Bonky

Biblical faith is logical, rational and evidentiary by nature. Can you state your case? Why should I believe what the Bible says about God? No, the widespread damage you see around you is caused by sin, not by faith. That seems convenient, faith becomes sin when the use of religious faith ends up badly. How do you know God *wants* us to believe in him? What evidence is there for this God? If you were shown evidence for the veracity of the claim that God exists, what would you do, ultimately with that evidence? If you felt that enough evidence existed for you to be able to comfortably claim that God exists, what would you do with God's existence? What difference would it make in your life one way or the other? What would I do with this new knowledge? I'd shift from non belief to belief. I wouldn't assume the God is of the Christian variety so I don't know that there would be anything to do upon this change in position.

William Lane Craig is a moral objectivist, so I don't think he was speaking of morals evolving in the sense of the nature of morality, but perhaps in terms of moral knowledge. Do you perhaps have the quote where he said this, I like to read it? It was in a debate with Lawrence Krauss that he eluded to the idea that morality, in human history, has evolved. Now, he asserts that we have a perfect moral standard to strive for [God]. It must have been in the debate in Brisbane where he actually said it, but here is the video where they reference his statement: Link removed This is the tricky thing about morality. I see where Craig is coming from, I really do. I'm just not convinced that perfect moral standard exists.

I've been traveling for work and I've had a hectic schedule lately, so I just wanted to respond to the part of your post that caught my eye. You would be correct I'm not hostile to Christians at all. Lastnight I was just at a Christian woman's house who was having a get together. I really enjoyed the evening with her and I consider her a good friend already [i've only met her twice, she's my girlfriends good friend]. I'm not hostile to Christians, but I am somewhat hostile to the concept of religious faith. If God exists, and he is completely logical, he wouldn't step near faith. If you look around, you can see the widespread damage religious faith has caused. I believe it's vital to believe that which you have good evidence for. To do otherwise just doesn't make any sense for me. Interestingly enough this Christian woman had all of the attendee's of her dinner to take the Myers-Briggs personality test. She used to work with people before she retired giving them this test and going over the results. I ended up in the ISTP category. I think perhaps my skeptical nature may shed light on why I think the way I do. I like cold hard facts, not daydreams or "flights of fancy". I don't rule out that there could be a creator of some sort for our Universe, I just highly doubt that our earthly religions properly capture the nature of this being. I would be shocked to find out that this being at one time was very concerned about women's menstrual cycles, or whether people wore mixed fabrics or not. Getting back on topic, if I believe something it is because I was shown evidence for it's veracity. The more wild the claim, the more evidence I'll need. Imagine if you were asked to believe that black holes exist in space, but we didn't have any evidence. Even if it's true that they exist, it wouldn't make sense to believe it unless you were provided evidence. The main argument I see for God seems to be the teleological variety. What I counter with is, how many times in human history did we point to the supernatural to explain something? How many times did that pan out as a good way to explain anything? Why think that *now* is finally a time where it'll pay off?

I don't think there's an conspiracy that NPR is making up the survey results. NPR had nothing to do with the survey, it was the NSF that handled the poll. That being said, I have to think that some of the folks who said "the sun revolves around the earth" had more of an issue with reading comprehension. What that percentage is I'm not sure. Still, I think it's safe to say that some people actually don't know that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. To me, when we poll society and find out people don't trust a scientific theory; it shows me perhaps a lack of scientific education/understanding in our society. It doesn't say much about the veracity of the theory itself.

I guess it's a good thing we don't poll the masses for truth, especially in the matters of science. Aren't there a fair amount of Americans that also think the Sun revolves around the Earth? http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says

Sure it's fair, we're talking about a principle here. If God is not to be judged and he is good by definition, then this would be true for the Muslim as well. You can't just give this special protection to one God but not another. I've been told [not by you necessarily] that God created the Universe and he can do what he wants with it. I probably wouldn't disagree with you that the God described in the OT is superior [in terms of behavior] to the God that bloodthirsty Muslims worship. I'm saying that if this principle is true, it'd be true for any creator of the Universe.

I can understand why pious would state this, just keep in mind it would also apply to a Muslim who thinks their God wants them to destroy infidels. Who are we to judge Allah? Who are we to say it's wrong to kill the unfaithful? If we can't make moral assessments of God, it means nothing to say he's "good".

Okay. I think I understand your position a bit better. I definitely don't see how the bible shows us anything better than what we've been able to establish on our own. I am used to the argument that theistic morality transcendes culture and time. Although I think William Lane Craig admitted recently that morality evolves. Interesting stuff.

Shiloh, as a side note, how do we know the Bible is the perfect source of morality?

We'll come back to this in a minute... But if slavery IS immoral, then how COULD it be viewed as acceptable by people who were following the guidance of the most moral being in existence? You just sunk your own ship. Up top you declared slavery as immoral and stated the bible doesn't take a stand one way or the other. How can you establish guidelines on slavery AND have no position on it?! Can you regulate gambling AND not have a position on whether it's immoral or not?? The Bible clearly states the Israelites are allowed to buy slaves from the nations around them....sounds like the bible does take a stance as to whether it's ok or not. I don't think you're willing to admit that. Ok but you said the Bible was "the perfect basis for morality"....and now you're telling me "your mileage may vary"?? If morality changes over time then the Bible is only going to cover the time that the writers were writing it and nothing else. Otherwise we'll have folks cherry picking and saying "well that was back then it doesn't apply today". You see I'm not even necessarily talking about abuse. Do you think it's moral to OWN another human being?? We view personal freedom differently then what people did 2000 years ago. This is something new to our race, that's why we don't approve of slavery anymore. Notice we don't say "you can own a slave so long as you treat them well." We don't allow it at all because we no longer approve of the idea of someone being someone elses property. "God" didn't seem to realize that value way back then. Well how would you react if your employer asked you to get marked as property of the company by piercing your body?? Now you can't be serious. You can't tell me that taking women against their will and shoving them into the hands of a soldier as a wife or servant is moral. You don't value personal freedom? As soldiers in the middle east should we take women if we feel like it? If God was truly against slavery he, by definition, wouldn't be able to regulate it. How do you regulate something that is immoral to being with. God was able to say Don't Murder and Don't Steal. He wasn't able to assert his authority and say "Don't have slaves"? Well I'm sure if you found out your neighbor was allowing their child to drink liquor you'd be understanding if they said "hey, I told them only 3 shots and then it's time for bed!".

So I'm still struggling to find out what you believe. Is owning another person as property, in and of itself...immoral? Our modern culture seems to have declared it so. Would you be ok with ownership of other human beings so long as they aren't killed or severely abused? Ok so you've just admitted that the Bible takes a stance on things in the time it was written. So how in the world can we declare it the moral guideline for life in 2014?? I'm not sure if you're seeing this but your defense of the bible as a moral guide in 2014 isn't going very far. I never ever mentioned slavery in America. I quoted Bible verses and I'm referring to slavery in the Bible. Modern American culture has decided that ownership of humans is immoral end of story. You seem to disagree with that. I also note that I don't think you're willing to concede that the Bible even mentions the word "property". I was always told you're not supposed to change or misrepresent what's clearly written in scripture. Actually the word "property" absolutely shows up in the translation I gave. Other translations say things like "for he is his money"...the concept is the same. God had special rules for hebrew slaves, he had OTHER rules for non-hebrews. Are you able to admit this? The bible allows for a hebrew to inherit slaves from their parents, do you deny this? I gave the scripture that supports what I'm saying here. Are you sure about that? Exodus 21:6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. Also the Israelites took virgin women captive and handed them over to the soldiers and priests. Is it ok to do this kind of thing in a time of war? If you aren't aware of this event, take a look at Numbers chapter 31. If you declare the Bible a source of ultimate morality because the ancient hebrews were slightly more moral [which hasn't been demonstrated mind you] than other nations nearby that is as poor an argument as I've ever seen. To be declared a source of morality I would think the ancient hebrews would have to surpass the morality we have today! It doesn't need to. The very minute that you regulate something, you've told people that it's ok to do it. Sure there might be rules around it, but ultimately you approve of the behavior. I just was making conversation. I think people want to be able to throw a holy book at the problem of morality and they think it's a clean easy solution. When we scratch beneath the surface we find all kinds of problems with that.

Okay but keep in mind it was you that suggested that we could use this collection of books that were "written from an ancient near eastern cultural paradigm". This doesn't seem to be a very well grounded clear understanding of morality. We forbid slavery in Western society because we know [from human experience] that the ownership of one human over other humans often leads to abuse. If we allow ourselves to view other humans as "property" what usually follows isn't good. So as we can see with this one issue we already have reason to be concerned that the Bible is going to be a handy book to guide us through good moral behavior. We haven't even bothered to establish how we would know that the Bible is moral in any way shape or form other than to just declare it so. Right now our society [in the US] is struggling with whether it's ok to allow people to smoke marijuana. It was unthinkable to allow it before but now peoples' views are changing. We wrestle with "how much freedom is too much freedom". It's not an easy thing to figure out sometimes.

What about owning human beings as property, I can do that right? The Bible doesn't expressly forbid that, so it must be ok? I assume you are talking about slavery. The Bible doesn't condemn slavery but it regulates it. And unlike in other cultures, the Bible gives slaves rights and privileges that you don't find in slavery in the context of cultures that surround Israel. Slavery was a part of ancient near eastern culture. The Bible reflects that culture but again, regulates it. A "slave" in the Bible isn't necessarily "property." Unlike other ancient near eastern cultures, the Bible doesn't dehumanize those who are slaves. And some slavery was voluntary. Well more precisely put there were more rules in place for Jewish slaves. YHWH didn't want Jewish slave owners treating Israelite slaves "harshly". They were allowed to own slaves for life if they weren't Israelites: “When you buy a Hebrew slave, six years shall he serve; and in the seventh shall he go out free, for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and the children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the slave shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto God, and he shall bring him to the door or unto the door-post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.” —Exodus 21:2-6. Also Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version (NIV) 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. So it seems to me, if I find a person being sold as a "slave" I have complete freedom to purchase them and to keep them for life. If I provide this person a family they are also under my ownership. You seem to use the term "property" differently than what I'm accustomed to. The Bible actually spells that out for us pretty clear as well: Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV) 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. If you notice the verses above merely state that it's not moral for a slave owner to outright kill his slave in anger. Beating him is/was obviously ok. So I'm confused now as to why I'm not allowed to own people when the Bible clearly says it's ok using various guidelines.

What about owning human beings as property, I can do that right? The Bible doesn't expressly forbid that, so it must be ok?

the perfect basis for morality is the Bible. Which Bible? Who's interpretation?

I haven't found any moral system that can completely account for what is "right" and what is "wrong" and do so consistently throughout history. To me morality is a bit like "How do you perfectly take care of your body?". There are going to be some grey areas for sure, but we KNOW drinking bleach isn't going to be a recommendation. * I think you can come up with a basis for "morality" especially if you're working with: intelligent social beings [in this case humans], who hold to some core values such as: Life is preferable to death Pleasure is preferable to pain *Credit to Matt Dilahunty Now again, I'm not saying there aren't exceptions or any grey areas. For instance, if I'm in extreme pain and it's terminal, perhaps I'd prefer death over life in that case. I truly believe the Theist has more trouble accounting for morality as defined by some being they refer to as "God".

We got sidetracked with human sacrifice but my original response to your comments still stand in my mind. It sounded like you were wanting to distance "God" away from the fact that according to the bible it was YHWH that told Moses to command the Israelites to commit genocide. They then took the young women and forced them into marriage or servanthood. This isn't being projected onto YHWH, it's the Bible telling us that YHWH did indeed request this. So your claim was that God doesn't even condone brutality, murder etc and the only way I can see to suggest this is to redefine what those words mean. The Bible clearly states that slavery was acceptable. The old testament had some regulations around it and in the new testament, Jesus could have easily spoken against it but never did. In fact, in Ephesians chapter 6 it commands slaves to obey their masters. So yes I'm still puzzled as to how someone can say God isn't ok with any sort of brutality....obviously in some contexts...he absolutely is.

Ok I thought Jesus was considered the ultimate/perfect sacrifice. God required that Jesus die for the sins of mankind so it seems he was ok with human sacrifice in at least one context.

The passages I was referring to involve the Midianites [Numbers chapter 31], the Bible doesn't seem to even hint that the slaughter had anything to do with child sacrifice. Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony to deal with child sacrifice...by killing children? Baal was seen as the main competitor god to YHWH, there were times when the Israelite men were seduced into worshiping this god if I'm not mistaken. You mention that the sins of the parents can trickle down to the children so to speak, I would have thought that meant that what the parents "sow"....the children sometimes "reap". I'm still not clear on why it would be seen as acceptable to murder children and force young women into marriages they more than like wouldn't want to be a part of [their family was just destroyed]. The other irony is see is, didn't YHWH ultimately show that he was indeed ok with human sacrifice? I mean once a god shows approval of one human sacrifice, does the body count really matter that much?

I wouldn't attend such a thing, but what about the freedom of religion? I thought all religious views had equal right to be expressed.

Can you cite research that shows that these nations were people who worshiped the devil and were involved in beastiality etc? I've heard similar claims in the past but I haven't seen it backed up with data. Let's assume for a moment that this is true, are we saying it's ok to kill children and force young women into marriages by their captors so long as the parents are wicked?

Not to be nit picking but isn't it true that only Jews were let go after 7 years? [EX 21:2] I didn't think that applied to non-Jews [Leviticus 25:45-46]. Also, it was illegal to outright kill a slave, but beating them wasn't what was wrong. Let's take a look at one of the verses you mention: Exodus 21: 20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished." ....and the slave DIES as a direct result... Look at the very next verse, 21:21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money. It isn't saying that beating a slave is wrong, it's saying beating one outright to the point where the slave dies right away. If I'm not mistaken, if the slave dies after a few days they would assume that the master didn't intend the kill the slave and the master was off the hook, no punishment.