frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Why do Christians defend the immorality of the Christian god as depicted in the Bible ?

14567810»



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2668 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    Sand said:
    Excellent Reasoning.

    #1 That is the definition of slavery. Dictionaries was made in 1500s, during the civil rights movement. It is understandable why that is the definition now.

    I agree slaves in the Bible’s times was keeping someone as property, but was it against their will?

    According to the Bible, it was not, people had to choose to enslave themselves.

    Was it without remuneration or appreciation?

    According to the Bible, it was not, slaves were paid, during and after.

    This is where I ask for evidence that Biblical slavery was similar to the slavery in the USA.

    There is no other record that states otherwise. We have to go on the Bible’s information.

    Based on that information slavery was paid. Harsh treatment was released.

     You are saying people were not treated right during Biblical times. We are not saying everything went perfect during that time, people are human. People sneak and do things outside of the Law all the time. Nevertheless, the people is not the issue here. The question is on the Bible. According to the the rules in the Bible it was more than fair. If people followed the guidelines in the Bible, slavery is moral, fair, not harsh, and paid.

     #2 Harsh treatment of slaves could have existed in Israel during Biblical times. Nevertheless, we need proof. It also could not have existed in Israel during the Biblical times. And even if it did that is not what is on trial here. The Bible is on trial here. The Bible did not require people to get slaves. It outlined how the treatment should be, if they acquired slaves, if someone enslaved themselves.

     #3 If that was the case then they would have abolished it well before 1865. If ownership of people was considered immoral why wasn’t it abolished in 1492? Why not in 1776 during the signing of the Declaration of Independence? I got that information about 1865 from Wikipedia, main reason slavery was abolished was to prevent Black people from being labors in the West.

     #4 That information about slavery and incarceration was the information in the Amendment. I was not comparing it. It is in the Amendment. The people who abolished slavery compared it. There was justification in the Bible times. The Bible says if someone becomes so poor that they enslave themselves. It was like a job.

     

    Look at the question?

    >>>Why do Christians defend the immorality of the Christian god as depicted in the Bible ?  

    So this question is saying the Bible depicts God as immoral.

    That is an attack on the Bible. Not the people. I am not defending the people, I don’t know if they followed or not, I need proof. What I am doing is defending the Bible.

    The Bible did not depict God as immoral, because it required good treatment to slaves.

    That’s why I say what the Bible says.



    In any case, this wouldn't be classed as slavery according to the way it is defined which is involuntary servitude. If you are working voluntarily for another person then that isn't slavery; it's voluntary servitude.

    Furthermore, I would not call it an attack on God or the Bible. The bible was written by mortals and a lot of the actions during those times were done by mortals because of some belief/s in something that not falsifiable. What more is that the morality of something that is not falsifiable cannot be measured or defined. 
    Sandethang5JohnSmith



  • IdolRocksIdolRocks 64 Pts   -  
    @Joeseph ;

    "God burns down a whole city (women and children included) simply because they were supposedly homosexual.  (Genesis 19:23-25)"

    That is simply not true. 

    I will come back to this one. I don't have an article about this yet. 

    "Q: In Gen 19, was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah really a lack of hospitality as Ezekiel 16:49 says?"

    "A: That is only part of the story. Some homosexuals quote Ezekiel 16:49 but ignore Ezekiel 16:50, which mentions "committing abominations." Genesis 19:5-7 emphasizes the homosexuality. Jude 7 also speaks of the "sexual immorality and perversion." Genesis 13:13 shows that Sodom’s wickedness was prior to Lot’s arrival. See When Cultists Ask p.28-29 for more info."

    http://www.biblequery.org/gen.html

    "God punishes children for the sins of their fathers, unto the third and fourth generations.  Punishing a child for the sins of their ancestors is not very just. (Exodus 20:5 & 34:7)"

    This is an example of one of those "Apparent Contradictions" that has already been shown to not be a Contradiction. 

    "Just" according to what standard? Your opinion? What makes your opinion right and not someone else's and how do you decide?

    These verses have been addressed, answered and explained on multiple occasions, and on different websites.

    https://www.gotquestions.org/parents-sin.html

    I will continue to respond to these verses when I get the chance. 

  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    I'm going to Church tomorrow.

    I challenge, the anti religious, to go to any church, and protest Religion in person, instead of on the internet. 

    Let's have a debate, in a public forum, in front of any neighborhood.

    In front of the kids, the parents, and whoever else shows up? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • JakeGyllenhaalJakeGyllenhaal 18 Pts   -  
    @Joeseph

    Yes you , he was a Catholic 

    He was a Catholic? So what?? What's your point? He may have said he was a Catholic or made positive quotes about Christianity but nothing he actually did suggests that he was a Catholic. His actions prove to be way stronger than his words.  
  • JakeGyllenhaalJakeGyllenhaal 18 Pts   -  
    @Joeseph

    God punishes children for the sins of their fathers, unto the third and fourth generations.  Punishing a child for the sins of their ancestors is not very just. (Exodus 20:5 & 34:7)

    First of all, "Just" according to what Standard? Second of all, this supposed contradiction has already been addressed. 

    https://www.gotquestions.org/sins-of-the-father.html

    https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1378

    "God endorses slavery. He even set up laws as to how slavery was to be carried out, and goes as far as Okaying beating them.  (Exodus 21:2-6)"

    Yeah, He set up laws to protect them from Harm and that they be treated fairly. 

    Exodus 21:2-6 is one of the most common verses that Skeptic take out of context. But, regardless, an explanation has already been provided, on several occasions. 

    "Deeply ingrained cultural patterns don't change overnight, but must be redeemed over time. Slavery was intricately woven into the cultures of the day, so, as with divorce (neither being the situation God desired), God made rules to keep the evil of the practice to a minimum. For example, if you kidnapped someone and made him a slave, you were put to death. If a slave escaped from his master for whatever reason, you were not allowed to returnhim. If you harmed so much as a tooth of your slave, you had to let him go free—in other words, no person was allowed to keep a slave if he mistreated him or her. Slavery in Western countries would never even have gotten off the ground had these rules been followed; the first rule alone would have prevented it."

    "God regulated divorce, and yet He explicitly said He hates it, so the regulation of the practice did not mean He condoned it. Therefore, one cannot assume that God's regulation of slavery meant God condoned slavery."



    ethang5
  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    Pi@Joeseph

    Yes. Numbers 31. The verse that Skeptics love to pretend supports the Virgins being raped, even though there is absolutely zero evidence to support such a claim.

    http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2333

    http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=763

    https://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html

    https://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-in-bible.html


  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Joeseph

    So you argree with young virgin girls being given away to men ?

    It does not mean that they were raped. It does even imply that. The idea that it does is something that you have simply inserted into the Bible. 

    "You also agree that women who slept with a man be butchered and their children ......Wow!"

    What does this even mean?
  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Joeseph

    "You seem delighted at gods decision to approve of the murder of women and children"

    You seem unaware of the fact  that God is Sovereign over all and has the right to take one's life wherever He sees fit. 

    Also, you seem unaware of the fact that you are simply expressing your opinion and your opinion does not prove that God is immoral. 


    Plaffelvohfen
  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Joeseph

    "My reply ..... Hey yeah you’re right you’ve just slaughtered their families best give them away as sex slaves"

    There is no evidence that proves that they were given away as 'sex slaves'. That is simply something that you are assuming based upon some of the words in the verse, but those words do not prove or show that they were given away as 'sex slaves'.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @JohnSmith

    The bible and your god totally approves of rape your denial is typical and similar to a Nazi making excuses for Hitler .....Why would I be interested in Christian websites that justify rape do you think?

    God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

    Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @JohnSmith

    It does not mean that they were raped. It does even imply that. The idea that it does is something that you have simply inserted into the Bible. 

    "You also agree that women who slept with a man be butchered and their children ......Wow!"


    It sure does as my latest verse confirms you do know what ravish means? 


    The second quote demonstrates your ignorance of the Bible as you didnt even know it was in the Bible 

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @JohnSmith


    You seem unaware of the fact  that God is Sovereign over all and has the right to take one's life wherever He sees fit. 

    Well you believe that nonsense not I , regards taking lives well yes he’s good at that he orders , carries out and commands 25 million killings (low estimate) in his name , Satan carries out the death of Jobs family (with gods approval ) and yet he’s the bad guy .......hilarious 
    Also, you seem unaware of the fact that you are simply expressing your opinion and your opinion does not prove that God is immoral. 


    Well it’s takes a certain type of person like a Christian who approves of the slaughter of men women and children once god is doing it and to worship a god that approves of owning people as property as in slavery , but in a Christians eyes that makes their god .....moral and that’s their collective opinion ......

    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @JohnSmith

    Your total ignorance of the contents of the Bible is startling but typical of most Christians , let me help you in your confusion........



    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)


  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Dee The Christian Websites do not "justify Rape". They explain the verse for what it really says instead of what Liars, like you, pretend that it says.

    Zechariah 14:1-2

    https://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-in-bible.html?m=1

    "God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 12:1-2): Again EB takes a verse out of context, and those who use biblegateway.com or another such site in reference to this (Good idea, by the way), pull up just one more verse after this. It reads: "Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against these nations". Another translation of verse one "Behold, the day of the Lord cometh." This verse has Israel being defeated for turning away from God, and then God will come to redeem them. The rape described here is the disgusting acts of other nations, and God punishes them for it when he redeems Israel. Hardly condoning rape."

    And please tell me why "Rape" would be wrong, let alone 'Evil' in an Atheistic, Evolutionary Worldview? 

    You have no Objective Basis for why 'Rape' would be wrong in an Atheistic, Evolutionary Worldview? It's only wrong based on your opinion, and while you are certainly allowed to have an opinion, your opinion does not make anything or prove that anything is actually right or wrong. Subjective Opinions do not make anything right or wrong. 

    https://creation.com/rape-and-evolution

    "John Lofton, a Christian, here interviews Craig Palmer, who, along with Randy Thornhill, is one of two evolutionist academic authors of the book, A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion (MIT Press)."

    This link is about interviewing one of the writers. Please read it. 

  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    "Your total ignorance of the contents of the Bible is startling but typical of most Christians , let me help you in your confusion......."

    I thought that I had already given a response to this Verse, but I guess I am mistaken.

    Nevertheless, I am completely aware of Leviticus 25:44-46. I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't be, (just because I didn't specifically provide a link that specifically quotes from the article on this verse,) that doesn't mean I am not aware of it. 

    https://www.compellingtruth.org/amp/slavery-Old-Testament.htm

    "Israelites vs. Foreigners"

    "Leviticus 25:39-46 explains some of the differences between an Israelite slave and a foreign slave. An Israelite slave was to be treated as a cross between family and a hired man, not as a chattel slave. But Israel also had foreigners who had been taken in battle or who, like the Gibeonites, had chosen to become Israel's servants (Joshua 9). These slaves could be held permanently—could be, but it wasn't required. An Israelite who had to sell himself was to be treated respectfully and redeemed as quickly as possible (Leviticus 25:47-55)."

    http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1587

    "Slaves of Debt"

    "Another aspect of Old Testament slavery had to do with severe debt accumulation. In Old Testament times, no bankruptcy legislation held sway over the Israelites. What was to be done for the person who was drowning in a sea of debt? Was his lender simply to wave his hand and forgive the debt? Would that be a fair situation for the lender? Hardly. Therefore, many of the slave situations arose because of such debt. Herb Vander Lugt commented:"

    "Remember too, at that time no nation had the ability to deal with people who had gotten themselves hopelessly in debt. So they were allowed to sell themselves into slavery (often temporarily) in exchange for release from their financial obligations (Ex. 21:2-4; Lev. 25:39-43; Dt.15:12) [1999, p. 11, parenthetical item in orig.]."

    "Leviticus 25:47-49 provides an example of slavery caused by debt:"

    "Now if a sojourner or stranger close to you becomes rich, and one of your brethren who dwells by him becomes poor, and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner close to you, or to a member of the stranger’s family, after he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him; or his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him; or anyone who is near of kin to him in his family may redeem him; or if he is able he may redeem himself."

    "Would it be fair for a society to allow a person who had accumulated a huge amount of debt to sell his labor to another person to pay that debt? Yes, it would. However, God—aware that abuse might arise in any situation—even regulated debt slavery, and provided for the rights and privileges of the slave to be guarded."

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

    "A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first.6 In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave"

    Footnote:

    6.) a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. 'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. 'He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. 'For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to men W be sold in a slave sale. 'You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. (Leviticus 25:39-43)

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/answeringsceptics.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/answering-leviticus-25-44-46-the-bible-condones-slavery/amp/

    "https://answeringsceptics.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/answering-leviticus-25-44-46-the-bible-condones-slavery/

    "Voluntary slavery is a completely different situation. Voluntary slavery arises when a person becomes so poor that they cannot make a living, cannot provide for themselves, and sell themselves into a relationship with a person who has money and can provide for the poor person. The Hebrew word for this is “ebed.” meaning servant, or bondman. The Bible describes Israel as the Lord’s bondservant, or slave, the same word ebed."

    "Muslims have distorted these verses out of context but we will look at the whole context. They quote Leviticus 25:44-46, but let’s quote it from verse 39-40:"

    “If any Israelites living near you become SO POOR that THEY SELL THEMSELVES to you as a slave, you shall not make them do the work of a slave. They shall stay with you as hired workers and serve you until the next Year of Restoration.”  – Leviticus 25:39-40"

    "The issue of poverty was one of the reasons that people sold themselves as servants. There were also provisions for freedom. They could be bought back by a relative, or by their own money. Working for someone else did not mean that they received nothing. “By their own money” (v. 49) meant a certain freedom to gain money and buy their own freedom."

    "We have no reason to believe that the same was not true for the foreigners in the land. The verse says, “Purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land,” (Leviticus 25:44) and these were probably people like the Hebrews who fell on hard times and were poor. Being a servant in another household was better than starving. The rights are spelled out for the Hebrews but they would also apply to the foreigners who were welcomed into the land. The people were commanded: “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner; remember that you were foreigners in Egypt. Do not mistreat any widow or orphan.” – Exodus 22:21-22"

    "“Suppose a foreigner living with you becomes rich, while some Israelites become poor and SELL THEMSELVES AS SLAVES to that foreigner or to a member of that foreigner’s family. After they are sold, they still have the right to be bought back. A brother or an uncle or a cousin or another close relative may buy them back; or if they themselves earn enough, they may buy their own freedom. They must consult the one who bought them, and they must count the years from the time they sold themselves until the next Year of Restoration and must set the price for their release on the basis of the wages paid hired workers. They must refund a part of the purchase price according to the number of years left, as if they had been hired on an annual basis. Their master must not treat them harshly. If they are not set free in any of these ways, they and their children must be set free in the next Year of Restoration. Israelites cannot be permanent slaves, because the people of Israel are the LORD’s slaves. He brought them out of Egypt; he is the LORD their God. – Leviticus 25:47-55"

    "The central issue here is that slavery was initiated BY the slave, NOT by the ownersDEFINITELY not by force. The passage about inheritance needs some caveats:"

    "First, the verses say “you may” pass them on to your children, not that it was automatic, necessary, expected, or standard practice. It may be that the prosperity changes could have reduced the owner’s ability to support the slave."

    "Second, this may well refer to servants who did not want to go free as expressed in Exodus 21:5, “But if the slave declares that he loves his master, his wife, and his children and does not want to be set free,” there was a ceremony at the place of worship for declaring him to be a slave for life. There is a similar procedure described in Deuteronomy 15:16 in which a person could become a slave for life because “he may love you and your family and be content to stay.”

    "Third, given the fact that slaves could earn money, they could buy their own freedom: “if they themselves earn enough, they may buy their own freedom.” – Leviticus 25:49"

    http://www.comereason.org/slavery-in-the-bible.asp

    ""If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God."

    ""If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.35-43)"

    • "Slavery was designed so that the poor could seek protection - this is noted in the passage of Leviticus that your friend quoted. It's driven by the need of the individual who is poor."
    • "Slaves were to be recognized as human beings first and foremost, not property or chattel. Verse 40 states "He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you".
       
    http://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/slavery-in-bible.html?m=1

    "There's another big issue with a two words that begin every single one of these statement. Those words are "when" and "if", primarily "if". The Bible says IF x happens, you should do y. It never says Since I commanded you to do x, you should also do y. Evilbible is inserting words that are not in the text, and therefore changing the meaning into instructions on slavery into God condoning slavery, and it clearly doesn't say that. It's the same idea with the word "when". God knows it's going to happen, so he says uses when. It still never says anything about God commanding slavery, or encouraging slavery, etc."

    https://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/slavery-in-the-bible-25/

    "The laws for servants who were non-Hebrews were slightly different. For them there was no automatic release, either in the Jubilee year (Leviticus 25:44-46), or the seventh year of debt cancellation (Deuteronomy 15:3). These foreign indentured servants were outside the covenant community, and did not receive the benefit of debt cancellation. The Hebrews were permitted to pass them on as an inheritance to the next generation until their debts were repaid, which is the meaing of ‘olam’ in Leviticus 25:46 (translated ‘perpetually’). The text does not mean they were permanent possessions, but is an explanation as to why they do not go out at the seventh year of release or the Jubilee as the Hebrews do (the reason being that their debts are not cancelled)."

    "However, the Law of Moses still maintained their personal legal rights relating to physical protection (Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27), freedom of movement, and access to liberty (Deuteronomy 23:15-16). Any bondservant purchased from the Gentiles had the right to flee their master, and receive the protection of the Law of Moses if they did so:"

    'Deuteronomy 23:"

    "15 You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you.""16 Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him."

    "Thus even for bondservants purchased from the Gentiles, servititude was not a permanent institution."

  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -   edited November 2019
    @Dee

    "Well you believe that nonsense not I , regards taking lives well yes he’s good at that he orders , carries out and commands 25 million killings (low estimate) in his name , Satan carries out the death of Jobs family (with gods approval ) and yet he’s the bad guy .......hilarious"

    First of all, it's not nonsense.

    Second of all, it doesn't matter whether you beiieve it or not, it remains true regardless. 

    Third of all, since God created us, He therefore has the right to get rid of us whenever He sees fit. And plus since we have all Sinned against Him, we all deserve the Death Penalty. And children who are taken, go straight to Heaven. 

    http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2016/06/02/why-did-god-kill-25-million-people-a-brief-response-to-the-atheists/

    "It does not matter whether God killed 25 million people, those numbers do not matter. Hence 25 million is not a number to be concerned about; instead the concern is about God’s justice, “Was God just in killing a large number of people as recorded in the Old Testament?”"

    "Justice is God’s ontologically necessary attribute, so HE cannot unjustly kill even one person. God cannot be unjust."

    "Since God created everything – humans included, and because God is a just God, HE alone has the sole authority to give and take life. All that matters is if God has revealed morally sufficient and justifiable reasons for eliminating lives."

    "A just God has morally sufficient reasons to kill people. Because HE has morally sufficient reasons, God is justified and none can fault God."

    God Can Kill Wicked & Unrepentant People

    "Deuteronomy 2:34, 3:6, 20:16-18, Exodus 23:23, Deuteronomy 7:1-2, Joshua 3:10, 9:24 and 1 Samuel 15:2-3 record God’s command to exterminate people. Take for instance the Canaanites, who were they?"

    "They were wicked. They practiced idolatry, witchcraft, soothsaying, sorcery, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality and bestiality."

    "But wasn’t there a chance for these people to repent and be good? Yes. Genesis 15: 13-16 teaches that God refrained from his judgment upon the Canaanites for 400 years during which time God’s own people languished in slavery."

    "If Canaanites did not repent in 400 years, they would not have repented even if God had given them another 400 years. But God is omniscient (God possesses middle knowledge 1 as well). Thus God knew precisely that Canaanites would not repent. Hence God judged them."

    "What about children who were killed? Was God unjust in killing children? No!"

    "Death is a gateway to heaven or hell. When children die, God in HIS grace takes them into HIS own presence (Cf. 2 Samuel 12: 23). So the death of children is in fact their salvation. Children who die will be with God in heaven."

    "Just as how the owner of a building possesses all authority to demolish a building, God, the owner of every life, possesses all authority to create and to eliminate life. Instead of allowing the children to grow in the Canaanite practice, God in HIS mercy took them away, and by doing so, favored the children from an eternal perspective."

    Objection #1: God Killed Millions But Satan Killed Only 60!

    "God is sovereign, whereas Satan is not. It is also evident from the Bible that Satan is not independent of God. Satan cannot kill anyone without God allowing him to. Therefore, attribute the 60 or whatever number that one credits Satan with into God’s account."

    "Every death caused by Satan can be reasonably explained. Consider Job’s family that was killed by Satan."

    "God allowed it for a particular reason. While God commends Job’s righteousness, Satan accused Job of being godly and righteous for selfish reasons. If the godliness of a righteous man in whom God delights can be shown to be a terrible sin, then redemption is unimaginable, for the godliest of godly will be the most ungodly. More importantly, God’s judgment about Job’s righteousness would have been proven erroneous."

    "Therefore, God allows Job’s travails, and true to God’s commendation, Job emerges as godly and righteous after that severe trial. Satan was proven to be a false accuser."

    "Objection #2: God Cannot Murder"

    "A just human judge does not murder when he sentences a convict to death; instead the judge pronounces a judgment upon a law-offender. A judge has the authority to sentence a criminal to death, if the said criminal is a proven offender of the law."

    "The creator God can eliminate life when HE determines the appropriate time and reason according to HIS perfect knowledge and justice.  God does not murder when HE eliminates life. God judges people for violating HIS laws. The consequence of God’s judgment is death initiated by God."

    And your arguments against God, and that God is evil or that Him being Sovereign over all, and that that's nonsense, is simply an expression of your opinion and so therefore, it does not prove anything. 

    Your opinion that "God being Sovereign over all is nonsense and you don't believe it," is really nice stuff, but doesn't prove that fact to be wrong. Perhaps, you should try to refute that statement, which you can't do, but I still think you should give it a shot.

    BTW, need I remind you, that you are choosing to Judge God, who, BTW, is God, and who created us, and who is all-powerful, all-knowing and sinless, and who knows best, while you are not all-powerful, not all-knowing, and not God, and didn't create us, and regardless of what you may think, you (simply) do not know better, and you are sinful, (whether or not you agree), and you are attempting to judge him with nothing more than your opinion.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.compellingtruth.org/amp/moral-argument-existence-God.html

    "By "objectively," we mean that such acts are immoral in a way that goes beyond personal opinion or feelings; they are immoral whether anyone thinks they are or not."

    "Those who do not believe in God object to such an assertion and say that a person does not need to acknowledge any kind of deity to understand moral right and wrong. And, they are right. Human beings do not need to believe in God to discern moral duties or understand that objective moral values exist. But, that has never been the argument of those who believe in God. Instead, the Christian argument is that in order to ground an objective moral law, you need to have a transcendent source of those values."

    "At issue are the requirements for being able to have objective moral laws. Three things are needed: (1) an absolute and unchanging authority; (2) an absolute and unchanging standard; (3) absolute truth. Atheism and naturalism admit to nothing being absolute, that everything is random, and that everything is changing. In such an environment, no one can ever be sure anything is truly and objectively right or wrong."

    "Without an unchanging, absolute authority that uses an unchanging, absolute standard, which is based on the right and unchanging truth, ethics simply becomes emotive and opinion. Rape doesn't become wrong, but rather the strongest statement that can be made about it is, "I don't like rape." 

    "Where does this universal understanding of moral right and wrong come from – an understanding that transcends human opinion? Why does a small child immediately know when they've been treated unfairly or know that it is wrong to have something stolen from them? They know because there is a universal moral law that has been intrinsically woven into them by their Creator. This fact produces what is called the moral argument for the existence of God, which can be stated in the following way:"

    • "Laws imply a Law Giver"
    • "There is an objective Moral Law"
    • "Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver"

    "True objective moral good cannot be defined without purpose, and purpose cannot be defined without a cause. Without God – the cause of everything – all that is left is time + matter + chance. And such a combination only produces chaos; not an absolute moral framework."


    "Well you believe that nonsense not I , regards taking lives well yes he’s good at that he orders , carries out and commands 25 million killings (low estimate) in his name , Satan carries out the death of Jobs family (with gods approval ) and yet he’s the bad guy .......hilarious "

    Addng to the difference between God and Satan:the clear difference between Satan and God taking lives is that one is God, who created us and the other one isn't.


    Plaffelvohfen
  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    My Comments:

    were raped. It does even imply that. The idea that it does is something that you have simply inserted into the Bible. 

    "You also agree that women who slept with a man be butchered and their children ......Wow!"

    Your comments:

    *It sure does as my latest verse confirms you do know what ravish means?*

    Did you read the article that I provided that dealt with this or did I not provide it? 

    First of all, your referring to Isaiah 13:15-16, in regards to 'ravish'?

    https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/isaiah-malachi/why-does-bible-say-houses-will-be-plundered-and-wives-ravished

    Please just read this article. 

    *The second quote demonstrates your ignorance of the Bible as you didnt even know it was in the Bible*

    And that "quote  was what exactly?

    Is this the quote?

    "It does not mean that they were raped. It does even imply that. The idea that it does is something that you have simply inserted into the Bible."

    If this is it, or even if it isn't, I have to point out that I made a typo error here. I was supposed to say 'it does not even imply that". 


    "You also agree that women who slept with a man be butchered and their children ......Wow!"

    What does this even mean?

    Is this what you are talking about when you saying "my second quote demonstrates  my ignorance of the Bible as I didn't even know that it was in the Bible"

    I am completely aware of this so-called rape supporting verse. I just didn't understand what you said, which is why I asked you, what it means. 

    I know, that, Skeptics claim that this Numbers 31:17-18 supports Rape but the simply fact of the matter is that they have no real evidence to provide to support this claim. They merely assume that Verse 18 means that they were Raped, but the verse  does not actually say that they were Raped, does it? No, it does not.


    https://debunkedevil.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-in-bible.html?m=1

    "Murder, rape, and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31.7-18): Almost the same thing as above. Again, they say "Clearly Moses approves of rape of virgins". Apparently EB sees the word virgin and immediately thinks rape. Rape, or even sex, is never mentioned in the entire verse. The process above still applies, as well."

    I'm pretty sure I already provided these two articles from ApologeticPress and RationalChristianity, but just in case I didn't, I'll (happily) do it again.


    http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=763

    "The allegation that the Israelite men spared the young girls in order to rape them is nothing but baseless supposition predicated upon a lack of biblical knowledge. In the custom of the time, marriages were conducted at a young age. Therefore, the reference to the young girls who had not “known man by lying with him” would indicate that they were very young, likely under the age of twelve. These girls were too young to be able to lead the men of Israel away from Jehovah; therefore, these girls were allowed to live. As to raping them, it is more logical to assume that they wanted these girls for servants. This would be similar to Joshua 9, where Joshua allowed the Gibeonites to live in compelled servitude to the Israelites. Moreover, it would have been sinful for the Israelite men to rape the Midianite girls because rape was (and still is) abhorrent to God (Deuteronomy 22:23-28, esp. 25)."


    http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2333

    "The passage that is most often used to “prove” that God condones rape is Numbers 31:25-40. In this passage, the young women who were taken captive after Moses destroyed the Midianites were divided between the Israelites and the priests. The priests were given responsibility for 32 of the women. Skeptics often suggest that these women were supplied so that the priests could abuse them sexually and rape them. But nothing could be further from the truth. The skeptic errs greatly in this regard either due to his ignorance of God’s instructions or willful dishonesty."

    "For the skeptic to imply that God condoned rape, using Numbers 31, without mentioning Moses’ instructions in Deuteronomy 21, is unconscionable. It is simply another instance of dishonest propaganda designed to discredit God and the Bible. The irony of the skeptics’ position is that if atheism is true, the skeptic has no grounds upon which to claim that rape is morally wrong (Butt, 2005b). In fact, in my debate with Dan Barker, Barker admitted that fact, and stated that under certain circumstances, rape would be a moral obligation (Butt and Barker, 2009)."


    https://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html

    "Weren't the virgin women raped?

    "There are two parts to this objection: did God instruct or permit the soldiers to rape the women, and did the soldiers actually rape them?"

    "It's clear that God didn't intend for the soldiers to rape the women, but rather to take them captive. The law God had given to the Israelites condemned rape, in some cases punishing it with death (Dt 22:25-27). Also, immediately following the command to spare the virgin women, the soldiers were instructed to purify themselves and their captives (31:19), and rape (or consensual intercourse) would have violated this command (Lev 15:16-18). In the rest of the chapter, the women are usually referred to as people (using the masculine adam), not women or virgins, underscoring the notion that they were seen as captives rather than sexual objects.1"

    "It's theoretically possible that some of the soldiers raped the women, but given the circumstances it seems very unlikely. The soldiers would have known that rape was a violation of both the law and the instruction to purify themselves, as shown above; they had also seen God punish such violations with death during their travels in the desert. In fact, they had recently experienced a plague and executions resulting from their relations with Midianite women (25:1-9), as Moses reminded them. At that time, all those who had sexual relations with the Midianites were killed. It's highly implausible that the soldiers would have wanted to have anything to do with the Midianite women given this context."

    "So what did happen to the women (and children)? God gave the Israelites permission to marry women they took captive, but they were to treat their wives with respect: the women were to have time to mourn their families first, and were not to be mistreated (Dt 21:10-14). Those who didn't marry would have become servants, but there were rules against mistreating them as well (Ex 21:26-27Dt 23:15-16). See the article on slavery laws for more on the treatment of female slaves."


    https://www.rationalchristianity.net/slavery_ot.html#rape

    "Specific objections"

    "Dt 21:10-11: Were female slaves raped?"

    "The law explicitly condemned all of the following: 

    "Therefore any forced intercourse would have been against both the letter and the spirit of the law."


    https://www.gotquestions.org/amp/Bible-rape.html

    "Critics of the Bible also point to Numbers 31 (and similar passages) in which the Israelites were allowed to take female captives from nations they conquered. Critics say this is an example of the Bible’s condoning or even promoting rape. However, the passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. The soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16–18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.


    After I downloaded the entire book of this:
    "Keeping Your Kids on God's Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith" from Pdfdrive. BTW, the book is written by "Natasha Crain", I remembered that there is a section dealng with specific Verse, so I thought it was relevant to cite it here. 

    "Approval to Rape Midianite Virgins?

    "The Midianites were a group of nomadic tribes who lived in the deserts on
    the edges of the Promised Land. One group of Midianites, related to the
    Moabites, physically seduced the Israelites into worshiping their god Baal at
    Peor (the Israelites “whored” with their women; see Numbers 25). Because they
    had led the Israelites astray, God commanded Moses to wage war against them."

    "The Israelites proceeded to kill every male from this group and returned to
    Moses with the women and children. But Moses became angry when he saw that
    the women had been spared. He commanded all but the virgins to be killed: “Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by
    lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with
    him keep alive for yourselves” (Numbers 31:17-18)."

    "If you read this passage out of context, it could sound like God was
    interested in keeping virgins alive for the Israelites’ indiscriminate pleasure.
    However, such a reading completely ignores surrounding facts."

    "As we discussed, women were normally spared in wars outside of the
    Promised Land (Deuteronomy 20:10-14). But in this specific case, the women
    were guilty of seducing the Israelites, so God’s judgment was upon them. The
    girls who were virgins obviously didn’t participate in the incident, so they were allowed to live because they were innocent—not because God wanted to save
    them for the soldiers’ sexual pleasure. They would have been treated according
    to the laws we already discussed in our look at Deuteronomy 21:10-14."

    That's from that book, in case you want to see it from yourself, but you'll have to download it. But, you most likely don't care.

    Now, when you read this, just go ahead and try to refute them. Show me where the article is wrong. Then when you do that, I'll the respond back to it and we can then go from there. But that's what I'm willing to have a conversation with you about. I am, however, not willing to listen to you, choosing to have a hissy-fit about the links being Apologetic Articles, and you making Ad-Hominem Fallacies and simply provide your opinion about the articles. I will will waste my time if that is what you choose to do.

    The excuse that 'these articles are justifying Rape', you have no possible way of knowing that. You are simply ignorantly assuming that, and you have zero evidence to support that claim, other than what is simply your opinion. 

    You would think that if the articles are so obviously wrong and so obviously just simply "justifying Rape", then there should/would be no problem with reading them and refuting them, then? Right? So, I must ask, what are you really running from? Why are you so scared to read these articles and show me that they are wrong or show me that they are simply "Justifying Rape", instead  of that simply being your opinion?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @JohnSmith

    Goodnight!! Talk to you more tomorrow!!
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @JohnSmith

    ****The Christian Websites do not "justify Rape". They explain the verse for what it really says instead of what Liars, like you, pretend that it says.


    I pretend nothing you , you’re the one who clearly denies several passages in the Bible which clearly demonstrate that god approves of rape , you’re a compulsive as well as an ...... s (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

    They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

    Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.  “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

    Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins.


    So go on and deny yet again what it says in your bible , have you actually read it?




    ****And please tell me why "Rape" would be wrong, let alone 'Evil' in an Atheistic, Evolutionary Worldview? 


    Why? Maybe because I was brought up to follow the golden rule and it’s something I and others live by , the difference is you think rape and slavery are fine once god says so.


    What is an Atheistic worldview? What is an Evolutionary worldview?


    ****You have no Objective Basis for why 'Rape' would be wrong in an Atheistic, Evolutionary Worldview? 


    What do I need an objective basis for exactly? 


    ****It's only wrong based on your opinion, and while you are certainly allowed to have an opinion, your opinion does not make anything or prove that anything is actually right or wrong. 


    Well if I choose to treat others as I wish to be treated that works for me I couldn’t give a f—k what others do 


    ****Subjective Opinions do not make anything right or wrong. 


    They work for me , regards your link I’m not remotely interested i


    https://creation.com/rape-and-evolution


    "John Lofton, a Christian, here interviews Craig Palmer, who, along with Randy Thornhill, is one of two evolutionist academic authors of the book, A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion (MIT Press)."


    This link is about interviewing one of the writers. Please read it. 

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @JohnSmith


    ****Slavery was designed so that the poor could seek protection - this is noted in the passage of Leviticus that your friend quoted. It's driven by the need of the individual who is poor."


    Utter nonsense and your lies are exposed by my verses below 


    ****Slaves were to be recognized as human beings first and foremost, not property or chattel. Verse 40 states "He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you".


    Which is why you could sell your daughter and beat your slave half to death , it’s startling that idiots like you defend such atrocities and injustices such is your collective stupidity 



    What a pile of nonsense so you agree owning people as property is honorable?


     

    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)


    See that .....property as approved by god



    Now here’s a passage telling how a father may sell his daughter as a slave .....



    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)


    Again fully approved by your god ......



    How to beat your slaves as approved by god and Jesus ......



    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)



    Jesus on the beating of slaves .....



    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)

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited November 2019
    @JohnSmith

    What a pile of nonsense you were provided with verses that clearly demonstrate gods approval of slavery and rape your attempted justifications are lamentable but predictable , and this god is your so called source of “objective morality” .......Oh dear 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    "I pretend nothing you , you’re the one who clearly denies several passages in the Bible which clearly demonstrate that god approves of rape , you’re a compulsive as well as an ...... s (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)"

    There are no verses that show that God supports Rape. That is a claim that is made based off of an ignorance of Biblical Knowledge, and an obvious attempt to try to dishonest disprove the Bible. 

    Are there examples of Rape in the Bible, like in Genesis? Yes. Does that mean God approves of it? No, it doesn't. There is nothing in that particular Bible Passage that shows that God approves of what Lot did. Not everything recording in the Bible is endorsed. That is simply a fact. It is a mistake to assume that everything in the Bible is condoned. 

    Numbers 31 DOES NOT even talk about Rape. It NEVER mentions Rape. It NECER even applies it. It NEVER EVER brings up that word. And if you disagree then provide the evidence to the contrary. The entire idea that it is talking about Rape, is based on the Assumption that verse 18 that says "but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (NIV). You are assuming not based on any actual facts, but plainly on what this verse 18 says, but as I already said, the verse does not say Rape. And I'm not lie about anything. The only one lying is you. 

    "Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.  “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

    "Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins."

    Yeah, again, you are ASSUMING that verse 18 is implying Rape, but you have no actual evidence that it does, other than you wanting to make the Bible look bad, so you're willing to make things up in order to do that. Once again, you need to provide actual evidence that this is pointing to Rape. 

    Oh and why is Rape wrong, in an Atheistic, Evolutionary Worldview, where we are all just a bunch or highly evolved animals? If we are all just animals, please tell me why Rape is wrong? Animals Rape other animals in the wild, do they not? So, if were just animals, please tell me why Rape is wrong? Also, you willl need to provide an Objective Basis for Right and Wrong, because mere opinion, which is all you love offered so far, as far as anything being wrong does not make anything wrong. 

    "Why? Maybe because I was brought up to follow the golden rule and it’s something I and others live by, the difference is you think rape and slavery are fine once god says so."

    The "Golden Rule" which comes from the Bible. Confusious may have brought it up before but he said it in a negative way, where Jesus didn't. 

    And I don't think that Rape and Slavery are fine, and PLEASE DO NOT EVER ATTEMPT TO SPEAK FOR ME AGAIN!! I DO NOT appreciate such dishonesty. God does not condone Rape or Slavery. The Bible acknowledges Slaverys existence and has rules to regulate it and prevent abuse. I know you'll bring up Exodus 21:20-21. I an aware of that verse. So please don't bring it up. I know of its existence. 

    Anyways, the Slavery in the Bible can be shown to be for the benefit of the poor and/or those who owed large amounts of debt. The Slavery in the Bible had absolutely nothing to do with the color of ones skin. People were not slaves because they were Slaves. That is simply a fact.

    I've already provided those articles and I think I saw another response from you regarding the ones about Slavery. Although, now, it seems to me that your comments have disappeared, but, I will try to find your newest comment about Slavery and I'll respond back to it. For some reason I'm only seeing comments made from August of 2018.

    And the "Rape" accusations remain flat out ridiculous. The idea that God condones Rape is a claim made out of ignorance. Also, need I remind you, not everything recorded in the Bible is condoned. The Bible often times is simply recording what is happening and ISN'T condoning it. 

    All the so-called verses said to support Rape or God condoning it have already been shown to not be true. Debunkingevilbible, the link, that I provided to you, deals with the verses said to support Rape.

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @JohnSmith



    ****There are no verses that show that God supports Rape. 


    There are several your denial of such demonstrates you’ve never read the Bible 


    ****That is a claim that is made based off of an ignorance of Biblical Knowledge, and an obvious attempt to try to dishonest disprove the Bible. 


    I’m an expert on the Bible you’re not , the only dishonesty being displayed is by you 


    ****Are there examples of Rape in the Bible, like in Genesis? Yes. Does that mean God approves of it? No, it doesn't. There is nothing in that particular Bible Passage that shows that God approves of what Lot did. Not everything recording in the Bible is endorsed. That is simply a fact. It is a mistake to assume that everything in the Bible is condoned. 


    Read it slowly ....again ....


    (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

    They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

    Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.  “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.



    Right , “you may keep the young girls for yourself “ so in your opinion what would that mean? Are you really that ?




    ****Numbers 31 DOES NOT even talk about Rape. It NEVER mentions Rape. It NECER even applies it. It NEVER EVER brings up that word. And if you disagree then provide the evidence to the contrary. The entire idea that it is talking about Rape, is based on the Assumption that verse 18 that says "but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (NIV). You are assuming not based on any actual facts, but plainly on what this verse 18 says, but as I already said, the verse does not say Rape. And I'm not lie about anything. The only one lying is you. 


    You really are terribly dishonest , after slaughtering and looting the village what to you think was going to happen the girls? 


    "****Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.  “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

    "Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins."

    Yeah, again, you are ASSUMING that verse 18 is implying Rape


    Right , so after slaughtering boys and women which you seem to be fine with you still think the girls were being kept for what?


    , ***but you have no actual evidence that it does, other than you wanting to make the Bible look bad, so you're willing to make things up in order to do that. 


    I’m making nothing up you fool read the verse without your Christian goggles on 


    ***Once again, you need to provide actual evidence that this is pointing to Rape. 


    Sure here you go again also demonstrating gods approval of slavery as well something else you deny .....


    Let’s try this verse ..... Deuteronomy 20:10-14)


    As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.


    What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?



    ***Oh and why is Rape wrong, in an Atheistic, Evolutionary Worldview, where we are all just a bunch or highly evolved animals? If we are all just animals, please tell me why Rape is wrong? Animals Rape other animals in the wild, do they not? So, if were just animals, please tell me why Rape is wrong? 

     

    It’s wrong for me buddy as I treat others as I wish to be treated and I don’t need to consult a book of B S to confirm this otherwise I would be raping and enslaving others as god approves 


    ***Also, you willl need to provide an Objective Basis for Right and Wrong, because mere opinion, which is all you love offered so far, as far as anything being wrong does not make anything wrong. 


    No I actually  won’t ,refer to the golden rule it’s like magic which is why worldwide you dont see Atheists murdering and raping others ....Comprende?



    *** The "Golden Rule" which comes from the Bible. Confusious may have brought it up before but he said it in a negative way, where Jesus didn't. 


    Incorrect , the golden rule is actually older than Confucius or the fictional Christian god .....Confucius  stated ..... "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself."


    How is that negative?



    ***And I don't think that Rape and Slavery are fine, and PLEASE DO NOT EVER ATTEMPT TO SPEAK FOR ME AGAIN!! 


    You do YOU DEFEND BOTH 


    ***I DO NOT appreciate such dishonesty. 


    Says the only one being dishonest 


    ***God does not condone Rape or Slavery. The Bible acknowledges Slaverys existence and has rules to regulate it and prevent abuse. I know you'll bring up Exodus 21:20-21. I an aware of that verse. So please don't bring it up. I know of its existence. 


    You know if it’s existence but wish to ignore it , let’s try this ....


    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)


    Do you know what purchase means? 


    Do you know what owning another as property means? 


    Do you not see the differences being pointed out as in “people of Israel must never be treated this way “


    Are you really such a coward you cannot admit what the verse states?


    ****Anyways, the Slavery in the Bible can be shown to be for the benefit of the poor and/or those who owed large amounts of debt. The Slavery in the Bible had absolutely nothing to do with the color of ones skin. People were not slaves because they were Slaves. That is simply a fact.


    Ok so slavery is fine once the person is not black?


    Your stupidity is irritating, it had nothing to do with the colour  of skin tell that to the relatives of plantation workers in the U S where your lot as a “Christian “ nation enslaved blacks and used the Bible to justify it.


    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

    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)





    ****I've already provided those articles and I think I saw another response from you regarding the ones about Slavery. Although, now, it seems to me that your comments have disappeared, but, I will try to find your newest comment about Slavery and I'll respond back to it. For some reason I'm only seeing comments made from August of 2018.

    And the "Rape" accusations remain flat out ridiculous. The idea that God condones Rape is a claim made out of ignorance. Also, need I remind you, not everything recorded in the Bible is condoned. The Bible often times is simply recording what is happening and ISN'T condoning it. 

    All the so-called verses said to support Rape or God condoning it have already been shown to not be true. Debunkingevilbible, the link, that I provided to you, deals with the verses said to support Rape.


    There you go slavery approved of in the Bible as is rape, slaughter of children infanticide etc , etc , get a Bible and actually read it without the Christian goggles on 

  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    I am completely aware of Leviticus 25:44-46. I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't be. 

    https://www.compellingtruth.org/amp/slavery-Old-Testament.htm

    "Israelites vs. Foreigners"

    "Leviticus 25:39-46 explains some of the differences between an Israelite slave and a foreign slave. An Israelite slave was to be treated as a cross between family and a hired man, not as a chattel slave. But Israel also had foreigners who had been taken in battle or who, like the Gibeonites, had chosen to become Israel's servants (Joshua 9). These slaves could be held permanently—could be, but it wasn't required. An Israelite who had to sell himself was to be treated respectfully and redeemed as quickly as possible (Leviticus 25:47-55)."

    http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1587

    "Slaves of Debt"

    "Another aspect of Old Testament slavery had to do with severe debt accumulation. In Old Testament times, no bankruptcy legislation held sway over the Israelites. What was to be done for the person who was drowning in a sea of debt? Was his lender simply to wave his hand and forgive the debt? Would that be a fair situation for the lender? Hardly. Therefore, many of the slave situations arose because of such debt. Herb Vander Lugt commented:"

    "Remember too, at that time no nation had the ability to deal with people who had gotten themselves hopelessly in debt. So they were allowed to sell themselves into slavery (often temporarily) in exchange for release from their financial obligations (Ex. 21:2-4; Lev. 25:39-43; Dt.15:12) [1999, p. 11, parenthetical item in orig.]."

    "Leviticus 25:47-49 provides an example of slavery caused by debt:"

    "Now if a sojourner or stranger close to you becomes rich, and one of your brethren who dwells by him becomes poor, and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner close to you, or to a member of the stranger’s family, after he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him; or his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him; or anyone who is near of kin to him in his family may redeem him; or if he is able he may redeem himself."

    "Would it be fair for a society to allow a person who had accumulated a huge amount of debt to sell his labor to another person to pay that debt? Yes, it would. However, God—aware that abuse might arise in any situation—even regulated debt slavery, and provided for the rights and privileges of the slave to be guarded."

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

    "A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first.6 In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave"

    Footnote:

    6.) a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. 'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. 'He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. 'For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 'You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. (Leviticus 25:39-43)

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/answeringsceptics.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/answering-leviticus-25-44-46-the-bible-condones-slavery/amp/

    "https://answeringsceptics.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/answering-leviticus-25-44-46-the-bible-condones-slavery/

    http://www.comereason.org/slavery-in-the-bible.asp

    ""If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God."

    ""If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.35-43)"

    • "Slavery was designed so that the poor could seek protection - this is noted in the passage of Leviticus that your friend quoted. It's driven by the need of the individual who is poor."
    • "Slaves were to be recognized as human beings first and foremost, not property or chattel. Verse 40 states "He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you".4"

  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Joeseph I am going to go ahead and take the time to respond to each and every one of the verses that you have listed, even though they've all already been dealt with. Since there are so many, I will respond to the most common/popular ones first, and then I will go back and respond to the other ones.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    You totally ignored my response at least have the courtesy to address the points I made as I did every one of yours , your dishonesty is appalling , here you go you may get help if you wish .......


    ****There are no verses that show that God supports Rape. 


    There are several your denial of such demonstrates you’ve never read the Bible 


    ****That is a claim that is made based off of an ignorance of Biblical Knowledge, and an obvious attempt to try to dishonest disprove the Bible. 


    I’m an expert on the Bible you’re not , the only dishonesty being displayed is by you 


    ****Are there examples of Rape in the Bible, like in Genesis? Yes. Does that mean God approves of it? No, it doesn't. There is nothing in that particular Bible Passage that shows that God approves of what Lot did. Not everything recording in the Bible is endorsed. That is simply a fact. It is a mistake to assume that everything in the Bible is condoned. 


    Read it slowly ....again ....


    (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

    They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men.  All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle.  They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.  Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder.  They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived.  After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

    Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.  “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.



    Right , “you may keep the young girls for yourself “ so in your opinion what would that mean? Are you really that ?




    ****Numbers 31 DOES NOT even talk about Rape. It NEVER mentions Rape. It NECER even applies it. It NEVER EVER brings up that word. And if you disagree then provide the evidence to the contrary. The entire idea that it is talking about Rape, is based on the Assumption that verse 18 that says "but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (NIV). You are assuming not based on any actual facts, but plainly on what this verse 18 says, but as I already said, the verse does not say Rape. And I'm not lie about anything. The only one lying is you. 


    You really are terribly dishonest , after slaughtering and looting the village what to you think was going to happen the girls? 


    "****Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp.  But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle.  “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.  “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor.  They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people.  Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

    "Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins."

    Yeah, again, you are ASSUMING that verse 18 is implying Rape


    Right , so after slaughtering boys and women which you seem to be fine with you still think the girls were being kept for what?


    , ***but you have no actual evidence that it does, other than you wanting to make the Bible look bad, so you're willing to make things up in order to do that. 


    I’m making nothing up you fool read the verse without your Christian goggles on 


    ***Once again, you need to provide actual evidence that this is pointing to Rape. 


    Sure here you go again also demonstrating gods approval of slavery as well something else you deny .....


    Let’s try this verse ..... Deuteronomy 20:10-14)


    As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.


    What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?



    ***Oh and why is Rape wrong, in an Atheistic, Evolutionary Worldview, where we are all just a bunch or highly evolved animals? If we are all just animals, please tell me why Rape is wrong? Animals Rape other animals in the wild, do they not? So, if were just animals, please tell me why Rape is wrong? 

     

    It’s wrong for me buddy as I treat others as I wish to be treated and I don’t need to consult a book of B S to confirm this otherwise I would be raping and enslaving others as god approves 


    ***Also, you willl need to provide an Objective Basis for Right and Wrong, because mere opinion, which is all you love offered so far, as far as anything being wrong does not make anything wrong. 


    No I actually  won’t ,refer to the golden rule it’s like magic which is why worldwide you dont see Atheists murdering and raping others ....Comprende?



    *** The "Golden Rule" which comes from the Bible. Confusious may have brought it up before but he said it in a negative way, where Jesus didn't. 


    Incorrect , the golden rule is actually older than Confucius or the fictional Christian god .....Confucius  stated ..... "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself."


    How is that negative?



    ***And I don't think that Rape and Slavery are fine, and PLEASE DO NOT EVER ATTEMPT TO SPEAK FOR ME AGAIN!! 


    You do YOU DEFEND BOTH 


    ***I DO NOT appreciate such dishonesty. 


    Says the only one being dishonest 


    ***God does not condone Rape or Slavery. The Bible acknowledges Slaverys existence and has rules to regulate it and prevent abuse. I know you'll bring up Exodus 21:20-21. I an aware of that verse. So please don't bring it up. I know of its existence. 


    You know if it’s existence but wish to ignore it , let’s try this ....


    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)


    Do you know what purchase means? 


    Do you know what owning another as property means? 


    Do you not see the differences being pointed out as in “people of Israel must never be treated this way “


    Are you really such a coward you cannot admit what the verse states?


    ****Anyways, the Slavery in the Bible can be shown to be for the benefit of the poor and/or those who owed large amounts of debt. The Slavery in the Bible had absolutely nothing to do with the color of ones skin. People were not slaves because they were Slaves. That is simply a fact.


    Ok so slavery is fine once the person is not black?


    Your stupidity is irritating, it had nothing to do with the colour  of skin tell that to the relatives of plantation workers in the U S where your lot as a “Christian “ nation enslaved blacks and used the Bible to justify it.


    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

    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)





    ****I've already provided those articles and I think I saw another response from you regarding the ones about Slavery. Although, now, it seems to me that your comments have disappeared, but, I will try to find your newest comment about Slavery and I'll respond back to it. For some reason I'm only seeing comments made from August of 2018.

    And the "Rape" accusations remain flat out ridiculous. The idea that God condones Rape is a claim made out of ignorance. Also, need I remind you, not everything recorded in the Bible is condoned. The Bible often times is simply recording what is happening and ISN'T condoning it. 

    All the so-called verses said to support Rape or God condoning it have already been shown to not be true. Debunkingevilbible, the link, that I provided to you, deals with the verses said to support Rape.


    There you go slavery approved of in the Bible as is rape, slaughter of children infanticide etc , etc , get a Bible and actually read it without the Christian goggles on 

    Plaffelvohfen
  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Joeseph So, I've got a couple of questions about DebateIsland, (general questions).

    Is there anyway for me to go back and edit my comment or perhaps even delete it? Also, can I post pictures through DebateIsland? Like if I wanted to send you a picture, how do I do that, if its possible?
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @JohnSmith

    You have dealt with nothing which is why I pointed this out in the first place , if there are “so many”  as you put it that’s because I had  the courtesy to address every one of your points something you denied me but yet now you’re whining about .....If you cannot defend my counters to all your points , get help ......I don’t mind .....but at least give it a go ......if you can 
  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Dee I did not realize that you have already responded back to my comments. I am going to go to bed soon and need to stop debating before I go to bed, so I am going to respond to a part of one of your comments that I missed and then I am going to be done for tonight. I will look at the rest of the comments/responses tommorow.
    the fact that you are simply expressing your opinion and your opinion does not prove that God is immoral. 

    "Well it’s takes a certain type of person like a Christian who approves of the slaughter of men women and children once god is doing it and to worship a god that approves of owning people as property as in slavery , but in a Christians eyes that makes their god .....moral and that’s their collective opinion ......"

    You have no basis for why that is even wrong to begin with? It is a fact that it is your opinion.

    Why is "Genocide" wrong in an Atheistic, Evolutionary Worldview, where Morality is simply Subjective to ones opinion or Subjective to each Society and each Society can decide what is right or wrong? Or if Morality is simply Relative to the situation? 

    None of those Situations prove "Genocide" to be wrong. Furthermore, it isnt Genocide, because it wasn't motivated, because of a certain nation or Race. 

    In fact, it was an example of "Judgment". I'll go into this more tomorrow. 

    When you say "Slaughter of men, women and children, are you referring to the Canananites or are you referring to the Flood, or both? 

    "Approves owning people as property"

    He doesn't. The verses that say 'Property have already been explained. I'll expand on that more tomorrow.

    Dee
  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Dee I did not realize that you have already responded back to my comments. I am going to go to bed soon and need to stop debating before I go to bed, so I am going to respond to a part of one of your comments that I missed and then I am going to be done for tonight. I will look at the rest of the comments/responses tommorow.
    the fact that you are simply expressing your opinion and your opinion does not prove that God is immoral. 

    "Well it’s takes a certain type of person like a Christian who approves of the slaughter of men women and children once god is doing it and to worship a god that approves of owning people as property as in slavery , but in a Christians eyes that makes their god .....moral and that’s their collective opinion ......"

    You have no basis for why that is even wrong to begin with? It is a fact that it is your opinion.

    Why is "Genocide" wrong in an Atheistic, Evolutionary Worldview, where Morality is simply Subjective to ones opinion or Subjective to each Society and each Society can decide what is right or wrong? Or if Morality is simply Relative to the situation? 

    None of those Situations prove "Genocide" to be wrong. Furthermore, it isnt Genocide, because it wasn't motivated, because of a certain nation or Race. 

    In fact, it was an example of "Judgment". I'll go into this more tomorrow. 

    When you say "Slaughter of men, women and children, are you referring to the Canananites or are you referring to the Flood, or both? 

    "Approves owning people as property"

    He doesn't. The verses that say 'Property have already been explained. I'll expand on that more tomorrow.

    Dee
  • First and foremost your line of logic is flawed, killing, in a context that involves God is not immoral.

    You think yourself overly important when all country's celebrate people in army's who have killed many people as heros.

    Second,

    God has always warned people many times before he destroys them.

    I think it's warranted if

    People are molesting children,
    Sacrifying children, cannabilizing human remains, murderous, hatefully, despondent, destructive, violent, drunkards, sexual immoral , raping women, 

    That God is not immoral for earning them about

    100 times that he's going to destroy them,

    And when he's had enough gets involved and kills people who are worthless and do not deserve to continue living.

    Before you start imagining about God as immoral for killing people

    The long list of immorality that got people killed should be the primary consideation.

    Talking about God and what he does

    And not what people do as immoral.

    Stop being a hypocrite. Everyone God has killed deserved it and was warned and could care less.

    Killing a blood thirsty child raping murderer doesn't even wind up on the list of immorality.

    .

    Jesus is Lord.


    Plaffelvohfen대왕광개토JohnSmith
  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  

    @Joeseph ;

    Starting with Genesis 7:23. 

    "God intentionally killed every man, woman, and child on the planet except for eight people in the great flood.  (Genesis 7:23)"

    First of all, of course God intentionally did this. Why would you think it was an accident? Second of all, why is this wrong, the Bible makes it clear that humanity was wicked in Genesis 6:5. The children and babies would have gone straight to be with God. And God is Sovereign over all and therefore has the right to get rid of whomever He wants, whenever He sees fit. 

    https://www.gotquestions.org/God-killing.html

    And here is something on Genesis 6:6 so you don't need to bring up to me, if you decide to.

    https://carm.org/genesis-66-and-lord-was-sorry-he-had-made-man-earth

    https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/isnt-the-god-of-the-old-testament-harsh-brutal-and-downright-evil/

    The Flood

    "God is often attacked for killing “all the innocent people, and even children,” in the Flood. In fact, some have specifically said, “But the children . . . how could God kill the little children?” The response: “If the earth was filled with violence and evil, it makes one wonder how many children were still alive anyway. After all, in today’s culture, where evil has a foothold, it is children that seem to bear the brunt of much violence (e.g., hundreds of millions of abortions). Even if there were some children left, God provided the Ark. Why did the parents of those children refuse to let them board? Why did they insist on putting their children in harm’s way? If anyone is to blame, it is the parents and guardians who stopped them from coming to the Ark.”
    "Why blame God for something when He provided a means of salvation, which the parents refused? Imagine if a boater came to rescue a woman and her child who were on top of a roof with floodwaters rising. The boater says, “Please get in and I can save you.” The woman says, “No, we will stay because I don’t believe you.” Then the boater patiently waits and even tries to explain what will happen, yet she continues to refuse over and over again. The boater even asks for her to send her child and she still refuses and swats the boater away . . . and then finally they drown. Is it appropriate to blame the boater for the death of the child? But consider this, judging Scripture by Scripture, it says that no one is truly innocent (Romans 3:23), and all will eventually die anyway—a repercussion of our own actions (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 6:23). Second, what brought such a judgment on the people before the Flood?"

    "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)"

    "What a strong statement! Every intention and thought was evil all the time. Imagine the murders, rapes, thefts, child sacrifices, cannibalism, and so on. This was happening continually. Yet this was about 120 years (maximum) before the Flood (Genesis 6:3). So God was still patient, allowing time for repentance and change (1 Peter 3:20). God even called Noah to be a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), yet people still refused to listen and continued in their evil ways."

    "As an aside, the claim of children dying in the Flood has always been of interest, especially when skeptics and atheists bring it up. The hypocrisy is astounding since these skeptics and atheists often support the murder of babies as we have seen in the abortion debate. If people really were evil and their thoughts evil all the time, then abortion, child murder, and child sacrifice were likely commonplace. Disobedience to God would likely mean disobeying God’s command to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28). Resisting this command would result in drastically fewer children, so one could wonder if many children were even around at the time of the Flood. Noah himself had no children until he was 500 years old (lending to the view that children may have been few and far between in those days). Even so, children are sinners and can also have evil intentions and thoughts (Romans 3:23). Today, for example, we see children killing children in school, child thieves, rape among children, and so on. But if children and infants didn’t make it to the Ark (the means of salvation at the time), whose fault is it but their own and/or parents/guardians who refused to let them?! So why blame God when He offered them a means to be saved?"

    https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/isnt-the-god-of-the-old-testament-harsh-brutal-and-downright-evil/

    Genesis 19:23-25

    First of all, (putting the children aside for a minute), even if the only thing that they did wrong, was in fact, Homosexuality, the punishment would still have been Just, because they were in fact sinning against God, and sin all sin deserves death, as Bible makes crystal clear, and since (as I have already said once and I will continue to say over and over again), God is Sovereign over all, He therefore has the right to get rid of them whenever He sees fit. 

    "Sodom and Gomorrah"

    "In Genesis 18:20–33, the Lord revealed to Abraham that Sodom and Gomorrah had sinned exceedingly. Their wickedness was not revealed in its entirety, but we are aware of their acts of sodomy (later in the chapter) that had overtaken them in their actions, enough to rape. Abraham asked if God would sweep away the righteous with the wicked. He asked the Lord if there were 50 righteous, would the Lord spare it; He said yes. He asked the Lord if there were 40 righteous, would the Lord spare it; He said yes. He asked the Lord if there were 30 righteous, would the Lord spare it; He said yes. He asked the Lord if there were 20 righteous, would the Lord spare it; He said yes. He asked the Lord if there were 10 righteous, would the Lord spare it; He said yes."
    "This reveals how wicked and sinful the people were. They were without excuse, and judgment was finally coming. This also reveals something interesting about the Flood. If God would spare Sodom and Gomorrah for only 10 righteous people, then would God have spared the earth if 10 people were righteous before the Flood? It appears that He did. Methuselah and Lamech, Noah’s father and grandfather, may have been among those that made 10 (along with Noah, his wife, and his three sons and their wives). Of course, there may have been others who were righteous too, up until the Flood. But at the time of the Flood, we can surmise there were only eight (Methuselah and Lamech had died just before the Flood)."

    "Lot and his family numbered less than 10 in Sodom and Gomorrah (Lot, his wife, his two daughters, and his two sons-in-law only made six). Yet God provided a means of salvation for them—the angels helped them get to safety."

    "Were there children in Sodom and Gomorrah? The Bible doesn’t reveal any, and homosexual behavior was rampant, so there may not have been many, if any, children. Since God made it clear that not even 10 people were righteous in the city, then even the children (if any) were being extremely sinful. But like all these situations, if the children and/or the parents/guardians refused to let them have salvation and righteous teachings, whose fault is it? It is not the fault of God, who did provide a way, but the fault of those who suppressed the truth."

    "God was just and gave the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the five cities of the plain, what they asked for (their due punishment). They wanted a life without God and His goodness . . . and God gave that to them."

    Now going down to another one that has already been addressed. In fact it was among the many of verses that Dan Barker brought up in his debate with Kyle Butt.

    The verses are Exodus 20:5 and Exodus 34:7

    https://www.gotquestions.org/parents-sin.html

    https://www.gotquestions.org/sins-of-the-father.html

    http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=4185

    When people Sin and do wrong, their children suffer the consequences. That's what the verses really mean and it would have been nice if you had actually taken the time to try and understand the context of what these verses are actually saying.

    https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1378

    Exodus 20:5 is addressed in this on.

    https://www.gotquestions.org/generational-curses.html

    Both are addressed in this one:

    https://carm.org/do-sons-bear-the-sins-of-their-fathers-or-not

    So, once again, another example of two verses that have already been addressed,  answered and refuted. IOW, the Skeptic is wrong, and the Christian is right. 

    Skeptics have zero excuse, and this includes you to not know what these verses are saying. The fact that there are still people pretending that these verses are contradictory or that the verses are actually teaching that "children are punished  for their parents sin," that is simply an example of dishonesty. 

    Kyle Butt already responded to his verse, among many others, in his debate with Dan Barker. That's what the link is, the ones that from ApologeticPress. After the debate, Kyle Butt wrote a book about the debate. The link from ApologeticPress is the same article that is right from the book. 

    There are those as a start. I'll continue with more later.

    I do not know why some of the links are bolded and some aren't, but I think you should still be able to access them regardless. However, if you can't access some, then, please let me know.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Joeseph And BTW, where is your Objective Basis for Right and Wrong, and not just your mere opinion? 

    Where is your Objective, Absolute, Unchanging Standard for which you can use to decide what is Right and Wrong,  rather than you simply giving your people?

    https://carm.org/atheism/atheists-moral-complaints-against-god-are-not-valid

    While you certainly have a right to have your opinion, you really don't have a right to impose your mere opinion on others, let alone on God, as if you know better. You don't. Your opinion does not prove or make anything right or wrong. It's simply an opinion.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited November 2019
    @JohnSmith

    ******You have no basis for why that is even wrong to begin with? It is a fact that it is your opinion.


    I've already stated I live by the golden rule you claim you do also so why do you ignore what I stated?

    *****Why is "Genocide" wrong in an Atheistic, Evolutionary Worldview, where Morality is simply Subjective to ones opinion or Subjective to each Society and each Society can decide what is right or wrong? Or if Morality is simply Relative to the situation? 


    Read again The Golden Rule .....It works for me and others Christians like you even attempt to claim it as theirs as you attempted 


    For morality to come from God, God would have to exist. Since we are still waiting for a god’s existence to be demonstrated, this entire argument is moot. We could end the argument there, and tell theists to come back when they can show at least one god is not a figment of overactive imaginations. However, to explore the argument, we can assume a hypothetical god does exist and see where that takes us.


    If God is merely an agent advocating some universal morality, then morality exists independently of God and, given enough time, humans could discover it through reasoning. In this case, we would not need God—the only role for God would be to help speed up the process of discovery. God would be unnecessary.

    On the other hand, if something is moral because God commands it, and for no other reason, then morality is arbitrary. We would be unable to reason our way to such a morality because it would not be based on reason. Furthermore, God could change his mind at any time, and reverse earlier moral commands. In this case, God would be necessary for morality, but morality would not be objective, it would be wholly subjective.

    If god can change his mind about what is moral then you're not referring to objective morality as it's subjective , if he cannot change his mind then he is not a god as he's not all powerful.


    This logic leads us to the conclusion that God cannot be the author of objective morality. If there is objective morality, God would be a spectator to it—just as we are. And theists who argue that God is the source of objective morality must be wrong.

    Your argument is soundly defeated.


    ****None of those 

     prove "Genocide" to be wrong. Furthermore, it isnt Genocide, because it wasn't motivated, because of a certain nation or Race. 

    In fact, it was an example of "Judgment". I'll go into this more tomorrow. 


    Ahh right a bit like Hitler's"judgement " on Jews?

    ****When you say "Slaughter of men, women and children, are you referring to the Canananites or are you referring to the Flood, or both? 


    I'm referring to several different biblical passages where god approves and sanctions such 


    ****"Approves owning people as property"

    He doesn't. The verses that say 'Property have already been explained. I'll expand on that more tomorrow


    He does despite your attempting another lie , what part of " slaves are your property " are you having difficulty with?

    What part of buying people as property so you not comprehend?

    Do you deny the bible tell one person to beat a slave?

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @JohnSmith

    ****And BTW, where is your Objective Basis for Right and Wrong, and not just your mere opinion? 

    Why do I need an “objective morality”? Why would I defer to the Christians gods moral code which clearly is immoral as it allows for slavery and depicts a throughly immoral god?

    ****Where is your Objective, Absolute, Unchanging Standard for which you can use to decide what is Right and Wrong,  rather than you simply giving your people?

    I live by the golden rule as  I’ve explained to you several times which is why I and people like me have not  destroyed , plundered , murdered and maimed innocents in other countries in the name of a god 

    https://carm.org/atheism/atheists-moral-complaints-against-god-are-not-valid

    ****While you certainly have a right to have your opinion, you really don't have a right to impose your mere opinion on others,

    Which is why I don’t yet the religious attempt to do so 

    ****let alone on God, as if you know better. You don't. Your opinion does not prove or make anything right or wrong. It's simply an opinion.

    It works , I’ve not killed , harmed , or enslaved others as your Christian god has making me morally superior in every way 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @JohnSmith

    ****Starting with Genesis 7:23. 

    "God intentionally killed every man, woman, and child on the planet except for eight people in the great flood.  (Genesis 7:23)"

    First of all, of course God intentionally did this. Why would you think it was an accident? Second of all, why is this wrong, the Bible makes it clear that humanity was wicked in Genesis 6:5. The children and babies would have gone straight to be with God. And God is Sovereign over all and therefore has the right to get rid of whomever He wants, whenever He sees fit. 


    Right , so an all knowing god creates mankind knowing they would be wicked just so he can destroy them .....hilarious 



    https://www.gotquestions.org/God-killing.html

    ****And here is something on Genesis 6:6 so you don't need to bring up to me, if you decide to.

    https://carm.org/genesis-66-and-lord-was-sorry-he-had-made-man-earth

    https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/isnt-the-god-of-the-old-testament-harsh-brutal-and-downright-evil/

    The Flood

    "God is often attacked for killing “all the innocent people, and even children,” in the Flood. In fact, some have specifically said, “But the children . . . how could God kill the little children?” The response: “If the earth was filled with violence and evil, it makes one wonder how many children were still alive anyway. After all, in today’s culture, where evil has a foothold, it is children that seem to bear the brunt of much violence (e.g., hundreds of millions of abortions). Even if there were some children left, God provided the Ark. Why did the parents of those children refuse to let them board? Why did they insist on putting their children in harm’s way? If anyone is to blame, it is the parents and guardians who stopped them from coming to the Ark.”



    ***


    Right , so again god creates knowing they will do evil so he creates to destroy , this demonstrates the idiocy of most believers ....


    2 Kings 8:12

    "Why is my lord weeping?" asked Hazael. "Because I know the evil you will do to the Israelites," Elisha replied. "You will set fire to their fortresses, kill their young men with the sword, dash their little ones to pieces, and rip open their pregnant women."


    Isaiah 13:16

    Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes, their houses will be looted, and their wives will be ravished.


    Hosea 13:16

    Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.



    The god of the Old Testament is a vicious brute who tortures, mains and destroys and takes great enjoyment  doing so 


    "***Why blame God for something when He provided a means of salvation, which the parents refused? Imagine if a boater came to rescue a woman and her child who were on top of a roof with floodwaters rising. The boater says, “Please get in and I can save you.” The woman says, “No, we will stay because I don’t believe you.” Then the boater patiently waits and even tries to explain what will happen, yet she continues to refuse over and over again. The boater even asks for her to send her child and she still refuses and swats the boater away . . . and then finally they drown. Is it appropriate to blame the boater for the death of the child? But consider this, judging Scripture by Scripture, it says that no one is truly innocent (Romans 3:23), and all will eventually die anyway—a repercussion of our own actions (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 6:23). Second, what brought such a judgment on the people before the Flood?"

    "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)"

    "What a strong statement! Every intention and thought was evil all the time. Imagine the murders, rapes, thefts, child sacrifices, cannibalism, and so on. This was happening continually. Yet this was about 120 years (maximum) before the Flood (Genesis 6:3). So God was still patient, allowing time for repentance and change (1 Peter 3:20). God even called Noah to be a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), yet people still refused to listen and continued in their evil ways."


    ****Again why create humans you know are going to be evil unless god didn’t know which means he isn’t all knowing if he is all knowing he only created to destroy , do you deny this?


    "****As an aside, the claim of children dying in the Flood has always been of interest, especially when skeptics and atheists bring it up. The hypocrisy is astounding since these skeptics and atheists often support the murder of babies as we have seen in the abortion debate. 


    Abortion isn’t murder and if so why are women not imprisoned for it?

    Why should a woman give birth against her consent?

    Contraception prevents pregnancy as the sperm is denied a chance to carry on living are you against contraception also?


    ***If people really were evil and their thoughts evil all the time, then abortion, child murder, and child sacrifice were likely commonplace. 


    Yet your god is guilty of all these crimes as he commands child murder , child sacrifice as in Abraham’s son and also commands abortion in his name , so using you “logic” your god is evil 


    ****Disobedience to God would likely mean disobeying God’s command to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28). Resisting this command would result in drastically fewer children, so one could wonder if many children were even around at the time of the Flood. Noah himself had no children until he was 500 years old (lending to the view that children may have been few and far between in those days). Even so, children are sinners and can also have evil intentions and thoughts (Romans 3:23). Today, for example, we see children killing children in school, child thieves, rape among children, and so on. But if children and infants didn’t make it to the Ark (the means of salvation at the time), whose fault is it but their own and/or parents/guardians who refused to let them?! So why blame God when He offered them a means to be saved?"

    https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/isnt-the-god-of-the-old-testament-harsh-brutal-and-downright-evil/

    Genesis 19:23-25

    First of all, (putting the children aside for a minute), even if the only thing that they did wrong, was in fact, Homosexuality, the punishment would still have been Just, because they were in fact sinning against God, and sin all sin deserves death, as Bible makes crystal clear, and since (as I have already said once and I will continue to say over and over again), God is Sovereign over all, He therefore has the right to get rid of them whenever He sees fit. 


    Right , so you agree with homosexuals being put to death? Again your god is incredibly as I’ve proved he only created to destroy 


    "****Sodom and Gomorrah"

    "In Genesis 18:20–33, the Lord revealed to Abraham that Sodom and Gomorrah had sinned exceedingly. Their wickedness was not revealed in its entirety, but we are aware of their acts of sodomy (later in the chapter) that had overtaken them in their actions, enough to rape. Abraham asked if God would sweep away the righteous with the wicked. He asked the Lord if there were 50 righteous, would the Lord spare it; He said yes. He asked the Lord if there were 40 righteous, would the Lord spare it; He said yes. He asked the Lord if there were 30 righteous, would the Lord spare it; He said yes. He asked the Lord if there were 20 righteous, would the Lord spare it; He said yes. He asked the Lord if there were 10 righteous, would the Lord spare it; He said yes."

    "This reveals how wicked and sinful the people were. They were without excuse, and judgment was finally coming. This also reveals something interesting about the Flood. If God would spare Sodom and Gomorrah for only 10 righteous people, then would God have spared the earth if 10 people were righteous before the Flood? It appears that He did. Methuselah and Lamech, Noah’s father and grandfather, may have been among those that made 10 (along with Noah, his wife, and his three sons and their wives). Of course, there may have been others who were righteous too, up until the Flood. But at the time of the Flood, we can surmise there were only eight (Methuselah and Lamech had died just before the Flood)."

    "Lot and his family numbered less than 10 in Sodom and Gomorrah (Lot, his wife, his two daughters, and his two sons-in-law only made six). Yet God provided a means of salvation for them—the angels helped them get to safety."

    "Were there children in Sodom and Gomorrah? The Bible doesn’t reveal any, and homosexual behavior was rampant, so there may not have been many, if any, children. Since God made it clear that not even 10 people were righteous in the city, then even the children (if any) were being extremely sinful. But like all these situations, if the children and/or the parents/guardians refused to let them have salvation and righteous teachings, whose fault is it? It is not the fault of God, who did provide a way, but the fault of those who suppressed the truth."

    "God was just and gave the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the five cities of the plain, what they asked for (their due punishment). They wanted a life without God and His goodness . . . and God gave that to them."

    Now going down to another one that has already been addressed. In fact it was among the many of verses that Dan Barker brought up in his debate with Kyle Butt.


    ****You’re repeating yourself read and defend my counters if you can 


    ****The verses are Exodus 20:5 and Exodus 34:7

    https://www.gotquestions.org/parents-sin.html

    https://www.gotquestions.org/sins-of-the-father.html

    http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=4185

    When people Sin and do wrong, their children suffer the consequences. That's what the verses really mean and it would have been nice if you had actually taken the time to try and understand the context of what these verses are actually saying.

    https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1378

    Exodus 20:5 is addressed in this on.

    https://www.gotquestions.org/generational-curses.html

    Both are addressed in this one:

    https://carm.org/do-sons-bear-the-sins-of-their-fathers-or-not

    So, once again, another example of two verses that have already been addressed,  answered and refuted. IOW, the Skeptic is wrong, and the Christian is right. 


    Another example of  


    ***Skeptics have zero excuse, and this includes you to not know what these verses are saying. The fact that there are still people pretending that these verses are contradictory or that the verses are actually teaching that "children are punished  for their parents sin," that is simply an example of dishonesty. 


    It’s all there buddy in the Bible your denial is tragic but then again you think killing homosexuals is just fine don’t you?


    ****Kyle Butt already responded to his verse, among many others, in his debate with Dan Barker. That's what the link is, the ones that from ApologeticPress. After the debate, Kyle Butt wrote a book about the debate. The link from ApologeticPress is the same article that is right from the book. 

    There are those as a start. I'll continue with more later.

    I do not know why some of the links are bolded and some aren't, but I think you should still be able to access them regardless. However, if you can't access some, then, please let me know.


    Kyle....Butt .....what a suitable name 

  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Joeseph

    "you're yet another who thinks a god that commands the murder of children is great , you would no doubt applaud such actions as you look on in glee"

    And where is your Objective Basis for Right and Wrong, for why that would even be wrong in the first place? Without an Objective, Absolute, Unchanging Standard for Right and Wrong, all you have is your opinion, and while you are certainty allowed to have an opinion, your opinion does not make/prove that anything is actually Right and Wrong. It's only wrong according to your opinion.  So, where's your Objective Basis/standard for Right and Wrong?
  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Dee You seem to think that God knowing everything somehow effects how FreeWill? Yes, God knew Adam and Eve would rebel, but the Him knowing that, did not change their freewill choice to choose to rebel against Him. They still made a free choice and choose to rebel against Him.

    "****Again why create humans you know are going to be evil unless god didn’t know which means he isn’t all knowing if he is all knowing he only created to destroy , do you deny this?"

    I do not deny that God is all-knowing. I still believe that He is all-knowing and yet He still allowed things to play out the way that He did. 

    "Abortion isn’t murder and if so why are women not imprisoned for it?"

    Women are not imprisoned because they don't that Abortion is Murder.

    "Why should a woman give birth against her consent?"

    What about the body inside of her? 

    "Contraception prevents pregnancy as the sperm is denied a chance to carry on living are you against contraception also?"

    ***If people really were evil and their thoughts evil all the time, then abortion, child murder, and child sacrifice were likely commonplace. 

    "Yet your god is guilty of all these crimes as he commands child murder , child sacrifice as in Abraham’s son and also commands abortion in his name , so using you “logic” your god is evil "

    Wow!! Way to twist what the words says. People have Evil Thoughts and doing Evil things in the result of their own freewill. They are responsible for their own actions. It is their fault when they do evil things. It is not God's Fault. That is why people go to jail when they do bad things. They don't blame God and then get away away with it, because they blamed God. 

    Okay, first of all, God is Sovereign over all, and has the right to get rid of those whenever He sees Fit. Furthermore, Babies and Children go right to be with God, when they die. Second of all, Abraham did not actually sacrifice Isaac. I am not sure where you think he did, but He was stopped. 

    https://creation.com/evil-bible-fallacies

    "Genesis 22:1-8 But there are several things to consider in this case. Abraham, by this time, is an old man, and Isaac is old enough that he could have struggled and gotten away if he wanted. The fact that Abraham was able to bind him and put him on the altar suggests that Isaac was cooperating with the whole thing. Second, Abraham himself didn’t expect Isaac to die, or at least, he didn’t expect him to stay dead. Abraham told his servants that he and his son would return. Abraham knew very well that Isaac was the son through whom God had promised to build a great nation. So the only options were that God would provide another sacrifice (as eventually happened) or that God would resurrect Isaac."

    "also commands abortion in his name"

    Would you please be more specific as to what the verses are that you are reffering to? I believe there is one in Numbers 5 that is often said to be an example of "supporting Abortion", and Exodus 21, is another one as well. Is that assessment correct? If there's any that I left out, please let me know, so that I can address them. 

    "so using you “logic” your god is evil 

    No. Again, you have no basis other than your opinion to judge what is "Evil" and what isn't "Evil". What you think is Evil, is simply your opinion. Your opinion does not make, let alone prove that anything that God did was actually "Evil". It remains your opinion. 

    "Right, so you agree with homosexuals being put to death? 

    Well, not any more.

    https://carm.org/should-homosexuals-be-put-to-death

    https://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals

    "Again your god is incredibly as I’ve proved he only created to destroy"

    That is another opinion. God did not create just then destroy. God created Humans with FreeWill. When Humans choose to disobey Him, they suffer the consequences, just like how when children disobey their parents, they too, suffer the consequences.

    https://carm.org/loving-god-would-never-send-anyone-hell

    "Must God punish?"

    "Yes, God must punish those who break His law because it is the right thing to do.  Just as a parent should punish a child for doing something wrong (intentionally), so God must punish those who do wrong.  You see, if God did not punish the person who does wrong, then He would be unjust and unrighteous.  He would be breaking His own law -- which He cannot do.  But, someone might say that the punishment of a parent on a child is temporary whereas God's punishment is eternal.  Why the difference?  The answer is two-fold.  First, God is infinite and a parent is not.  Second, God is the standard of all righteousness and the parent is not."

    "Because God is infinite, when we sin, we are offending an infinite God.  This is incredibly significant.  The reason sin is so bad is not so much because of the one committing the sin, but because of the One who is offended.  In other words, sin is so incredibly bad because it takes on a horrible quality by the very fact of who it is against; an infinitely pure, holy, and righteous God."

    "A parent is not the standard of righteousness.  God is.  A parent is (or should be) using the righteous standard of God in raising children.  Therefore, though a parent's punishment is temporary because it is instruction and correction, the punishment of God is eternal because our sin is against an eternal God.  There is a big difference."


    Now going down to another one that has already been addressed. In fact it was among the many of verses that Dan Barker brought up in his debate with Kyle Butt.

    The verses are Exodus 20:5 and Exodus 34:7

    https://www.gotquestions.org/parents-sin.html

    https://www.gotquestions.org/sins-of-the-father.html

    http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=4185

    When people Sin and do wrong, their children suffer the consequences. That's what the verses really mean and it would have been nice if you had actually taken the time to try and understand the context of what these verses are actually saying.

    https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1378

    Exodus 20:5 is addressed in this on.

    https://www.gotquestions.org/generational-curses.html

    Both are addressed in this one:

    https://carm.org/do-sons-bear-the-sins-of-their-fathers-or-not

    So, once again, another example of two verses that have already been addressed,  answered and refuted. IOW, the Skeptic is wrong, and the Christian is right. 

    "Another example of ."

    Is that seriously all you had to say?? I give you four links addressing this and you respond by saying "another example of ", as if that is actually going to prove something?!? Seriously? How about you address the articles? Tell me why this is . Let's have a discussing. Why are you copping-out, to avoid, having to discuss this? If what I said is truly , then surely you should have no difficulty in refuting what I have said, now, right?

    "It’s all there buddy in the Bible your denial is tragic"

    If you're referring specifically to the so-called contradiction with "children being punished for their father's sin's, then it's not "all there", because it has already been addressed, in the articles that I provided, that you purposefully choose to avoid addressing and instead came up with a lame excuse/opinion to avoid having to read it. The fact that you want to pretend that the articles are , but you won't even address them, that is actually what is tragic. 

    "but then again you think killing homosexuals is just fine don’t you?"

    And why should that be wrong? Again, where is your Objective Basis for why that is wrong? 

    "Kyle....Butt .....what a suitable name"

    What does mean and what does that have to do with anything?


  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    ****And BTW, where is your Objective Basis for Right and Wrong, and not just your mere opinion? 

    Why do I need an “objective morality”? Why would I defer to the Christians gods moral code which clearly is immoral as it allows for slavery and depicts a throughly immoral god?

    I'm not asking you to defer to the Christian God. I am asking you where you're Objective Basis is for Right and Wrong? That's what I am asking.

    "It works , I’ve not killed , harmed , or enslaved others as your Christian god has making me morally superior in every way "

    That is another opinion. You have no Objective Basis for why any of those things are even wrong to begin with. They are only wrong in your opinion and that does make anything wrong, but only wrong in your opinion.
  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    ****Where is your Objective, Absolute, Unchanging Standard for which you can use to decide what is Right and Wrong,  rather than you simply giving your people?

    "I live by the golden rule as  I’ve explained to you several times which is why I and people like me have not  destroyed , plundered , murdered and maimed innocents in other countries in the name of a god "

    And again, the Golden Rule, that comes from the New Testament. 

    https://www.gotquestions.org/Golden-Rule.html

    "What is interesting to note about the Golden Rule is that no other religious or philosophical system has its equal. Jesus’ Golden Rule is not the “ethic of reciprocity” so commonly espoused by non-Christian moralists. Frequently, liberal critics and secular humanists attempt to explain away the uniqueness of the Golden Rule, saying it is a common ethic shared by all religions. This is not the case. Jesus’ command has a subtle, but very important, difference. A quick survey of the sayings of Eastern religions will make this plain:"

    • "Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" (Analects 15:23)"
    • "Hinduism: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you” (Mahabharata 5:1517)"
    • "Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" (Udanavarga 5:18)"

    "These sayings are similar to the Golden Rule but are stated negatively and rely on passivity. Jesus’ Golden Rule is a positive command to show love proactively. The Eastern religions say, “Refrain from doing”; Jesus says, “Do!” The Eastern religions say it is enough to hold your negative behavior in check; Jesus says to look for ways to act positively. Because of the “inverted” nature of the non-Christian sayings, they have been described as the “silver rule.”"

    "Some have accused Jesus of “borrowing” the idea of the Golden Rule from the Eastern religions. However, the texts for Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, cited above, were all written between 500 and 400 BC, at the earliest. Jesus takes the Golden Rule from Leviticus, written about 1450 BC. So, Jesus’ source for the Golden Rule predates the “silver rule” by about 1,000 years. Who “borrowed” from whom?"

    God is not bound by the Golden Rule. He created us and has the right to do as He sees fit with us. Plus since we are all Sinners and deserve the Death Penalty, His Judgement is therefore Just. Again, where is your Objective Basis for Right and Wrong, for which you use to judge God with? Using your Opinion to Judge God, is arrogant. Acting like you know better than the one who created you is arrogant. Acting like you know better than the one who knows everything in Arrogant. Yes, God knew what that what happened was going to happen, but He has a reason why He allowed it to happen anyway. And just because we may not be able to understand why He allowed what He allowed, that does mean that we somehow know better. 

    https://carm.org/questions/you-shall-not-kill-yet-god-kills



  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    *****Why is "Genocide" wrong in an Atheistic, Evolutionary Worldview, where Morality is simply Subjective to ones opinion or Subjective to each Society and each Society can decide what is right or wrong? Or if Morality is simply Relative to the situation? 


    Read again The Golden Rule .....It works for me and others Christians like you even attempt to claim it as theirs as you attempted 

    The Golden Rule does not give an adequate reason for why we should care about others in an Atheistic, Evolutionary Worldview? After all, if we are just a bunch of highly evolved animals, why does it matter what one does to another? Animals, eat other, in the wild, right? If we are just animals, then why shouldn't we just eat each other? Who is to say that that is wrong, except for one's subjective opinion? But who is to say whose opinion is right, especially if we are just animals? Why does what one does to the other matter, if it doesn't even matter to animals in the wild? Do animals live by the Golden Rule? Sure, maybe some do. But, still, it remains an inadequate explanation. 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited November 2019
    @JohnSmith

    ****And where is your Objective Basis for Right and Wrong, for why that would even be wrong in the first place? 

    Why do you as usual totally ignore  what I say? 

    I have given you my thoughts on the matter.

    Morality does not have an objective source as in a god as a god is unproven and if it was the case morality comes from a god which god ?
    Please prove morality comes from your god and your god alone?

    If your moral code comes from god when did he inform you that homosexuals were to be treated as equals as you agreed God stated homosexuality was evil so tell do you think them evil and deserving of death as god said , or do you disagree if so why?

    You totally ignored what I stated regards god and morality , if god say killing is right is it right because he says so?

    If god can change moral laws how is it objective?

    You have been corrected on the Golden Rule and how old it is if you wish to re -write history I shall await your publication that includes what historians missed as in who actually first put the  golden in place 

    One argument against objective morality deals with the fact that what we consider to be moral and immoral seems to change with time and it depends on where you live. Different countries and faiths will have different morals. There may be some similarities, such as murder and stealing, but these come from the commonly held belief of the Golden Rule. Also, these morals tend to come from empathy, which is a trait we've evolved with.

    There are many beliefs that have changed over time. Once, it was believed that slavery was moral. Now, slavery is seen as reprehensible. Morals can even change quickly. Just ten years ago, the US's belief in gay marriage was quite different than what it is now.

    Also, our laws change depending on morality. A few days ago, many would say it was immoral to smoke marijuana. Now, our laws are changing to make marijuana more legal. This is due to shifting attitudes and the questioning of beliefs. There are certainly laws that don't seem to be governed in morality as well, so you can't claim that laws are the objective morality source when they can change, and when many laws have no moral basis. Is going a little bit over the speed limit immoral? Few would think so.

    Because morality always changes, this makes people believe that morality is subjective.


    ****God is not bound by the Golden Rule. 


    What god? I don’t believe in a god or gods 


    ***He created us and has the right to do as He sees fit with us.


    That’s a claim you make with zero proof to back it up 


     ***/Plus since we are all Sinners and deserve the Death

    Plus? No incorrect you believe in a god and sin not I 

    ***/ Penalty, His Judgement is therefore Just.

    Prove he exists first before making wild claims regarding his nature 

    ***/Again, where is your Objective Basis for Right and Wrong, for which you use to judge God with? 

    I judge your god on the book of nonsense called the Bible , I’m judging a fiction on the words written about such , you know the way you give your judgement on a work of fiction or are you not familiar with that process 

    My basis is still the golden rule 

    ***Using your Opinion to Judge God, is arrogant. 

    Well I said evil as well , so yes 

    **/Acting like you know better than the one who created you is arrogant. 


    Well I do know better than a fiction who thinks slavery is just fine 


    ***Acting like you know better than the one who knows everything in Arrogant. 


    Funny , yet he didn’t know people would do evil yet created them to .....kill them knowing they would do evil 

    ****Yes, God knew what that what happened was going to happen, but He has a reason why He allowed it to happen anyway. 

    I know as I’ve demonstrated because knowing people would do evil he enjoys destroying them as you agreed 

    ****And just because we may not be able to understand why He allowed what He allowed, that does mean that we somehow know better. 

    Well again I do know better than a god who thinks slaughtering babies is somehow moral a# he’s doing it 




  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @JohnSmith

    All your concerns are addressed here as I keep doing and you keep ignoring.

    ****And where is your Objective Basis for Right and Wrong, for why that would even be wrong in the first place? 

    Why do you as usual totally ignore  what I say? 

    I have given you my thoughts on the matter.

    Morality does not have an objective source as in a god as a god is unproven and if it was the case morality comes from a god which god ?
    Please prove morality comes from your god and your god alone?

    If your moral code comes from god when did he inform you that homosexuals were to be treated as equals as you agreed God stated homosexuality was evil so tell do you think them evil and deserving of death as god said , or do you disagree if so why?

    You totally ignored what I stated regards god and morality , if god say killing is right is it right because he says so?

    If god can change moral laws how is it objective?

    You have been corrected on the Golden Rule and how old it is if you wish to re -write history I shall await your publication that includes what historians missed as in who actually first put the  golden in place 

    One argument against objective morality deals with the fact that what we consider to be moral and immoral seems to change with time and it depends on where you live. Different countries and faiths will have different morals. There may be some similarities, such as murder and stealing, but these come from the commonly held belief of the Golden Rule. Also, these morals tend to come from empathy, which is a trait we've evolved with.

    There are many beliefs that have changed over time. Once, it was believed that slavery was moral. Now, slavery is seen as reprehensible. Morals can even change quickly. Just ten years ago, the US's belief in gay marriage was quite different than what it is now.

    Also, our laws change depending on morality. A few days ago, many would say it was immoral to smoke marijuana. Now, our laws are changing to make marijuana more legal. This is due to shifting attitudes and the questioning of beliefs. There are certainly laws that don't seem to be governed in morality as well, so you can't claim that laws are the objective morality source when they can change, and when many laws have no moral basis. Is going a little bit over the speed limit immoral? Few would think so.

    Because morality always changes, this makes people believe that morality is subjective.



  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @JohnSmith


    All your concerns are addressed here as I keep doing and you keep ignoring.

    ****And where is your Objective Basis for Right and Wrong, for why that would even be wrong in the first place? 

    Why do you as usual totally ignore  what I say? 

    I have given you my thoughts on the matter.

    Morality does not have an objective source as in a god as a god is unproven and if it was the case morality comes from a god which god ?
    Please prove morality comes from your god and your god alone?

    If your moral code comes from god when did he inform you that homosexuals were to be treated as equals as you agreed God stated homosexuality was evil so tell do you think them evil and deserving of death as god said , or do you disagree if so why?

    You totally ignored what I stated regards god and morality , if god say killing is right is it right because he says so?

    If god can change moral laws how is it objective?

    You have been corrected on the Golden Rule and how old it is if you wish to re -write history I shall await your publication that includes what historians missed as in who actually first put the  golden in place 

    One argument against objective morality deals with the fact that what we consider to be moral and immoral seems to change with time and it depends on where you live. Different countries and faiths will have different morals. There may be some similarities, such as murder and stealing, but these come from the commonly held belief of the Golden Rule. Also, these morals tend to come from empathy, which is a trait we've evolved with.

    There are many beliefs that have changed over time. Once, it was believed that slavery was moral. Now, slavery is seen as reprehensible. Morals can even change quickly. Just ten years ago, the US's belief in gay marriage was quite different than what it is now.

    Also, our laws change depending on morality. A few days ago, many would say it was immoral to smoke marijuana. Now, our laws are changing to make marijuana more legal. This is due to shifting attitudes and the questioning of beliefs. There are certainly laws that don't seem to be governed in morality as well, so you can't claim that laws are the objective morality source when they can change, and when many laws have no moral basis. Is going a little bit over the speed limit immoral? Few would think so.

    Because morality always changes, this makes people believe that morality is subjective.


  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    "For morality to come from God, God would have to exist. Since we are still waiting for a god’s existence to be demonstrated, this entire argument is moot. We could end the argument there, and tell theists to come back when they can show at least one god is not a figment of overactive imaginations. 

    The Christian God has already provided evidence that He exists. Romans 1:18-22. You are without excuse. You are choosing to deny His existence. You do not need to have evidence presented to you in order for you change your mind. The evidence has already been presented. You are surrounded by the evidence. You just don't want to believe. The Objective Basis for Morality is one of the very arguments used for God's existence, and Skeptics have yet to provide a basis for Objective Morality without God. Many have tried, none have succeeded. 

    https://www.equip.org/article/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality/

    "However, to explore the argument, we can assume a hypothetical god does exist and see where that takes us.""

    I agree. Let's do that.


    "child sacrifice as in Abraham’s son"

    https://christianmomthoughts.com/why-did-god-tell-abraham-to-sacrifice-isaac/

    "First, Isaac was never actually sacrificed. Obviously, God knew when He made the initial request that He would eventually provide a ram and would not allow Abraham to actually kill Isaac. If a human sacrifice was never God’s intent, no one can claim this story shows God approves of such actions (especially given the prohibitions elsewhere). The most a person could suggest is that God was cruel to ask something so difficult when He had no intention of letting Abraham do it. But there was a good reason, as we’ll see."

    "Second, God’s purpose in this event was to test Abraham’s faith (Genesis 22:1). As the ancestral father to the Israelites and, eventually, the Savior of the world, Abraham was to become one of the most important figures in God’s plan for mankind. God wanted the man in this incredible position to demonstrate great faith. The ultimate test of Abraham’s faith in God’s promises was to ask him to eliminate the only apparent possibility of those promises ever being fulfilled: Isaac. If Abraham followed through, he would demonstrate his faith that God wouldn’t break His promises—even if their fulfillment sounded impossible given what God was asking."




  • JohnSmithJohnSmith 13 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    "For morality to come from God, God would have to exist. Since we are still waiting for a god’s existence to be demonstrated, this entire argument is moot. We could end the argument there, and tell theists to come back when they can show at least one god is not a figment of overactive imaginations. 

    The Christian God has already provided evidence that He exists. Romans 1:18-22. You are without excuse. You are choosing to deny His existence. You do not need to have evidence presented to you in order for you change your mind. The evidence has already been presented. You are surrounded by the evidence. You just don't want to believe. The Objective Basis for Morality is one of the very arguments used for God's existence, and Skeptics have yet to provide a basis for Objective Morality without God. Many have tried, none have succeeded. 

    https://www.equip.org/article/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality/

    "However, to explore the argument, we can assume a hypothetical god does exist and see where that takes us.""

    I agree. Let's do that.


    "child sacrifice as in Abraham’s son"

    https://christianmomthoughts.com/why-did-god-tell-abraham-to-sacrifice-isaac/

    "First, Isaac was never actually sacrificed. Obviously, God knew when He made the initial request that He would eventually provide a ram and would not allow Abraham to actually kill Isaac. If a human sacrifice was never God’s intent, no one can claim this story shows God approves of such actions (especially given the prohibitions elsewhere). The most a person could suggest is that God was cruel to ask something so difficult when He had no intention of letting Abraham do it. But there was a good reason, as we’ll see."

    "Second, God’s purpose in this event was to test Abraham’s faith (Genesis 22:1). As the ancestral father to the Israelites and, eventually, the Savior of the world, Abraham was to become one of the most important figures in God’s plan for mankind. God wanted the man in this incredible position to demonstrate great faith. The ultimate test of Abraham’s faith in God’s promises was to ask him to eliminate the only apparent possibility of those promises ever being fulfilled: Isaac. If Abraham followed through, he would demonstrate his faith that God wouldn’t break His promises—even if their fulfillment sounded impossible given what God was asking."




Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch