Exodus 19:5-6 New International Version (NIV) 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you[a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."So, I think you missed the parts about some people getting special treatment. And, as aside, before the enlightenment, how did Christians justify slavery? And in the Old Testament why were the rules for Jewish slaves different than the rules for slaves from other nations?
Lily, you still haven't answered my question about the Jewish people wandering the desert for 40 years. This is a fact claim, yet there is no physical evidence to substantiate it.There has been no evidence to prove this didn't happen and there are questions about the route taken by the Jewish people. Is the route and Mt. Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula, or was it through Arabia? If the route was through Arabia that would be modern day Saudi Arabia and it hasn't been open to investigation. Archeologists may be looking in the wrong place. National Geographic on Biblical Archeaology] And monkeys might fly out of my butt someday, but for now I'm considering it proven that it will never happen.
There has been no evidence to prove this didn’t happen and there are questions about the route taken by the Jewish people.This is an example of the argument from ignorance fallacy, and also proof that you need to learn something about how archaeology works. archaeologists root through sites with human refuse, garbage, and ruins. If you think a mass of people as large as the Tribes of Israel could wander through the desert for 40 years and leave absolutely no trace of their existence...anywhere....then you have no grasp of reality at all.
Reread your verse in Exodus? What is the requirement to become a kingdom of priests and a holy nation? Answer: Obedience to God. It is because of Abraham's faith he was chosen in the first place. "And Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD counted him as righteous because of his faith." Genesis 15:6 Through Christ the same promise has been given to the Gentiles, "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." Ephesian 3:6 Which leads Peter to write to all those in Christ, "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." 1 Peter 2:9 This was prophesied long ago, "And now the LORD says, 'It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.'" Isaiah 49:6 Slavery had a long existence in human history, but it was based on class, not race. Christianity led Europe to outlaw slavery based on the teaching that one Christian could not own another as a slave since they were brothers. In the US, poor whites received passage to America as indentured servants. When a slave ship came to America, those on board were also treated as indentured servants and received their freedom in 3 to 7 years of work. Ironically, Antony Johnson, a freed slave himself and landowner, was the first to go to court to enslave a fellow African for life. The American slave trade turned horribly wrong from there. After 80 years as a nation, American slavery was ended but not without the racial division we see today. Racial division does not have its roots in Christianity. The Second Great Awakening in America was the catalyst to end slavery.Exodus 19:5-6 New International Version (NIV) 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you[a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."So, I think you missed the parts about some people getting special treatment. And, as aside, before the enlightenment, how did Christians justify slavery? And in the Old Testament why were the rules for Jewish slaves different than the rules for slaves from other nations?
No, it raises the possibility that archeologists are looking for Israelite garbage in the wrong place. Paul, writing to the Galatian Church, indicates that Mt. Sinai may be in Arabia rather than the Sinai Peninsula where the archeologists are looking for 3500 year old garbage.There has been no evidence to prove this didn’t happen and there are questions about the route taken by the Jewish people.This is an example of the argument from ignorance fallacy, and also proof that you need to learn something about how archaeology works. archaeologists root through sites with human refuse, garbage, and ruins. If you think a mass of people as large as the Tribes of Israel could wander through the desert for 40 years and leave absolutely no trace of their existence...anywhere....then you have no grasp of reality at all.
Do you theist believe your God will spare your life if you jump off this bridge, or if He doesn't, He'd have good reason not to (thereby still allowing you to go to Heaven even though you've apparently just committed suicide)? If you truly believe (i.e. are willing to act as if your beliefs are true) what you say about God and His love for you, you will jump off the bridge. If you DON'T truly believe, and basically you're just fooling yourself about a so-called god for psychological reasons, then you won't jump. Now I'm sure there are some who would actually jump right off. But my guess is, put to a real test of beliefs like I've suggested, most "believers" would not follow through. (And I personally wouldn't want them to.)Your premise is flawed. God never promised those who believe in Him that if they jump off a bridge he will spare their lives. That's not what Christians "truly believe in." In fact, God isn't going to spare our lives at all. We will all die. The promise is that there is an eternal existence beyond this temporal world, and those who believe in Jesus as the Christ will be given eternal life. "On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever." "When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: 'Death has been swallowed up in victory.'"You skirted my question. How do YOU know what God chooses to think or chooses to promise at the time of you being on the bridge? Are you saying God is constrained to do exactly as prescribed in an old human written book (even if it was inspired by Him)? How about answer my question? How do you know God Himself isn't waiting to see how you answer it?
The Second Great Awakening in America was the catalyst to end slavery.So, just to clarify, these things are okay with you? When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. -- Paul, on behalf of Jesus
Theists however have captured the word 'belief' for their purposes, and I think that explains the aversion atheists have against the word 'belief'.This made me laugh. Christians have been using the word belief for two thousand years. We haven't "captured" anything. Since belief an integral part of our faith, atheists want nothing to do with it and go to extreme lengths to insist they have "no beliefs." This was the first conversation I had when I came to this board and was called a troll for saying atheists do have a belief, they believe there is no God. I think you can put atheism in box 4 as well. Atheists have contorted the English language in their zeal to reject religion and that leads to discussions like this where simply words like belief are said to no longer mean what everyone knows it means. It's been "captured" by the overwhelming majority of people speaking the language who happen to be theists, including those who write the dictionaries. A small observation; To speak of believing in God is really a non sequitor, a vague (unexplainable) assertion which identifies (speculates) only an unknown original causality and has no implications in reality and does not belong in the physical sciences, as it lies outside of the physical world. This why there will never be consensus about the nature (and the necessity) of God among theists themselves. Christians "accept Christ" in their heart and IMO, that might be a valid "lifestyle" if practiced in accordance with the best of Christian teachings. But that is a personal (internal) emotion and behavior. It belongs in the disciplines of psychology and philosophy. In principle there is nothing wrong with being a Christian and practicing Christian morality. I am a humanist who employs some of Christ's teachings, but I also embrace the teachings of other great philosophers. This does not make me a theist or religious, but a believer in secular (non controversial) morality. To learn wisdom from others is useful and productive to one's lifestyle. IMO, the main objection of atheists is not to Christianity (except for the son of god thing), but to the hubris of the declaration that God exists, without defining any aspect of such a supernatural being. It is a meaningless assertion, especially if it is accompanied by prayer and ritual, which have no value except as reinforcement of a belief system (conditioning). Unfortunately, these two are always lumped together and atheists have no option but to address the God aspect, which is then viewed by Christians as an attack on Christianity.
The Second Great Awakening in America was the catalyst to end slavery.So, just to clarify, these things are okay with you? When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. -- Paul, on behalf of Jesus Exodus is the law given to the nation Israel as they lived in the land God promised them. It was a Theocracy and dealt with the times in which they lived. It is not Christian law. Christians live by the covenant through Christ, not Moses. Paul's admonishment to slaves is to Christian slaves who lived under the laws of Pagan Rome where slavery was legal. Jesus didn't come to judge anyone, including Rome, but to bring a kind of amnesty--the forgiveness of sins--to the dismay of many Jews living under Roman law. Christians, including slaves, are taught to obey earthly authorities over them, but to understand that they are serving God and he will reward them for the good they do. Again, our reward has always been in the World to Come, not this one and judgment will come at the end of the age.
You skirted my question. How do YOU know what God chooses to think or chooses to promise at the time of you being on the bridge? Are you saying God is constrained to do exactly as prescribed in an old human written book (even if it was inspired by Him)? How about answer my question? How do you know God Himself isn't waiting to see how you answer it?Yes, I'm saying God will not contradict the promises he's made in the Bible, which was written through the inspiration of His Spirit. This question has been answered by the example of Jesus: "Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 'If you are the Son of God,' he said, 'throw yourself down. For it is written: "He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone."' Jesus answered him, 'It is also written: "Do not put the Lord your God to the test." Your question of whether I should jump off a bridge to prove God will save me has been answered--Do not put the Lord your God to the test. Christians don't test God, we have faith.
A small observation; To speak of believing in God is really a non sequitor, a vague (unexplainable) assertion which identifies (speculates) only an unknown original causality and has no implications in reality and does not belong in the physical sciences, as it lies outside of the physical world. This why there will never be consensus about the nature (and the necessity) of God among theists themselves. Christians "accept Christ" in their heart and IMO, that might be a valid "lifestyle" if practiced in accordance with the best of Christian teachings. But that is a personal (internal) emotion and behavior. It belongs in the disciplines of psychology and philosophy. In principle there is nothing wrong with being a Christian and practicing Christian morality. I am a humanist who employs some of Christ's teachings, but I also embrace the teachings of other great philosophers. This does not make me a theist or religious, but a believer in secular (non controversial) morality. To learn wisdom from others is useful and productive to one's lifestyle.Agreed, although believing in God for me has implications in reality.
IMO, the main objection of atheists is not to Christianity (except for the son of god thing), but to the hubris of the declaration that God exists, without defining any aspect of such a supernatural being. It is a meaningless assertion, especially if it is accompanied by prayer and ritual, which have no value except as reinforcement of a belief system (conditioning). Unfortunately, these two are always lumped together and atheists have no option but to address the God aspect, which is then viewed by Christians as an attack on Christianity.Actually I think it's the dragging us into court, mocking Christian beliefs and Christians, being offended by our beliefs and bullying our children in school that are perceived as attacks on Christianity.
LilySmith, Actually I think it’s the dragging us into court, mocking Christian beliefs and Christians, being offended by our beliefs and bullying our children in school that are perceived as attacks on Christianity.Don't play the victim here. Christian history is filled with atrocities committed against atheists or any non-Christian for that matter, like the Crusades, burning at the stake, putting to the test (plain old torture favored by the Inquisition), or being declared Persona non Grata and shunned by the community. And I speak from personal experience. My family and I WERE victims of religious persecution by "good" Christians, not only verbally but physically. Read the story of Hypatia, who was literally torn apart and cut into pieces by Christians. Make sure you read page2 also. http://www.womanastronomer.com/hypatia.htm You are being "dragged into an intellectual court" because you are making assertions without any proofs. I have not seen anyone being offended by your Christian beliefs, just your argument from ignorance on the existence of a God on which you base your Christianity. btw, "argument from ignorance" is not an insult, it is a term used to indicate that your assertions are not based on real knowledge, hence the word ignorance.
Christians, including slaves, are taught to obey earthly authorities over them, but to understand that they are serving God and he will reward them for the good they do. Again, our reward has always been in the World to Come, not this one and judgment will come at the end of the age.The depth of your apologetics is quite impressive. It is almost as if there is a committee of theologians responding to the barrage of questions. Of course, just because you have a response does not mean that your answers are moral, justified, accurate, agreed upon by a majority, accurate interpretations of the Bible, what the original authors meant or anything else. It just means that you aware of the objections and you have a response. The response above, regarding slavery is quite horrid if you really think about it. There are many other monstrously horrible things in the Bible and you are excusing it all. I don't need to go over each of them seeing that you brush off passages on slavery as if we were just talking about a mean boss. Knowing that you do this, I can't think of you as a moral person. I realize this is not purposeful on your part, but it is still wrong.
Lily, you still haven't answered my question about the Jewish people wandering the desert for 40 years. This is a fact claim, yet there is no physical evidence to substantiate it.
There has been no evidence to prove this didn't happen...You cannot prove a negative. The Bible makes a fact claim here. Provide evidence or shut the eff up.
and there are questions about the route taken by the Jewish people.Of course there are questions, especially considering there is no evidence of the Jewish people wandering the desert.
Is the route and Mt. Sinai (sic) in the Sinai (sic) Peninsula, or was it through Arabia?I don't know. What does your Bible say?
If the route was through Arabia that would be modern day Saudi Arabia and it hasn't been open to investigation. Archeologists may be looking in the wrong place.The Jewish people purportedly left Egypt. Their trail would be easy to follow if this had happened. Why are there no Egyptian historical records of their army being drowned when the Nile River collapsed upon them?
So LilySmith:
Should theistic fact claims be subjected to the same standards of scrutiny as other fact claims?
Why or why not?
Go ahead, prove again to everyone what we already know about you.
The very word atheist defines you based on your relation to a theist.Exactly. So the 'atheist belief' is different for every religious culture. It is defined by what it is not. And that is the reason that it is not a belief in itself, but a non-belief. The atheist must not prove anything, it is the theist that makes a positive statement about the existence of something, so the burden of proof is on his side.
If it's truly a non-belief, why call yourself an atheist at all; why define yourself based on your rejection of God?I don't call myself an atheist. I am only arguing against your position that atheism would be a belief. Of course I have a lot of beliefs: I believe that the earth is round and revolves around the sun (this is definitely a true belief, because it is justified by many observations and experiments), I believe in evolution (many, many empirical(!) proofs for it), I believe Jesus was a historical person who predicted the apocalypse in his own lifetime (many hints in this direction, but it is not secured very well, therefore it is a disputed point), I believe that the universe has started to expand from a very concentrated hot phase to where we are now, and I believe that it is possible to experience that I am not a separate entity from my body and that such a view makes life more realistic, easier and more worthwile, and that meditation is a way to this experience (I might be wrong!). So what should I call myself? Humanist, secularist, maybe a little Buddhist? But if I discuss with somebody who believes something else then I am supposed to be an 'a-what-he-thinks-ist'? Am I an a-racist, an a-conservativist, an a-communist? Am I an a-parapsychologist, an a-iriscopist, an a-homeopathist? Must I bring proofs of these, or can I just wait and see till the proof of their beliefs is given? Why should I define myself as an a-theist?
To be fair to you, Lily, you asked me a question early on. I’ll answer it now, and then invite your answer to the seminal question of this topic.
You're taking tenets of a FAITH, and saying they must be proven or what?That is exactly what I’m saying: what you call “tenets of FAITH" must be proved, else they do not merit belief. Quite a neat trick someone pulled off a long time ago, convincing people that saying “that’s my faith" was a legitimate way to justify a belief. Of course, it didn’t take much convincing. People want to believe whatever appeals to them, whether it’s true or not. We live in a culture that encourages that “method" of thinking. “Blessed are those who believe but have not seen." And everyone is expected to say “amen" or at the very least, accept that way of thinking. We secularists do not accept it. We call bullshit on it. We call bullshit because it is bullshit. When you can turn to “faith" (as belief without evidence) to justify what you believe, then you can justify anything you like; and that is exactly what people have done. The consequences have been disastrous, sometimes destroying one life, other times destroying entire peoples. People would do this with or without the idea of faith-as-belief. But religion should lift us up to higher ground, and make us more responsible. Just the opposite, using “faith" to justify belief makes us less responsible. It gives license to irresponsibility and self-indulgence, and invites all manner of self-justification. Again, I invite you to read Paul Tillich's marvelous book The Dynamics of Faith. That is why faith-as-belief should not be given an exception insofar as people are making fact claims. Fact claims are reliable only if they have good evidence and sound reason behind them. “I wish it to be true, therefore it is true" is not justified; on the contrary, it damages the fabrics of our societies and impedes our spiritual growth and development. So the question to you, Lily, is: “Should theistic fact claims be subjected to the same standards of scrutiny as other fact claims?" Why or why not? You've demonstrated time and time again how skilled you are at avoiding questions and issues you do not wish to address. Everyone here sees through it. You haven't convinced anyone. For once, take the question head on and address it honestly.
Slavery had a long existence in human history, but it was based on class, not race. Christianity led Europe to outlaw slavery based on the teaching that one Christian could not own another as a slave since they were brothers. In the US, poor whites received passage to America as indentured servants. When a slave ship came to America, those on board were also treated as indentured servants and received their freedom in 3 to 7 years of work. Ironically, Antony Johnson, a freed slave himself and landowner, was the first to go to court to enslave a fellow African for life. The American slave trade turned horribly wrong from there. After 80 years as a nation, American slavery was ended but not without the racial division we see today. Racial division does not have its roots in Christianity. The Second Great Awakening in America was the catalyst to end slavery.Here you go once again using fractured history to make your point Lilly. First off no, slavery wasn't based on class but whomever of the enemy was left over after destruction of a city or army regardless of social status (see Connolly' "Greece and Rome at War")i it became racial during the high Renaissance period after the Diaz expedition in 1488. Portuguese traders bought African slaves and inported them to Europe and the Americas. Next, indentured servants ( I own a Vellum indenture from 1698 BTW) with rare exception were white. What's your point here? The slave ship you mention was Dutch and in 1619 was blown off course so the captain was compelled to sell his cargo. They became indentured because the colonial governor wasn't certain what status to assign them. Records indicate that some were kept as permanent slaves and some indentured. So far no concrete evidence exists to fully explain their future status. And yes Johnson is credited with enslaving an African who was wheedled out of his indentured status when, assuming he was free he went to work for another plantation owner. Johnson recanted and sued the other owner and the courts ruled in Johnson's favor. Without the court ruling you never have heard of this incident. Lastly, if slavery in America wasn't sustained by xtianity then why did xtian theologians continuously argue for it's existence by using biblical quotations taken directly from the KJV, and this was done even after the Second Great Awakening up to the Civil War in fact. Southern preachers even exemplified slavery as a "sacred trust" thrust upon them by Great Britain to civilize and Christianized the slaves. You can't cherry pick your holy book nor can you revise history to suit your argument Lilly. Cap't Jack
. . . it became racial during the high Renaissance period after the Diaz expedition in 1488. Portuguese traders bought African slaves and inported them to Europe and the Americas.I had never considered this aspect of history. Could advances in shipbuilding and circumnavigation have anything to do with it?
I had never considered this aspect of history. Could advances in shipbuilding and circumnavigation have anything to do with it?Absolutely. Beginning with the Diaz expedition and continuing on to South Africa and the Indies by DeGama. Both used a sturdier type of ship called a caravel, a vast improvement in speed and maneuverability over the slower, bluff bowed carrack (Nao). Those types carried the Columbus expedition to the Americas BTW so they were both seaworthy. They also carried the first African slaves to Europe and later to the Americas. They were replaced in the 17th Century by the galleon, larger hold, square sailed and less top hamper. They brought the majority of the African slaves to America. So, yeah you could say that ship design at least made the trade more lucrative by holding more slaves. Those ships as you know were hell holes (see the movie "Amistad"). Cap't Jack