mean your God?
    Pogue
    i fart cows
  • Dee said:
    @with_all_humility

    What a merry dance you do in an attempt to justify another despicable bible verse , the words are plain and simple and your avoidance of such is a pitiful attempt to justify the immoral god you worship as in a god who asks his subject to sacrifice his son as a test of loyalty 

    It’s astonishing you Christians attack other religions like Islam and tear the Quran apart and never allow Muslims use the pathetic “ out of context “ defense so loved by christians  , also there are 33,000 denominations of Christianity worldwide and they all disagree with each other on mainly biblical interpretation, but of course you’re right and the’re wrong no doubt 
    You asked why I accuse you ad hominem, its because you constantly attack the character of the debater verse the argument.  

    Your statement of "It’s astonishing you Christians attack other religions" that is a personal attack on the character of the individual not debate argument. If you believe me to us ad hominem let me know and I will change the language I used.  
    • Not all Christians hold the same beliefs, you are correct there are 33-40,000+ denominations. I'm sure not all scientist have the same conclusions or theories on whatever topics.  Despite these facts...it really has no bearing on the debate.  Because we should be evaluating the material/arguments submitted in this debate.
    • I myself am not a member or attend a denominational church.  I support the beliefs what started as what some call the restoration movement that started in the mid 19th century. Which only the belief that local church or congregation should hold to the same practices as of the 1st-century church record in the New Testament.   
    • I myself make it a point not to attack other religions (I don't believe I have here) I might disagree with other beliefs, but I don't think much is to be gained from attacking a person
    "But of course you’re right and the’re wrong no doubt"
    • I don't believe myself to be alway right, if I shown to wrong I will apologize.  I believe, I've apologized to you two or three times already.
    • There is nothing to be gained by deceit and lies, I myself just try to present arguments based upon my understanding.  We are also in debate, so one should be putting up best evidence to dismiss a claim or to affirm a claim.  How one should not be arrogant or dishonest in order to win.
    "the words are plain and simple and your avoidance of such is a pitiful attempt to justify the immoral god you worship as in a god who asks his subject to sacrifice his son as a test of loyalty"
    • Why do you say such things?
    • Why can't you give me substantiated counter arguments? 
    • "Pitiful attempt to justify", Just exactly what in arguments was pitiful and how do you prove they are pitiful?
    • "out of context defense" Yes, you pull verses out of the bible and make non-contextural arguments. It's not a defense. I've taken the time to share some basic principles on interpreting/understand what is recorded in the bible

    When interpeting what is written in the bible some call it hermanutics and there are differernt hermanutics as well
    • Sound Biblical Interpretation should be
    • 1. Grammatical
    • 2. Historical
    • 3. Theological

    Grammatical Principle

    Identify the kind of literature your text is for insight into its meaning.

    Bible scholars call this the genre of the text. That means the general form the text takes—narrative, prophecy, poetry, history, gospel, epistle. The various kinds of literature present their message in differing styles and with different structure. Narrative texts do not operate the same way epistles do in getting their message across to the reader. [1]

    The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words "allos" and "heteros". Both are usually translated as "another" in English – yet "allos" literally means "another of the same type" and "heteros" means "another of a different type." [2]

    Grammer Principle #3 - The exposition of a passage must agree with both the immediate context and the remote context. 

    Immediate Context: the verses immediately around the a passage. This is why you should NEVER read Bible verses that have been ripped from their context.  A good rule of thumb is to read 3 to 4 verses before a verse AND 3 to 4 verses after. Remote Context: expands out from the entire book being interpreted, to the entire Testament, and then the Entire Bible. [3]

    The immediate context is the more important and usually decisive

    Historical Principle

    Principle - Since the books of the Bible were written at certain times over a 1550-year period of history and at certain places on earth and for various purposes and groups of readers, biblical interpretation must be historical. Accordingly, the exegete must carefully consider the historical circumstances under which each Bible book was written, as well as the the historical contents of each book. [3]

    Theological - Basic Principles

    Principle #2 - Scripture (not human reason, personal feeling, church, or tradition) is the sole source and norm of true doctrine in the sphere of religion and theology. [3]

    Principle #3 - Scripture interprets scripture and the less clear or plain passages of scripture MUST be interpreted in the light of the clearer passages.

    This method must NEVER be reversed!

    Here is the Order of Clear Interpretation:

    1. The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New 

    2. The Gospels must be interpreted by the Epistles

    3. The incidental must be interpreted by the systematic

    4. The local must be interpreted by the universal - The Bible often inculcates uni-versal principles in the context of a local culture. We must be very careful not to make some feature of local culture a universal norm. For instance, Moses took off his shoes as a token of reverence in the presence of God. That was an Eastern custom which is still practiced in some parts of the world. We Westerners show reverence by taking off our hat. Christian men would not think of going into church with their hat on, for this would show disrespect. But if we were associat-ing with people of another culture, we might take our shoes off before entering the church. (Same applies to Slavery)

    • Paul commands us to greet the brethren with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16). A strict literalist may insist that this form of Christian fraternity is still obligatory today, but most Christians understand it to mean that we should treat fellow Christians like a blood brother. [3]

    [1] https://www.lifeway.com/pastors/2014/03/12/7-principles-of-biblical-interpretation/
    [2] http://www.apologeticsindex.org/5846-biblical-interpretation-rules
    [3] http://www.extremetheology.com/hermeneutics.html

    I will do my best to answer the rest of your questions / responses this later this evening.  However, I do have some other things I have to do as well. I just want you to know I'm not ignoring you.
  • @Dee ;

    Lots of Christians have already read the Bible multiple times, so...

    God is good, but is harsh on evildoers, with no tolerance for evil. He also gives trials to good people to test their goodness.
  • PoguePogue 554 Pts
    @Dee ;

    Lots of Christians have already read the Bible multiple times, so...

    God is good, but is harsh on evildoers, with no tolerance for evil. He also gives trials to good people to test their goodness.
    God does harsh to evildoers when he is one. Nice!

    I also read it multiple times. Did you actually read it or just regurgitate what the Church told you? The Bible says that there were zombies during Jesus' death. http://biblehub.com/matthew/27-52.htm
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    @with_all_humility

    I have nothing against you and in actual fact you seem like a decent person so I find it astonishing you would view my replies as an attack on your character .

    You said ......·      Well if you know the bible so well, why are you relying on someone else’s claims?

    I asked you why you assumed they were someone else’s claims 

    ·      2nd If you know the Bible back to front, you would know the Catholic faith does not hold to the teaching of the Bible, but to traditions of fallible men

    ·      Catholicism does not teach the scriptures, but their own doctrine, the doctrine of men

    ·      I understand why you would leave such a denomination


    There is an attack on the Catholic Church something you claimed you did not do 


    ·      I’m not trying to attack you, this is not a personal attack, it is easy to read into words without emotion attached to them. I’m just saying your measuring stick that you are comparing all Christians to is giving you a false reading, and you're causing yourself to come up short 


    There is an ad homonien as in your “ measuring stick “ 


    ·      Can you not come up with your own arguments for what you believe to be hypocrisy? You are doing nothing more than copying and pasting from evilbible.com


    Who wrote the articles and how do you know what ( if any ) part I play on that site ?

    ·      The author of that site has so many misconceptions and error it’s almost pitiful

    Who’s the author and how come it’s ok for you to say his/her reasoning is “pitiful “ but it’s an ad homonien when the charge is lead at you ?

    ·      Why not formulate your own opinion and provide some real textural arguments that might be of a challenge? 

    You mean get bogged down in verse mining  and cross referencing “out of context “ verses to avoid painful truths ?  


    Verse taking the easy way out, you say you know the bible, what about the bible caused you to leave it all together?


    What do you mean “ what about the Bible caused you to leave it all together “ ?




  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    @with_all_humility

    you state ......You asked why I accuse you ad hominem, its because you constantly attack the character of the debater verse the argument.  

    I have yet to attack you as you put it 

    Your statement of "It’s astonishing you Christians attack other religions"
     that is a personal attack on the character of the individual not debate argument. If you believe me to us ad hominem let me know and I will change the language I used.  

    But its not as I posted it’s a statement of fact the veracity of my claim can be borne out by your attack on Catholicism 
    • Not all Christians hold the same beliefs, you are correct there are 33-40,000+ denominations. I'm sure not all scientist have the same conclusions or theories on whatever topics.  Despite these facts...it really has no bearing on the debate.  Because we should be evaluating the material/arguments submitted in this debate.
    All reputable scientists agree regarding Evolution , and various other theories which is why we regard them as fact 

    Actually it does have a significant bearing as most denominations disageee on biblical interpretations making yous all right or making yous all wrong which proves none of yous actually know but only claim to do so 
    • I myself am not a member or attend a denominational church.  I support the beliefs what started as what some call the restoration movement that started in the mid 19th century. Which only the belief that local church or congregation should hold to the same practices as of the 1st-century church record in the New Testament.   
    • I myself make it a point not to attack other religions (I don't believe I have here) I might disagree with other beliefs, but I don't think much is to be gained from attacking a person
    Well we know that’s not strictly true 


    • I don't believe myself to be alway right, if I shown to wrong I will apologize.  I believe, I've apologized to you two or three times already.
    • There is nothing to be gained by deceit and lies, I myself just try to present arguments based upon my understanding.  We are also in debate, so one should be putting up best evidence to dismiss a claim or to affirm a claim.  How one should not be arrogant or dishonest in order to win.
    Yes I agree ,we all present arguments based on our understanding 

    "the words are plain and simple and your avoidance of such is a pitiful attempt to justify the immoral god you worship as in a god who asks his subject to sacrifice his son as a test of loyalty"
    • Why do you say such things?
    Because when one is given a copy of the Bible in my experience one is not told that you also need a library load of academic texts to cross reference and explain the word of god and what he “ really meant “ as opposed to what the Bible actually says , if god is all powerful you would think he would make his intentions a bit clearer wouldn’t you ?

    Now here’s the problem for believers early Christians had no problems reading the word and accepting it as is but over the generations the word has been softened to allow the church to evolve and grow with its followers , an example 50 years ago the church would certainly have a big problem with gays in the congregation now it’s no problem , so tell me when did god change his mind about gays and how did he inform yous ?
    • Why can't you give me substantiated counter arguments? 
    But I use the word of the Bible as written as my evidence , you use the Bible to contradict the Bible 
    • "Pitiful attempt to justify", Just exactly what in arguments was pitiful and how do you prove they are pitiful?
    It’s pitiful to defend and deny biblical slavery and you admit that later translations use the word “bondservant “ instead of slave why’s that do you think ? 

    I’ve asked you before ...... Is it moral or immoral to own people as property ?

    • "out of context defense" Yes, you pull verses out of the bible and make non-contextural arguments. It's not a defense. I've taken the time to share some basic principles on interpreting/understand what is recorded in the Bible
    The only context necessary is the verse before and after each verse your “ basic principles “ are merely an attempt to evade the truth , where did Jesus or god say that the Bible needed a degree in theology before one could comprehend it ?

    When interpeting what is written in the bible some call it hermanutics and there are differernt hermanutics as well
    • Sound Biblical Interpretation should be
    • 1. Grammatical
    • 2. Historical
    • 3. Theological

    Grammatical Principle

    Identify the kind of literature your text is for insight into its meaning.

    Bible scholars call this the genre of the text. That means the general form the text takes—narrative, prophecy, poetry, history, gospel, epistle. The various kinds of literature present their message in differing styles and with different structure. Narrative texts do not operate the same way epistles do in getting their message across to the reader. [1]

    The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words "allos" and "heteros". Both are usually translated as "another" in English – yet "allos" literally means "another of the same type" and "heteros" means "another of a different type." [2]

    Grammer Principle #3 - The exposition of a passage must agree with both the immediate context and the remote context. 

    Immediate Context: the verses immediately around the a passage. This is why you should NEVER read Bible verses that have been ripped from their context.  A good rule of thumb is to read 3 to 4 verses before a verse AND 3 to 4 verses after. Remote Context: expands out from the entire book being interpreted, to the entire Testament, and then the Entire Bible. [3]

    The immediate context is the more important and usually decisive

    Historical Principle

    Principle - Since the books of the Bible were written at certain times over a 1550-year period of history and at certain places on earth and for various purposes and groups of readers, biblical interpretation must be historical. Accordingly, the exegete must carefully consider the historical circumstances under which each Bible book was written, as well as the the historical contents of each book. [3]

    Theological - Basic Principles

    Principle #2 - Scripture (not human reason, personal feeling, church, or tradition) is the sole source and norm of true doctrine in the sphere of religion and theology. [3]

    Principle #3 - Scripture interprets scripture and the less clear or plain passages of scripture MUST be interpreted in the light of the clearer passages.

    This method must NEVER be reversed!

    Here is the Order of Clear Interpretation:

    1. The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New 

    2. The Gospels must be interpreted by the Epistles

    3. The incidental must be interpreted by the systematic

    4. The local must be interpreted by the universal - The Bible often inculcates uni-versal principles in the context of a local culture. We must be very careful not to make some feature of local culture a universal norm. For instance, Moses took off his shoes as a token of reverence in the presence of God. That was an Eastern custom which is still practiced in some parts of the world. We Westerners show reverence by taking off our hat. Christian men would not think of going into church with their hat on, for this would show disrespect. But if we were associat-ing with people of another culture, we might take our shoes off before entering the church. (Same applies to Slavery)

    • Paul commands us to greet the brethren with a holy kiss (Rom. 16:16). A strict literalist may insist that this form of Christian fraternity is still obligatory today, but most Christians understand it to mean that we should treat fellow Christians like a blood brother. [3]

    Again where did god or Jesus say one must use hermanutics when reading the Bible ?

    The Bible was written by Bronze Age goat herds who talk about a savage society and it’s peoples , the book is deeply flawed ,  contradictory and immoral it depicts clearly a deeply immoral and evil god which can easily be demonstrated by simply reading the Bible and appraising it hineand criticallly  
    Pogue
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    @Pogue

    It’s a pretty good debate also a lot of fun 
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    @anonymousdebater


    Just a warning for you if you’re ever out and about and you see a bald man please don’t mock him as god may send 42 bears to punish you ......

    Elisha and the Two Bears (2 Kings 2:23-25)



    23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.


    Make sure to guard your testicles and penis for the next life 

    New Living Translation

    "If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.



    Follow this “ lovely “ moral teaching as in kill all living things as in animals , babies , old people ( every living thing ) as it makes the world less violent 

    God was angry because "the earth was filled with violence." So he killed every living thing to make the world less violent. 6:11-13


    Pogue
  • @Dee ;

    I present you evidence, provide logical arguments, back them up with illustrations, examples, and external expert testimony.   In turn, you counter almost everything with "no, not true" and go to give me your opinion, that's fine, but who's to say your opinion is correct?

    You ask..."I asked you why you assumed they were someone else’s claim"

    One of your responses you said the following...
    "God orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there.  He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).  He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses (Joshua 6).  In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-Gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!"

    I go over to Evilbible.com and find...
    "God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there.  He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).  He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses (Joshua 6).  In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-Gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!"

    On slavery, you asked me... 
    "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)" 

    "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

    Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

    In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.

    The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)"

    I go over to evilbible.com and look and find...

    "What does the Bible say about beating slaves?  It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrongdoing.

    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)

    You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

    Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

    In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.

    The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

    (I noticed several of your arguments were verbatim of what was on the site evilbible.com, that what I based my comment on.  The website evilbible.com does not state who the author is; so, are you the owner/author of the website? If so, I'll take back my comment.)

    You state "There is an attack on the Catholic Church something you claimed you did not do"

    If you feel I was attacking the Catholic Church I apologize. I was just stating a wide heald claim, throughout the history of the Catholic church various Popes have made or imposed many of practices on their members. In fact, in Catechism the teach the following examples. (When is says tradition, it is something a man/Pope has put into practice, not commanded in the Bible).

    The concept of Purgatory (noting in the bible to support this and rich people would pay the church money in advance to that they would not be in Purgatory)

    1. CCC 1031, "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

    Only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture

    1. CCC 100, "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."

    Sacred Tradition equal to scripture, 

    1. CCC 82, ". . .the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation are entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence'."
    Christ condemned the Pharisees for holding the traditions sacred, so much so that the had no concern breaking God's commandments, but condemned people for not hold true to the traditions.
    1. Mark 7:5-9  Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?  He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'THESE PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR FROM ME. AND IN VAIN THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.'  For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do."  He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

    Next, you state "There is an ad hominin as in your “ measuring stick “ 
    • No, this was not an attack on your character, I was using a metaphor to inquire by what standard are you using to measure "All Christians...do...)
    • Now you did attack my character as a Christian is your statement of "you Christians attack other religions" is a direct attack on my character.  Because of you made a universal claim that Christians "attack" and the lead in the identifier is "you" thus Me. While some Christians to come across as attacking other for their belief, not all do such things.  It is also a fallacy to use such a broad claim.
    • Example, if I was to say that "all illegal immigrants are murders and drug dealers" would be a false statement, and most immigrants would be offended by such a statement. It is stereotyping.
    Who’s the author and how come it’s ok for you to say his/her reasoning is “pitiful “ but it’s an ad hominem when the charge is lead to you?
    1. Pitiful mean - very small or poor; inadequate. I was just saying their claims were inadequate in justification, they were conjecture.
    2. In a debate, an ad hominem is an assault or attack on your opponent's character in an attempt to win the argument. I did not say you were "pitiful" just the website evilbible.com.
    The only context necessary is the verse before and after each verse, your “ basic principles “ are merely an attempt to evade the truth, where did Jesus or god say that the Bible needed a degree in theology before one could comprehend it?
    • You are partially correct in your argument here.  Yes, evaluating a passage you should read a few verses before and after the verse to ensure it is talking about what you think it is.  However, you're overlooking the two other context in which one needs to consider.  The remote or overall context of the Bible, in other words "is my interpretation of this verse the same as other areas of the bible" Example: the word blood can have several meanings depending on the context it is being used.  Spilling blood usually means to kill someone, blood could be in your body, could be an animal's blood, blood could be a cleaning agent (shedding of Christ blood for the remission of sins), it could mean grape juice/wine in context with communion and so on. There is also the historical context of the word.  So, let's use a non-biblical word to illustrate these three principles.
    • Example:  The word gay, if I was reading a book and it said "Bob was gay" what does that statement mean?
    • Well, if I follow your logic, the word gay means homosexual and so, therefore, Bob is a homosexual man. Well, what about context?
    • So, I read a little more and says..." Bob always looked forward to getting back home after being away. Because when Bob is with Mark, Bob is gay."
    • OK, well the immediate context reinforces that Bob is homosexual because when he is away for long periods of time he looks forward to being with Mark his partner. (Well, that could mean that gay is homosexual and Bob is with Mark) 
    • Now let's consider historical context...oh the book was written in 1845, now what does the word gay mean? Oh, well gay in 1845 would have been understood as meaning joyful, high spirits or happy.  However, if I used the definition used here in the US as early as 1951 referred to men who are homosexual.  I hope this illustrates how the historical use of a word does matter, words mean different things in different cultures. 
    I’ve asked you before ...... Is it moral or immoral to own people as property?
    • As I illustrated above, words have different understandings at differnet time periods. So context is the key to answering that question.
    • In a modern context, Yes, absolutly. 
    • In the case of Exodus, the historical evidence shows they had a different understanding of Slavery. While people were considered property, people often enter into the terms of "slaver" baseed on finacial reasons.
    • It oviously does not mean the modern sense of the word because owners/masters could not sell or trade people to others.
    • It was for a maxium of 6 yrs, could be sooner, but a max of 6 yrs. Unless the freely chose to stay with their master.
    • Laws concern mistreatment were equal to or exceed those of regular Israelites.  


    I've attached a couple of items, one is a picture of what an ad hominem fallacy is. As well as a page from a book called the United Bible Society's Handbook. What the handbook is, it a collection of linguist notes when they interpreted the original Hebrew and Greek.  These notes are not a commentary as the people who contributed to notes were not the theist.  They are linguist who studies ancient languages, it won't reflect on the page I'm posting, but often in the notes, they will point out it's not their job to determine what the meaning doctrinally, they only interpret the language. 





  • @Dee ;
    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/23-1.htm explains the strange passage in Deuteronomy.

    Don't insult prophets of the Lord. So if you're ever out and see the Pope, don't insult him.

    God basically started the world over with the flood.
  • PoguePogue 554 Pts
    @Dee ;
    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/23-1.htm explains the strange passage in Deuteronomy.

    Don't insult prophets of the Lord. So if you're ever out and see the Pope, don't insult him.

    God basically started the world over with the flood.
    Noah's Ark was fake. The story of Noah, the Ark, and the flooding. There are 10's of millions of species on Earth. He needed 2 of every species. And what about the food needed? A boat would have to be ginormous. There are multiple problems with this. A few are where did he get enough wood in the middle east to build a ship of that size, how did an old man that is unskilled in building a ship build a ship of that size, where did his ark go, where is the evidence of a global flood 4,000 years ago, to get every living creature, he would have had to explore the entire world, how did all the food stay fresh for a year, why didn't the meat-eating animals eat other animals, how did the humans on board not get a bunch of dieses given that they had to care for the animals, how did the animals get back to where they originated from after the flood, other civilizations lived in the same time period so why does their recorded history not incluid a flood, and how did the single-celluar and microscopic life get on board.
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Pogue said:
    @Dee ;
    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/23-1.htm explains the strange passage in Deuteronomy.

    Don't insult prophets of the Lord. So if you're ever out and see the Pope, don't insult him.

    God basically started the world over with the flood.
    Noah's Ark was fake. The story of Noah, the Ark, and the flooding. There are 10's of millions of species on Earth. He needed 2 of every species. And what about the food needed? A boat would have to be ginormous. There are multiple problems with this. A few are where did he get enough wood in the middle east to build a ship of that size, how did an old man that is unskilled in building a ship build a ship of that size, where did his ark go, where is the evidence of a global flood 4,000 years ago, to get every living creature, he would have had to explore the entire world, how did all the food stay fresh for a year, why didn't the meat-eating animals eat other animals, how did the humans on board not get a bunch of dieses given that they had to care for the animals, how did the animals get back to where they originated from after the flood, other civilizations lived in the same time period so why does their recorded history not incluid a flood, and how did the single-celluar and microscopic life get on board.
    Noah's ark is not fake and there is one in Kentucky.  https://arkencounter.com/about-the-ark/ ;



    @anonymousdebater ;
    someone234anonymousdebaterAlofRI
  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    edited March 2018
    @with_all_humility


    Let’s examine your constant denial and accusations of Ad Hominem and also your childish posting up of a giant logo explaining what it means so other members can maybe add further fuel to the fire , what a childish tactic and pretty insulting from a guy who claims not to use Ad Hominem , really ?


    You ask ......Is your reference to "Evil Bible" a publication that you non-believers have. 


    I would not think a non-believer would spend a whole lot of time reading the bible to find it's so-called flaws. 




    I see sever non-believers/atheist regurgitate stuff from Rational Wiki.  


    You do know regurgitate means “ vomit “ but you don’t use Ad Hominem right ? 


    It even talks about tactics when challenging people who believe in God/Bible.        


    Now here’s the question I ask yet again which you so far have refused to answer as in ...How do you know what material I have written or not on any aforementioned  atheist sites ? 


    What do you base your allegations on ?


    you say ......I have refuted 80% of your claims and proven that you have done nothing to prove your arguments other than list a bunch of pretext arguments because you have not read the verses in context.  


    Refuted ?  You’ve done no such thing you’ve regurgitated material from apologist websites and notes , the context of the verses is obvious to a blind man on a horse , how do you put a good “ context “ on slavery ?


    Oh wait , that’s what you’re attempting  to do 


    Do you want me to proceed in exposing your fallacies or would like a chance to reexamine your arguments and provide a more dependable position?


    I want you to attempt to explain why you justify slavery especially of women as sex slaves for a start , I will compile a list of your fallacies at the conclusion of our  exchange 







    I’ve asked you before ...... Is it moral or immoral to own people as propert




    You  say ...As I illustrated above, words have different understandings at differnet time periods. 


    Nonsense , a slave of ancient times still has the same meaning today as then , more or less


    • So context is the key to answering that question.


    It’s not actually ,it’s a plain enough question 



    In a modern context


    Oh , so not in the time of Jesus as your”  absolutely “ seems fairly clear 


    Yes, absolutely 


    Yes at last thank you for the clarification so you agree the owning of people is immoral yet you totally defend the owning and beating of slaves as in your own words , you’ve just defeated yourself by agreeing it’s immoral to own people as property and then give verses that you supplied showing the relationship between master and slave 






    21 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,[a] 



    That’s ownership which you agree is immoral 


    he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.


    You agree with the branding of property as in slaves 


         "The second case involved a master striking his slave, male or female. Since the slave did not die immediately as a result of this act of using the rod (not a lethal weapon, however) but tarried for "a day or two" (v. 21), the master was given the benefit of the doubt;


    You agree with beating slaves once they don’t die 


     he was judged to have struck the slave with disciplinary and not homicidal intentions. This law is unprecedented in the ancient world where a master could treat his slave as he pleased. 


    I know , beat , abuse and have sex with them 





    When this law is considered alongside the law in v26-27, which acted to control brutality against slaves at the point where it hurt the master, vs, his pocketbook, a whole new statement of the value and worth of the personhood of the slave is introduced. Thus, if the master struck a slave severely enough only to injure one of his members, he lost his total investment immediately in that the slave won total freedom; or if he struck severely enough to kill the slave immediately, he was tried for capital punishment


    There it is again the beating of a slave and the master losing ownership a thing you previously denied but now admit is immoral





    Let’s just for a comparison look at another example of biblical nonsense as in the verse below because so far I’ve heard 21 hilarious Christian attempts at an “ explanation 


    2 Kings 2:23-24 New International Version (NIV)

    Elisha Is Jeered

    23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.




    Here is a quote regarding how Christians used to use the very verses you say no doubt they “misinterpreted “


    This government of God was tried in the U.S. 

    when slavery was regarded as a divine institution. 

    The pulpit of that day 

    defended the buying and selling of women and babies. 

    The mouths of the slave-traders 

    were filled with passages of Scripture, 

    defending and upholding traffic in human flesh. 

    — Robert Green Ingersoll



    Laws About Slaves

    21 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,[a] 


    That’s purchasing /ownership 


    he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.


    You agree with the branding of slaves , you supported the beating  of slaves and you agree that owning people as property is immoral we agree , and your assertions are thus roundly defeated 




  • @Dee

    I will get to all of your questions, however today I've been traveling all day and time is limited.  So I apologize!

    You say: "Here is a quote regarding how Christians used to use the very verses you say no doubt they “misinterpreted“"

    This government of God was tried in the U.S. when slavery was regarded as a divine institution. The pulpit of that day defended the buying and selling of women and babies. The mouths of the slave-traders were filled with passages of Scripture, defending and upholding traffic in human flesh. 

    — Robert Green Ingersoll

    This is not a valid argument for justifying slavery, the men of this period of time were not Christian, they were evil men who twisted the scriptures to justify their actions.   Just because someone claims to be a Christian...it does not mean they are a Christians.  Dating clear back to the time of the apostles there have been false teachers.  Look at some of the popes through the middle ages, they did evil things.  But one mans sins does not equate to the sins of another man. Nor does it make God a creator of evil.  What happened 150-200 years ago here in the US was inhumane and those men who did such things will spend an eternity in Hell.

    Again, that is not the same type of slavery that the Israelites practiced. 

    We've talked about types/anti-types or as some might call types & shadows

    The slavery in Exodus, Numbers and other books, that was practiced by the Israelites was a type of Slavery for the anti-type of Slavery to Sin

    Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.) and sin is conveyed as debt. (John 8:34)

    In Christ model prayer it says...and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.(Mat 6:12)

    So from the two verses we can see how God views sin, Sin comes at a price, thus when we sin we incur a debt with God and that debt has to be paid or forgiven. When we begin to commit sin we become a slave to it, because there is no way for mankind to pay for his/her sins.  Only Christ's blood could meet that price. 

    Remember I showed the slavery under theMosaic Law was because a man had come in financial destitute or some other form of debt.  God thru Moses set up a system to where a man could go and worked off his debt, after six years if he had not repaid his debt by that time, he was to be set free.  However, he could have also have repaid his debt before the six years.  He was under no obligation to remain a slave upon repaying his debt

    The type being illustrated in physical Isreal is a man was not condemned be a slave forever. That a man could receive forgiveness and would be forgiven of the debt by God after 6 six years.  

    The anti-type is: We have all sinned and come into debt to God, thus we Slave to sin, however, God has provided mankind a way to be forgiven of the debt, it is through his son Jesus and we are set free of from our sins through his death.

    It's a similar reason why under the Mosaic law physical Israel did animal sacrifice, it was not for God, it was so a man may understand that sin came at a price.  

    If you read through them in the New Testament Law there no provision for having a slave. Paul, mentions how slaves and masters are to treat one another, but there is no command or law to reestablish slavery in the new testament.  If you read Act chapter 15 it says three things were to be observed from the old law.  They are no eating or drinking blood, no idol worship, and no fornication. That's it, there are some principles that carried over, but they are spoken of as commands and no of them say a person can own slaves.  The slaves mentioned of at the time of the New Testament were those enacted under Roman Rule/Law.  So, one could argue that God did away with Slavery upon the establishment of the New Covenant in the Christian age. 

    But the slavery that happened in the 18th &19th Century that was enacted by Americans was not justifiable in terms of the Bible, in doing so, men have perverted the word of God.   

    "You agree with the branding of slaves, you supported the beating of slaves and you agree that owning people as property is immoral we agree, and your assertions are thus roundly defeated."  

    I agree modern slavery is wrong, and I have shown you multiple references that if a man was a "slave" under the Law of Moses is not the same concept of slavery as you are trying to define it as.

  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    @with_all_humility


    I will get to all of your questions, however today I've been traveling all day and time is limited.  So I apologize!

    Safe travels and no worries my friend all in your own time 

    I said : "Here is a quote regarding how Christians used to use the very verses you say no doubt they “misinterpreted“"

    This government of God was tried in the U.S. when slavery was regarded as a divine institution. The pulpit of that day defended the buying and selling of women and babies. The mouths of the slave-traders were filled with passages of Scripture, defending and upholding traffic in human flesh. 

    — Robert Green Ingersoll

    This is not a valid argument for justifying slavery,


    It was perfectly valid then 


     the men of this period of time were not Christian

    That an error on your part as you’re guilty of the No True Scotsman fallacy 

    , they were evil men who twisted the scriptures to justify their actions

    Which demonstrates how the 33,000 different denominations all have different slants on the Bible so again you’re thinking is in error as in the fallacy of Special Pleading 

    .   Just because someone claims to be a Christian...it does not mean they are a Christians

    That’s the Slippery slope fallacy 


    .  Dating clear back to the time of the apostles there have been false teachers.


    How do you know the false from the real ? Again this is special pleading 


      Look at some of the popes through the middle ages, they did evil things. 

    So ?


     But one mans sins does not equate to the sins of another man. 

    Agreed 

    Nor does it make God a creator of evil.  

    But in his own words he claims he dies in fact create evil 


    What happened 150-200 years ago here in the US was inhumane and those men who did such things will spend an eternity in Hell.


    Yes it was inhumane but yet you agree with it in biblical times , regarding Hell thats merely speculation on  your part 


    Again, that is not the same type of slavery that the Israelites practiced. 

    We have  been through that and the very verses you supplied agreed , so why the denial now ?






    Again, that is not the same type of slavery that the Israelites practiced. 


    Really the verses you posted yesterday refute this claim 

    We've talked about types/anti-types or as some might call types & shadows

    The slavery in Exodus, Numbers and other books, that was practiced by the Israelites was a type of Slavery for the anti-type of Slavery to Sin

    Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.) and sin is conveyed as debt. (John 8:34)

    In Christ model prayer it says...and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.(Mat 6:12)

    So from the two verses we can see how God views sin, Sin comes at a price, thus when we sin we incur a debt with God and that debt has to be paid or forgiven. When we begin to commit sin we become a slave to it, because there is no way for mankind to pay for his/her sins.  Only Christ's blood could meet that price. 

    Remember I showed the slavery under theMosaic Law was because a man had come in financial destitute or some other form of debt.  God thru Moses set up a system to where a man could go and worked off his debt, after six years if he had not repaid his debt by that time, he was to be set free.  However, he could have also have repaid his debt before the six years.  He was under no obligation to remain a slave upon repaying his debt

    The type being illustrated in physical Isreal is a man was not condemned be a slave forever. That a man could receive forgiveness and would be forgiven of the debt by God after 6 six years.  

    The anti-type is: We have all sinned and come into debt to God, thus we Slave to sin, however, God has provided mankind a way to be forgiven of the debt, it is through his son Jesus and we are set free of from our sins through his death.

    It's a similar reason why under the Mosaic law physical Israel did animal sacrifice, it was not for God, it was so a man may understand that sin came at a price.  

    If you read through them in the New Testament Law there no provision for having a slave. Paul, mentions how slaves and masters are to treat one another, but there is no command or law to reestablish slavery in the new testament.  If you read Act chapter 15 it says three things were to be observed from the old law.  They are no eating or drinking blood, no idol worship, and no fornication. That's it, there are some principles that carried over, but they are spoken of as commands and no of them say a person can own slaves.  The slaves mentioned of at the time of the New Testament were those enacted under Roman Rule/Law.  So, one could argue that God did away with Slavery upon the establishment of the New Covenant in the Christian age. 

    But the slavery that happened in the 18th &19th Century that was enacted by Americans was not justifiable in terms of the Bible, in doing so, men have perverted the word of God.   

    "You agree with the branding of slaves, you supported the beating of slaves and you agree that owning people as property is immoral we agree, and your assertions are thus roundly defeated."  

    I agree modern slavery is wrong, and I have shown you multiple references that if a man was a "slave" under the Law of Moses is not the same concept of slavery as you are trying to define it as.


    Your previous post totally contradicts your position here and it’s totally dishonest to deny it 

  • "Your previous post totally contradicts your position here and it’s totally dishonest to deny it."

    Dee, I have not contradicted my previous arguments, I have always maintained that the slavery practiced by the Israelites during the time of Moses, is not the same as the slavery practiced by early Americans.  

    What I explained yesterday in hopes to get you to understand a little better is the spiritual significant between physical Israel and spiritual Israel (i.e. Christians) who lives today.  For instance, those laws that you think make God evil, as an example under the Law of Moses if a child disrespected his/her parents the child was to be stoned to death.  Under the New Testament Law, we are still to respect our parents (Eph 6.1) failure to so is a sin resulting in spiritual death.  Types and shadows, the old law was a foreshadow of the things to come.  They were required by God so that we may know what sin is. It's not a hard concept to understand, unless, you just refuse to.  

    I did not contradict, I gave you a deeper level of understanding.  Instead of milk of the word, I provided you the meat. 
    • 1Cor 3.2:  I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,
    • Heb 5.12:  For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.
    • Heb 5.13-14:  For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.
    • 1Pe 2:1-3:  Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.
    "Yes it was inhumane but yet you agree with it in biblical times, regarding Hell that's merely speculation on  your part"

    If they repented of their wrongdoing, yes, but the scriptures are clear, and I'm not convicting them it is the scriptures. 

    Rom 1:28-32: 
     And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,  being filled with all, they not only do the same but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

    I think Romans is pretty clear on how such actions will be reworded, but it is Christ who will judge mankind. 
    Rom 2.16:  on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

    "But in his own words, he claims he dies, in fact, create evil"

    Man is a free moral agent, in other words, has free will.  Examine Ezekiel 18.19-20:  "Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity?' When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

    Just as you are not held responsible if your father commits a crime, and vice-versa, your father is not held responsible for you commit a crime.  God is in not responsible for the sins you commit, we all freely commit sin. Does not make it God's fault.

    "How do you know the false from the real? Again this is special pleading"

    It is not a special pleading, the Bible teaches we are to know the false teacher by knowing the scriptures.

    1Jn 2:18-26:  Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this, we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.  I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.  Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.  Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.  As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.  This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.  These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you.

    Here in John's first epistle, he was warning the church that there would be false teachers (antichrist) who would come from among them. He affirmed the Christians had the Holy Spirit (knowledge of God), and that they knew the truth and no lie comes from the word of God (truth). He ends by saying he was just warning them so that they would be aware of those trying to deceive them.  Today we receive the Holy Spirit by reading and studying the Bible, and we should be diligent to do so. Because we need to be able to identify the truth from a lie and if a false teacher is identified we are to have nothing to do with him.

    "It was perfectly valid then."

    It does not make it right, this would be a good argument against the humanist view, where we all define our own morality.  Whereas Paul in reference to the Gentiles says "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent (Act 17.30). The days of God winking at the ignorance of man is long over, it is our responsibility to know what is required of us by God. Again all these things are sinful and will lead to one's condemnation "unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malicethey are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death" Most of those items pointed out by Paul would be violated by the mistreatment of any person, regardless of social and economical status.

    Just because we justify something in our mind, does not mean it is right.

    @Dee

  • DeeDee 382 Pts
    Incredible really , your defence of biblical slavery and attempting to make it sound like something it’s not is actually an argument used by slavers in previous times , this yet again demonstrates  how the Bible gives believers the “ perfect excuse “ to carry out atrocities on their  fellow man by hiding behind a deeply Immoral “ sacred book “ 

    Let’s examine again what you actually said as opposed to what you’re now saying , 


    21 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,



    That’s ownership which you agree is immoral, you did agree ownership was immoral why are you denying it ?

    It clearly refers to purchase of a human for property 


    he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.


    You agree with the branding of property as in slaves , unless of course the reference to awl means a pay rise and portion using “ Bible speak “ ?


         "The second case involved a master striking his slave, male or female. Since the slave did not die immediately as a result of this act of using the rod (not a lethal weapon, however) but tarried for "a day or two" (v. 21), the master was given the benefit of the doubt;


    You agree with beating slaves once they don’t die , you used this very verse and found absolutely nothing abhorrent about it ? Astonishing 


     he was judged to have struck the slave with disciplinary and not homicidal intentions. This law is unprecedented in the ancient world where a master could treat his slave as he pleased. 


    I know , beat , abuse and have sex with them , it’s fine once it’s not “ homocidal “ plantation owners found this rule “useful “ so you’re on the same page 





    When this law is considered alongside the law in v26-27, which acted to control brutality against slaves at the point where it hurt the master, vs, his pocketbook, a whole new statement of the value and worth of the personhood of the slave is introduced. Thus, if the master struck a slave severely enough only to injure one of his members, he lost his total investment immediately in that the slave won total freedom; or if he struck severely enough to kill the slave immediately, he was tried for capital punishment


    There it is again the beating of a slave and the master losing ownership a thing you previously denied but now admit is immoral as in owning a person as property 




    I note with amusement you cannot offer an “interpretation “ of the piece of nonsense below ,why’s that ?

    Let’s just for a comparison look at another example of biblical nonsense as in the verse below because so far I’ve heard 21 hilarious Christian attempts at an “ explanation 


    2 Kings 2:23-24 New International Version (NIV)

    Elisha Is Jeered

    23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.


    I have nothing against you personally I’m merely picking your defence of slavery apart,  your position regarding the matter has been soundly defeated , your denial was anticipated but is totally groundless and I feel you are now embracing absurdity 

  • @Dee

    Dee, you give me quote from a mid 19th century agnostic, to assert that the Bible is the most immoral book ever?  Meaning you equate the modern English meaning of the word slave to mean the same as Hebrew Slave in Exodus 21.2

    This government of God was tried in the U.S. when slavery was regarded as a divine institution. The pulpit of that day defended the buying and selling of women and babies. The mouths of the slave-traders were filled with passages of Scripture, defending and upholding traffic in human flesh. 

    — Robert Green Ingersoll

    Then you've said.
    "Your previous post totally contradicts your position here and it’s totally dishonest to deny it."

    As well as this...
    Incredible really, your defence of biblical slavery and attempting to make it sound like something it’s not is actually an argument used by slavers in previous times , this yet again demonstrates  how the Bible gives believers the “ perfect excuse “ to carry out atrocities on their  fellow man by hiding behind a deeply Immoral “ sacred book “ 

    Why are you having such a hard time with this? This is what you would call Fallacy of False Cause - Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between two things means that one causes the other

    Exodus 21.2: 
    When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh, he shall go out free, for nothing [1]
    • Notice how the text specifically says Hebrew Slave, these were fellow countrymen.
    This is the Hebrew word and meaning - 5650.  עֶבֶד ʿebedeh´-bed; from 5647; a servant:—× bondage, bondman, [bond-] servant, (man-) servant.[2]

    Below is what they call the Bible Sense Lexicon, it shows you the various meanings of the word. There is no modern definition there.


    I've attached the Greek version of the word that would have been found in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT at the time of Christ) notice how it comes from the group of Greek words with a root word meaning of Slave, Free (87.76–87.86) See the #87.76, look up at the sense lexicon, they match.

    "That’s ownership which you agree is immoral, you did agree ownership was immoral why are you denying it?"

    No, it is not the freely entered into that agreement to be a slave, these were not forced people, they were there for a debt the incurred..

    21.2:  When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh, he shall go out free, for nothing.

    Look at the linguist or translators notes:  Slavery was accepted throughout the ancient Near East as a part of society, and the Israelites did not question it. In one sense they had not actually been slaves in Egypt since they did not belong to any master as personal property, as had been the case with Joseph under Potiphar. Rather, they had been a people forced to do hard labor by an oppressive government. This was quite different from being personal slaves who functioned as domestic helpers. The fact that they formulated these early laws for the proper treatment of slaves indicates that the Israelites still considered them to be human beings. But the following laws refer to people who became someone’s property as slaves for various reasons, usually in order to pay off some form of indebtedness.[3]

    You have nothing to support your argument, these slaves were different, they would be like house servants, or a farm/ranch hand. I show you before if it was a young woman, what taken in and treated like a daughter.

    "There it is again the beating of a slave and the master losing ownership a thing you previously denied but now admit is immoral as in owning a person as property "  Remeber the chart comparing how free Israelites to slaves, they had virtually the same right if bodily harm came upon them.


    "I have nothing against you personally I’m merely picking your defense of slavery apart,  your position regarding the matter has been soundly defeated, your denial was anticipated but is totally groundless and I feel you are now embracing absurdity" 

    •  Dee, I can't believe it, you can read my mind.  You're a riot, you've provided no evidence to support your position or than conjectures and yes, you are repeating yourself because you have no evidence.
    Look another passage talking about copy/type and shadow. Physical Israel was a copy of the things to come to Spiritual Israel in the Christian age (shadow).

    Hebrews 8.2-7: a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.[4] 

    So, you want to the story behind the bears.

    2 Kings 2:23-24 New International Version (NIV)

    Elisha Is Jeered

    23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

    A little bit of context so you can understand more of what going on here.  One of the Godliest prophets of the Bible was Elijah, he was such a good servant of God's, that Jehovah told him he would not suffer death. Elijah is one of two men who perhaps never died not that they were immortal, God just took them to paradise (and that's a maybe), we're not told exactly where God took them to. It was not heaven, because Christ tells us in the NT no man has ever been to heaven. Paradise is referred to being part of Hades the unseen realm of the dead. (Read Luke 16.19-31 from more on Hades.) The first man was Enoch, who was a descendant of Adam through Adam's son Seth. We don't know anything about Enoch other than Genesis 5.24: And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him. That's it that's all we're told about Enoch.  We are not really told why God took Elijah either, in 2 Kings 2.11 is says "Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them"[5]

    You're probably starting to wonder what does this have to with bears and boys.  Well, Elisha was Elijah's successor to be a prophet of the Lord. Picking up in 2 Kings 2.13-14: And he took up the cloak of Elijah that had fallen from him and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. Then he took the cloak of Elijah that had fallen from him and struck the water, saying, “Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?” And when he had struck the water, the water was parted to the one side and to the other, and Elisha went over. What this tells Elisha is that while Elijah is gone, God is not, He is still with him. The prophets who witness the whole scene understand that Elijah’s spirit, the spirit of zeal and power, now rests on Elisha. In v16-18 Apparently there was still some doubt about whether Elisha could really replace Elijah, though it seems that he has at least laid claim to the status once reserved for Elijah among the company of the prophets

    2 Kings 2.19-22 A second miracle reveals Elisha’s prominence to the men of Jericho. The city’s water supply is bad, which renders the land as “unproductive” or barren. Elisha purifies the water while performing a ritual involving salt. Use of salt most likely symbolized a break with the past, such as was declared when offerings were made holy by the rubbing of salt (Lev 2.13; Num 18.19; Eze 43.24). The fact that Elisha declares the water healed because of God’s word indicates that no magic has occurred. Rather, the prophet has demonstrated the importance of the event through the use of a symbolic act and has then relayed a message concerning God’s will on the matter. Two groups have now seen evidence of Elisha’s special status.

    2 Kings 2.23–25 With the ascent to Bethel the journey of Elisha is taken a step further. He is now retracing the steps both he and Elijah took earlier in the chapter and we see a third, less respectful group learns of Elisha’s power. Some young boys from Bethel come out of the town to mock and jeer at the prophet. These boys parallel the soldiers in 1 Kings 1.9–12 who order Elijah to come with them, for both groups seem to lack respect for the prophets’ authority and position. The specific insult cast at Elijah is, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” Elijah was said to be a very harry man (2 Kings 1.8); so this phrase may refer to some physical marking Elisha took on or to a literal baldness, since artificial baldness was legislated against in Israel (Deuteronomy 14.1), making Elisha’s condition was a natural one.  Either way, the insult was directed specifically at Elisha as a prophet and therefore at the Lord whom he represented. The "jeering" or rude attitude of “Go on up!” may be a reference to Elijah’s translation, with the sense of “Go away like Elijah,” perhaps spoken in “scornful disbelief.”

    Elisha pronounces a swift curse on the group of boys, and bears maul forty-two of the boys. This punishment comes as a punishment of the Lord, in whose name the curse was offered (look at Leviticus 26:21–22). The youths were typical of a nation that, “Mocked God’s messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets” (2 Chronicles 36:16). Some commentators think this story was originally meant “to frighten the young into respect for their reverend elders,” while others believe the account is legendary and represents the worst notions of certain prophetic circles. Others believe that the account demonstrates Elisha’s “effective use of the name of Yahweh” and his role as new “father” of the prophets. It is also true that the scornful have discovered Elisha is no more to be trifled with than Elijah was. Three groups of characters are now aware of Elisha’s prominence. Others have yet to learn this fact, however, so further miracles may be required.

    This final story in the chapter raises some serious questions which are not answered by the author. The death of forty-two boys is hardly to be seen as a characteristic prophetic activity. Suffice it to say that, like the events of Elijah and the soldiers of Ahaziah, this incident is characterized by excess. Like in 2 Samuel 6.6-7, a man is killed instantly for trying to catch the arc of the covenant when it starts to fall off the cart. The ridicule of sacred person must have been rewarded by the harshest of punishments because they represented Jehovah. The incident is also reminder of 1 Kings 13:20–24 and 20:35–36.

    I know that was long, but wanted to throughly explain it to you. If you're still not satisfied let me know and we'll try and find another way to describe it to you. 



    [1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ex 21:2). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

    [2] Strong, J. (2009). A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible (Vol. 2, p. 84). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

    [3]  Osborn, N. D., & Hatton, H. A. (1999). A handbook on Exodus (p. 490). New York: United Bible Societies.

    [4] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Heb 8:2–7). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

    [5] The New King James Version. (1982). (2 Ki 2:11). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

  • IdolRocksIdolRocks 49 Pts
    @Dee

    The bible is a truly despicable book which has a god who commands in his name abortion , infanticide , child abuse , misogyny, pestilence , famine ,drought , child sacrifice etc ,etc , it's a truly horrendous book that most Christians haven't read yet claim it's the word of a loving god and its possibly the most immoral b

    "abortion"

    http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1430

    "infanticide"

    http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=260

    "child abuse"

    Can you please tell me what you are referring to? I would think it is "Abraham and Isaac"

    "misogyny"

    https://www.gotquestions.org/misogyny-Bible.html

    https://carm.org/is-christainity-or-the-bible-misogynistic

    https://carm.org/wifes-submission-her-husband-slavery



    "pestilence"


    "famine"

    https://carm.org/does-god-ever-do-bad-things

    https://carm.org/dictionary-famine

    https://carm.org/slavery

    I will respond to the ones that I left blank. Interesting though, I have never had someone complain to me about verses referring "pestilence, drought and famine"
  • IdolRocksIdolRocks 49 Pts
    @Dee

    EvilBible is an inaccurate website. Aside from the fact, that they are offering noting but their opinion, and have no Objective, Unchanging, Absolute Standard, that they are using to Judge God, the website makes three major mistakes. 

    https://www.gotquestions.org/is-God-evil.html

    • A misunderstanding of God’s Word
    • A misunderstanding of God’s character
    • A misunderstanding of God’s creation 

    Let’s now review each of these issues and cite specific examples from evilbible.com’s web site that illustrate how and why their assertions against the Bible and God are false. 
  • IdolRocksIdolRocks 49 Pts
    @Dee

    You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

    https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/the-bible-and-slavery/

    Luke 12:43-48
    43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes.
    44 Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has.
    45 But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk,
    46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
    47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
    48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

    As for Jesus’ supposed support for beating slaves, this is in the context of a parable. Parables are stories Jesus told to help us understand spiritual truths. For example, in one parable, Jesus likens God to a judge. The judge is unjust, but eventually gives justice to the widow when she persists. The point of that story was not to tell us that God is like an unjust judge—on the contrary, He is completely just. The point of the parable is to tell us to be persistent in prayer. Similarly, Luke 12:47–48 does not justify beating slaves. It is not a parable telling us how masters are to behave. It is a parable telling us that we must be ready for when Jesus Himself returns. One will be rewarded with eternal life through Christ, or with eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46)

    1 Timothy 6:1-2
    1 Let as many bondservants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed.
    2 And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things.

    Writing to Timothy, Paul doesn’t give an endorsement to slavery or servants. He merely gives commands to those who are already either masters or bondservants. Again, bondservants or slaves were paid a wage and, being brothers in Christ, Paul makes it clear that they are equals:


  • SandSand 64 Pts

    Name a nation back then that didn't have slaves? Every nation already had slaves and were getting slaves. God gave them guidelines to deal with the slaves justfully. 

    Slavery in the Bible times is different from our times.

    Slavery in the Bible was equal to employment. (Was it exactly like employment....NO! Just like employment in one country is different in another.)

    Slaves in the Bible got paid and received a portion of the Business when the Master died. Not everyone wanted to be a Master. Which required a lot of financial pressure. Just like today, not everyone wants to live off of their own work, otherwise everyone would be in sales. Everyone would own their own business. Most people like to “work for someone” during the Bible times they were call “slaves”, now they are called “employees”. Women and Men could get businesses, Proverbs 31 shows that. But the thinking of that day was not typical as it is today. 

     

    Modern slavery is a term used to mean someone is forced to do something.

    Whipping, abusing, even killing. But that is because people did not adhere to the moral standards outlined in the Bible. (Which is what the speaker of this question wants. Why? For motivations other than the topic they are speaking about. So the speaker of this question is the cause of their own problem.)

     

    Jesus speaks of a slave about to be fired. How can a slave be fired? Jesus talks about a slave who controls all the finances in the household. Is this really a slave?

  • SandSand 64 Pts
    The speaker of this question want to eliminate morals of the Bible. They must have some serious regrets in life to atribute these regrets to the Bible. The Bible has very high morals, the speaker does not want to be held to these morals. Doing this is really smear campaign to use as an excuse to not adhere to the morals of the Bible. The questions that needs to be asked to everyone who agrees with this question: Is your morals higher or lower than the Bible? If it is lower, why are you talking down to the Bible. If it is higher then you must feel there should be no sexual promiscuity whatsoever. 
  • TKDBTKDB 158 Pts
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Is_the_Bible_an_Immoral_Book? 

    ”I have heard the cynically misanthropic opinion that without the Bible as a moral compass people would show no restraint against murder, theft and mayhem. The surest way to disabuse yourself of this pernicious falsehood is to read the Bible itself.
    —Richard Dawkins[1] "


     Creation Ministries International, being under some rhetorical assault from atheist vloggers on YouTube, has responded by commissioning an article from theological whiz-kid Lita Cosner,[2] entitled Is the Bible an Immoral Book?.


    CMI

    "There has been a wave of atheist YouTube videos attacking the morality of the Bible, arguing that not only is it not original in its good moral teachings, but that it also advocates some moral atrocities such as murder and slavery."

    "First, it must be noted that the atheist has no logical ground for saying that anything is "good" or "bad", other than his own personal preferences. Evolution is based on the survival of the fittest at the expense of the "unfit". How can any ethics be based on "nature, red in tooth and claw"? Even Richard Dawkins claims that he's a passionate Darwinian when it comes to biology, but passionately anti-Darwinian when it comes to ethics. "

    "If asked, the majority of people would say that they would rather live in places where people didn't murder each other or steal from each other. When asked they often cite their preferences as Western countries such as those in Western Europe or American, Canada etc. These perceived more "moral" countries have many principles that can be traced back to their Christian heritage that underpinned their governments and society in general. Of course, this is being eroded quickly. But "Theft and murder are wrong" doesn't follow from a choice of preferences, any more than the preference "I like chocolate" makes eating a consistent supply of chocolate into a human right or beneficial for someone. See more about the foundation for ethics at Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation"

    Rational Wiki

    "Ms. Cosner is referring to several specific videos, which she attempts to refute blow by blow later in the article. However, she does not provide any links to these videos, which would lead one to suspect that she is either (1) quoting selectively from them, or (2) making a straw man out of the arguments therein presented."


    "This is total blank, of course; by these tokens creationists have no "logical ground" for saying that anything is "good" or "bad" other than God's own personal preferences-- which mostly turn out, in practice, to be their own personal preferences."

    "The claim that the atheist has no reason to call something good or bad except for their own personal preferences excludes the possibility of basing such things on the preferences of many humans at once. It also, through its negative implications, begs the question as to whether human preferences are indeed the correct 'ground' for morality. Some philosophers, including atheists Sam Harris and Richard Carrier, have argued that this is the only correct ground for any true morality."

    However, let us assume that this assessment is correct. Insofar as the atheists' arguments are directed at Christians, and insofar as Christians claim that killing, genocide, slavery, etc. are "bad" according to Christian standards, it can thus be concluded that the Bible's numerous endorsements of these practices are "bad" according to the same standards.

    Evolution is notbased on "survival of the fittest." The idea has been thoroughly falsified - we now know that "survival of the fit enough for one's environment long enough to reproduce" is what's happening, and even if it hadn't been falsified, "survival of the fittest" was not Darwin's idea but Herbert Spencer's, and not part of the scientific theory of evolution—instead it's part of the pseudoscience of social darwinism.

    Even if none of that were true, the author is fallaciously discussing atheism and evolution as if they were intrinsically related, and fails to understand even evolution in the sense that humans are social species and survival in the evolutionary sense is something that populations do, and not just individuals"

    "There is a great deal of cherry pickinggoing on there, on multiple levels.

    Firstly, there are a number of countries in which murder and theft are not rife that are not at all Christian. Japan, for example, is highly irreligious and for tradition has a mixture of Shinto and Buddhism; its murder rate is a fraction of the U.S.'s. Singapore, similarly, has a very low murder rate, but is a religious smorgasbord. Further counterexamples are Taiwan, South Korea, India, and (in recent years) Turkey.[3]

    Secondly, there are a number of countries with a Christian heritage in which these things are a problem. Mexico, with its Spanish Catholic heritage, is currently a hot-spot for bandits, drug wars, etc. Russia also had a heavily Christian heritage (Moscow claimed to be the "Third Rome" after the fall of Constantinople, a source of national pride), yet still managed to have such a rotten government as to lend a measure of popular support to the February and October Revolutions—and, since the fall of Communism, has a government which has become increasingly rotten even as it marched closer in step with the church. Armenia, the very first country to become Christian, which survived a 70-year-long communist occupation with its population still 97% Christian, is not at the top of the hypothetical list of desirable countries. Greece, one of the most religious countries in Europe, and so thoroughly Christian that Hellenic pagan rites were outlawed there until 2006,[4] has recently been rocked by riots and various other tensions to a much greater degree than its more secular counterparts elsewhere in Europe.

    Thirdly, the models of government practiced in many of the model "Christian" countries owe more to classical Greco-Roman philosophy than to the Bible, as even Jonathan Edwards, the fire-and-brimstone preacher of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" fame, acknowledged in one of his sermons:[5]

    “”There were some nations who excelled in other knowledge, as the Greeks and Romans. They excelled in policy, and in the form of their civil government. They had wise political rulers. They had excellent laws for regulating their civil state, many of which have been imitated, as a pattern, by many Christian nations ever since."

    This article is both educational, and presents both sides of the debate.

    And there is more to read up on in this article.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 202 Pts
    The idea that the Bible is the most immoral book rests on opinion. I also think a lot the things here are immoral too just like with other theistic religious scriptures.

    These are immoral actions of man, however; not of a divine being. But make no mistake here, I am not saying anything about the morality of a divine being as that would be impossible as there is no way of measuring something that is not falsifiable.

    The immoral actions committed were/are done so by mere mortals that blindly believed that they were doing something in the name of a great being which rests on nothing more than faulty beliefs.

    Furthermore, I would also have to say that I think that it be considered that to have Deity as the ultimate and absolute standard of morality to in itself be immoral; this would have to be one of the worst forms of totalitarianism. In this respect, there would be something constantly looking over you and capable of holding you guilty of thought crime. 

    If the absolute standard of morality rests upon a Deity and what's in the religious scriptures written down by disciples (mere mortals) of the Prophets then I don't think I want an absolute morality. As Richard Dawkins said:

    I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, discussed and argued.







    "never show someone your entire hand too soon" - Famous Proverb/Idiom.

  • TKDBTKDB 158 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    Richard Dawkins, it would appear, maybe, enjoys, the attention, that is given in his direction?

    There are quite a few videos of Mr. Dawkins. on YouTube? 

    Another statement, that some of the anti religious, have gone out of their way internet platform wise to express, is that when a religious parent, or parents teach their own kids about religion, that that action should be viewed as child abuse?

    And still, no anti religious individual, has as of yet, been able to provide one single court room case, where any religious parent, or parents, have been arrested, and incarcerated for the crime of child abuse, because a parent, or parents were found guilty of that child abuse crime?

    Or that any offender, or criminal in general, that committed a crime, in the name of any religion, and religion in general, was found justifiably guilty, along with any offender, or criminal, for any crime, that that same offender, or criminal, alone was found guilty of, because their crime was committed in the name of their individual religion? 
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 202 Pts
    TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    Richard Dawkins, it would appear, maybe, enjoys, the attention, that is given in his direction?

    There are quite a few videos of Mr. Dawkins. on YouTube?
    Whatever the interests and current circumstances of Richard Dawkins are irrelevant to the validity of what he said.

    Another statement, that some of the anti religious, have gone out of their way internet platform wise to express, is that when a religious parent, or parents teach their own kids about religion, that that action should be viewed as child abuse?
    I don't know what relevance this has to do with what I said or even this debate. Are you accusing me of being an Anti-religious person that accuses religious people of being abusers?  Which by the way I have never said or even implied.

    If you're referencing a time when Richard Dawkins said teaching children about religion is abuse then I disagree with that in a generic and literate sense yes.

    However, I don't exactly know what he meant by that in any sense and neither do you. Also, I haven't had the time to look deeper. Knowing Richard Dawkins however, I could hazard a guess to why he might say it is abuse in some instances such as for example teaching a child they must not get vaccinated to save their life as it would be against their religion; then yes, this is abuse. Teaching a child they must not get vaccinated in the name of something unfalsifiable is indeed abuse (aka abuse by negligence).  

    And still, no anti religious individual, has as of yet, been able to provide one single court room case, where any religious parent, or parents, have been arrested, and incarcerated for the crime of child abuse, because a parent, or parents were found guilty of that child abuse crime?
    I wouldn't know about Parents but many religious people have been prosecuted for child abuse yes. If however, you're referencing that no one has been prosecuted for teaching their children about religion then that is correct. 

    Or that any offender, or criminal in general, that committed a crime, in the name of any religion, and religion in general, was found justifiably guilty, along with any offender, or criminal, for any crime, that that same offender, or criminal, alone was found guilty of, because their crime was committed in the name of their individual religion?

    This is factually incorrect. There have been a plethora of terrorists that have gone on trial because they did or were about to commit terrible crimes that cost the lives of thousands all in the name of religion and rightfully so.





    "never show someone your entire hand too soon" - Famous Proverb/Idiom.

  • TKDBTKDB 158 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    Prove it. Your opinion alone doesn't count.

    Or that any offender, or criminal in general, that committed a crime, in the name of any religion, and religion in general, was found justifiably guilty, along with any offender, or criminal, for any crime, that that same offender, or criminal, alone was found guilty of, because their crime was committed in the name of their individual religion?

    "This is factually incorrect. There have been a plethora of terrorists that have gone on trial because they did or were about to commit terrible crimes that cost the lives of thousands all in the name of religion and rightfully so."
     
    Can you provide any type, of archival information to back you opinion up?

    YouTube maybe?

    CNN, OAN, FOX, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, or maybe NPR? 

    An individual, blaming religion for their crimes, is an easy defense to make.

    It would be groundbreaking, to see an actual picture of God, or Jesus, being a (visible co conspirator,) while an individual, committed their plethora of crimes? 

    Or maybe even some DNA evidence being present, at the scenes of those crimes, as well? 
    ZeusAres42
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch