Apologetic on Slavery & Rape in the Bible

[Bonky]

Edited June 16, 2014 by Bonky

[Guest shiloh357]

I think you're kind of comparing apples and oranges. It sounds like you want to suggest that if we can verify X amount of claims in the Bible and find them to be true, then we can just whole hog believe the entire book. That's not how it works. The Bible is a large collection of different writers. It's one thing to believe a certain King or town existed in the deep past. It's another to believe that there was once a man that lived in the belly of a great fish for 3 days. We have to take each claim separately, especially as we go from author to author.

 

No,what I am talking about is the nature of faith.  I can show that real faith is not blind, but is always based on evidence.  I can prove that faith is not irrational belief.  But what needs to be understood as well is that we have to operate within the framework of the evidence that can be offered.  What skeptics like to do is demand evidence that Jesus walked on water, or ask us to produce evidence that Jonah was in the belly of the great fish.  They ask for a type of evidence that they know is out of our reach while ignoring or dismissing the evidence that we can provide.  They seem to think that demanding evidence they know doesn't exist gives them some kind of victory over the claims that there is evidence supporting veracity of the Bible.

 

The evidence we can provide demonstrates that events such as the miracles of Jesus are embedded in accounts where the authors took great pains to be historically accurate.  Because we can establish an impeccable track record of historical accuracy for the Bible, it lends credence to the events for which there is no hard, material evidence.

 

Absolutely unsubstantiated claim. What historical or geographical fact would be used to show that angels really exist?

 

Not unsubstantiated at all. I am not saying that historical claims prove that angels exist.  What I said that is the theological and doctrinal claims of the Bible are rooted in historical and geographical fact and that all of the evidence for the truthfulness of the Bible's claims are rooted in the lives of people and events and places.   Take for example, the resurrection of Jesus. The followers of Jesus were persecuted, not for a belief in Jesus' resurrection, but for their claim to be eyewitnesses to the fact that Jesus was alive.  They all claimed to have seen Jesus, talked to him, touched Him, ate with Him for 40 days after death and resurrection.  They were willing to die for that claim.  No one dies for something they know isn't true.  

 

The Christian faith stands or falls based on whether or not Jesus was really resurrected.  If He is still dead or if He never existed at all in the first place, then Christianity collapses to dust. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, nothing else matters.  There is no Christianity at that point.  But if Jesus IS risen from the dead, His resurrection is the vindication of all of the Bible's claims.  If Jesus is risen, if He has conquered death, it is no problem to believe what the OT prophets wrote. It is no problem believing that Jesus walked on water.

 

The resurrection of Jesus is an historical event that up to this point no skeptic has been able to successfully refute or disprove.  No one has found any evidence to deny the historicity of that one event. Had Jesus not been risen, His enemies would have needed to do nothing more than produce a corpse and Christianity would have been no more.

 

The Mormons have a book too that uses real names and real places. That doesn't justify someone in becoming a mormon and believing the mormon bible.

 

Not really.  The names and places in the book of Mormon have no historical or archeological veracity.  I don't know who told you that, but the fact that you believe it shows that you really didn't take the time to examine those claims critically.

 

 

shiloh357, on 16 Jun 2014 - 4:47 PM, said:

No, most of the damage you point to doesn't come from faith at all.  The 20th century was the bloodiest century in terms of war.  The Chinese and Russian revolutions, the rise of Nazism, Communism, Fascism, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the First Gulf War, Abortion, that's over 250 million people dead and had nothing to do with "faith" or religion.

That's kind of my point, we have enough problems with people killing [or harming] other people. We don't need superstition to add to the body count. Did you know that there are kids in Africa being accused of witchcraft and then tortured or killed? If you rejected religious faith you wouldn't believe in witchcraft to begin with. Faith is merely believing in something that you don't have evidence for. It's not a good practice.

 

For all of your prattling about evidence, you made a claim for which there is no evidence, but you treat it as fact.  I can show that the problems in this world are not rooted in faith, but man's evil and oppression of other men absent of any kind of faith.   There is no evidence that faith adds to the body count.   It is rather hypocritical of you to demand a standard of evidence for my claims while you feel free to make claims that have no basis is evidence, much less reality.

 

The Universe is evidence for a Universe. You calling it "Creation" doesn't mean it was created. I noticed you didn't touch my challenge a bit ago. Name a time in human history where the supernatural helped us advance our understanding of the world. If you can't name a time, why is NOW any different than in the past?

 

The universe is not merely evidence for a universe.   It is evidence that something greater than the universe brought it into existence.  The nature of the universe, its structure, order and uniformity speak to intelligence.  It is rather irrational to believe that a universe as ordered and complex as our own is the product of arbitrary randomness.

 

Faith in God has never been an impediment to understanding our world.  Historically, the greatest scientists in the world were men of faith and modern science is built upon the research of those scientists who viewed the universe through the prism of faith.   I am sure I understand how you think I can show that the "supernatural" advanced our understanding of the world.  That question really makes no sense.  I can show that faith in God as the creator has never hampered science.

 

I agree that it's very puzzling as to the "cause" of our Universe, I still see no need to use one mystery to try to solve another. Look up the phrase "i have no need of that hypothesis".

 

How can you agree that its puzzling.  I never said it was puzzling.  I said the opposite.  I pointed to what we know and observe intuitively. Nothing in our human experience appears out of nothing or nowhere for no apparent reason.  If someone tried to tell you that their car wasn't the product of intelligent builders, designers, programmers, etc., if they told it just materialized in the driveway and were serious about that claim, you would think they were crazy.

 

I saw a documentary a couple of years ago on Stonehenge.  There were several different theories being offered as to who built the structure.  Toward the end of the documentary, there were Ph.D. scholars willing to proffer the notion that Stonehenge may have been built by extra-terrestrials.  What NO scientist or scholar was entertaining thought, was the notion that Stonehenge wasn't "built" at all.  Perhaps these stones of uniform size and shape just materialized that way and happened to land in this configuration as the earth was being formed and perhaps it has just always been like that.   No one was willing to stake their reputation on a claim like that because Stonehenge has every earmark of human involvement.  There is, inherent in that structure a plan a purpose.  When you look at it, you intuitively ask, "who built it and why."

 

So while no one was willing to entertain the notion that Stonehenge might have been a random anomaly that just looks like it was made by intelligent beings, that is the very hill on which people will plant their flags and die for when it comes to the creation of the universe.

 

I'm honestly not sure, it depends on whether I had more of an understanding of God beyond just being aware of his existence. I don't view God the same way that most Christians do. I think the Bible, at times anyway, paints an ugly picture. God seems to be a powerful human, emotional, interested in things that would interest a human. Hopefully I'd somehow be able to get a better understanding of some things.

 

That shows you haven't really read the Bible too closely.  The Bible presents a God who is utterly nonhuman.  It shows a God who operates from a perfect system of justice, who is holy, who has no tolerance for sin, whose teachings are offensive to human nature.  In fact, it is the pagan gods who are fickle, sexually immoral, mischevious, who are weak, dishonest, and pretty much hate humanity.  

 

The God of the Bible is redemptive.  He is pictured as a shepherd, a tower of refuge, as one willing to lay down His own life for his people.  He is willing to forgive and be merciful to anyone willing to trust Him.    So you really have a skewed understanding of God, but most of that stems from the fact that you really know next to nothing about Him.

[Bonky]

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh357, on 17 Jun 2014 - 04:57 AM, said:

No,what I am talking about is the nature of faith.  I can show that real faith is not blind, but is always based on evidence.

If something is based on evidence, then faith seems like an unnecessary word.

 

You are confusing evidence with proof.

 

I don't have faith that the Sun exists, I can see it in the sky pretty much every day.

 

Yes, and you have proof of the sun, not evidence of the sun.

 

Also, why do I hear Christians talk about strengthening their faith, why are there books that are geared towards helping people who are losing "faith"? If you have sufficient evidence of something, it shouldn't be hard work to keep believing.

 

Well there is saving faith and there is daily faith.  Daily faith is what people are usually referring to when they are talking about strengthening faith.  Faith is like a muscle and the more we exercise it the stronger we get.  There is a lot in the world that challenges our faith in God, too. So we are constantly filling our minds with the Scriptures and encouraging one another when we face crises and adversity in our lives. 

 

It is  not that we need faith to believe God exists.  But we need strengthen our faith so that we can trust God in the middle of the storms of life that come.

 

You primarily have writings by people who didn't meet Jesus and were written years after his death. I can perfectly copy a story [Mark was copied quite a bit wasn't he?] over and over, it doesn't make it true. What historical evidence do we have that after Jesus was crucified, jewish zombies got out of their graves and started to walk around meeting their old friends and family. Sounds like a pretty major event. Only Matthew seems to have heard about this incredible story. Maybe Matthew was so fixated on making Jesus out to be divine that he threw in a little poetic license? I don't doubt that there was man named Jesus and that he was a real historical person...I just doubt what is written about him.

 

Well the problem is that you don't understand the manusrcript evidence that we have.   The earliest copies of the Gospels/New Testament go back to the earliest part of the second century,within 50 years or so since the originals were penned.

 

The problem with claiming that the Gospel accounts were written years after the events when none of the eye witnesses were alive that it places those original documents having been written long after Rome's destruction and razing of Jerusalem.   When Rome destroyed Jerusalem, they were pretty thorough.  They tore things down and pretty much covered everything over.  They changed the entire landscape of the city.  The  temple was torn down and a temple to Jupiter put in its place.

 

The point is that the Gospels contain all kinds of details about the landscape of Jerusalem and Judea that only someone living at that time would have known given that those features were not available to some one living years after the fact, who didn't live in Jerusalem prior to its destruction

 

Not only were they likely written during the life time of the alleged authors, but it is important to note that their enemies were also very acquainted with story line of Jesus life and ministry and would have challenged the gospel writers had they made up or distorted any facts.

 

Nonsense, people die for all kinds of ridiculous beliefs, what matters is that they believe it to be true.

 

People do die for beliefs.   But the disciples were not dying for a "belief."  They were dying for their eye witness testimony that they had seen Jesus.  They were dying for a first hand experience, not a  "belief."

 

That means either they were telling the truth or they were lying and NO ONE dies for something they KNOW isn't true, especially if they were the ones who made up the lie to start with.  No one is going to go through painful torture for a lie the concocted when all they need to do is recant to make the torture go away.

 

It wouldn't be up to skeptics to disprove it, it would be up to the believers to prove it.

 

They did prove it.  They proved it through the miracles that were done through them.   It was also proved by the fact that their enemies couldn't produce a corpse or a sealed tomb.  Everyone knew where Jesus was buried.  The tomb was sealed with a Roman seal.  If the seal was still intact, the enemies of the apostles could have simply shown that the tomb had not been opened or disturbed and that would have put any notion of a resurrection to bed.

 

The one incredible story in the Bible that CAN be investigated is the global flood. The only people that believe in the story are those who are obligated to via religious conviction. The story is absurd from the start. There is no evidence of a global flood and there should be tons of it, it only happened 4400 years ago.

 

There is evidence, but none that anyone is willing to entertain.

 

 

I'm just saying the Mormon Bible references real people and places.

 

Yes, and I am saying that it doesn't have references to real places or peoples. None of those locations have ever turned up where they are alleged to have occurred.  So the Book of Mormon isn't a very good example.

 

There are kids being attacked because people think they're witches. We had that happen here in the States centuries ago. Historically, I think it's safe to say that religious faith has led to a significant amount of undeserving pain and deaths. The more important thing is, I just don't think religious faith is wise. You're being asked to believe something for which you don't have much evidence for, if you did have evidence there's no need for the word "faith".

 

In other words, you can't really come up with significant examples of how faith is just doing damage all over place.  You certainly can't match the devastation and destruction caused by nazism, fascism or communism.  You can't seem to find Christians that are murdering people like the despots in the east.  

 

You don't know this. Try some humility, we don't have all the answers and saying "God did it" is just giving up on the mystery.

 

We do know it.  The problem is that we choose to reject/ignore it. 

 

Claiming that you know who this being is and it inspired people to write the Bible thousands of years ago is just out in left field.

 

It's more rational than believing that order came from arbitrary randomness.  There is nothing left field about that at all.

 

If the human appendix is such a good design why are so many people getting them removed? Why are people so commonly getting their wisdom teeth removed? I don't see any design to brag about. Why do we eat and drink using the same pipe we breathe with??

 

We live in a fallen, broken world.  Our bodies don't do what they were created to do because of sin.   What is wrong with the eating and breathing from the same area of the body?   Why is that an error?

[Guest shiloh357]

Someone who believes in the power of crystals or lucky charms can also be a great inventor or scientist. I'm asking, name a time when a scientist or explorer USED the supernatural to solve anything. If you can't name a time, then I'm going to ask you, why is NOW a good time to reach for the supernatural for an explanation?

 

I don't know of anyone who abandoned science and said "God did it."   That is usually the oversimplified and lazy man's way of characterizing scientists  who are Christians.  They simply see science through the prism of the God who created the natural world and the ability of man to do science.   they are not using the supernatural to solve problems at all.  That is a nonsensical accusation.  No one is using the supernatural as an explanation now.   What we are saying is that science is itself a means of understanding the scope of God's creation.  God created the natural laws and forces that science detects. 

 

 

You're comparing something that we KNOW was designed with something that you ASSERT is designed.

If books and Stonehenge songs, and paintings, cars and computers, food, clothing and everything else we use had to be created, why is it irrational to believe that a world or that biological life which is far more complex just came about for no reason by through no intelligent impetus?

 

It's not much of a stretch to assume humans built the structure, Post-and-lintel architecture is not uncommon in human history. What other Universes are you referencing to show that Universes can only exist by design?Intelligent design has been had it's chance in court several times to show that it has anything to offer the scientific community and it's shot down every time. It's an empty hypothesis

 

It is shot down, but it was never really defeated.  It was mocked and ridiculed.  'but it was never refuted.  The empty hypothesis is that a unvierse with every earmark of design needs no designer.  In fact it rather stupid.

 

 

Except for the fact that he shows human emotions, regrets actions, wishes to be worshiped, is jealous when people worship other gods etc etc.

 

That isn't true.  Humans are made in His image.  We reflect Him.  But God's emotions aren't the same.  God doesn't hate the way we hate and he doesn't love the way we love.   God loves us unconditionally.   Human love is unreliable.  it is hot one day, cold the next.  It is fickle and preferential.  Our emotions are tainted by sin.  God's emotions are not.  Our emotions reflect the nature of our creator.  So, you have it backwards.

 

No tolerance for sin? This is the God that didn't like slavery [because it's wrong] but allowed it and regulated it because that's the way it was back then.

 

 

Who said God didn't like slavery??  I said that the Bible never passes judgment on it at all

 

The Bible claims that God required himself [human form] to be used as a sacrifice for humanity. He could have also NOT required this. I have to run as I'm out of time.

 

He could have not required that, but then He would not have redeemed humanity if he made that choice.  There was only way to redeem Humanity and God was the only one who could make it happen.

[Bonky]

Well there is saving faith and there is daily faith.  Daily faith is what people are usually referring to when they are talking about strengthening faith.  Faith is like a muscle and the more we exercise it the stronger we get.  There is a lot in the world that challenges our faith in God, too. So we are constantly filling our minds with the Scriptures and encouraging one another when we face crises and adversity in our lives. 

 

It is  not that we need faith to believe God exists.  But we need strengthen our faith so that we can trust God in the middle of the storms of life that come.

I guess I just struggle understanding this faith concept. I think part of it is people may struggle with believing in something that isn't detectable. I think the other thing I struggle with is that there isn't a mechanism to tell you when/if you're wrong. No matter what happens after someone prays, they can just conclude "it was God's will". If you don't have a mechanism that would warn you that you're going in the wrong direction [with your faith] you can be completely deluded.

 

 

Well the problem is that you don't understand the manusrcript evidence that we have.   The earliest copies of the Gospels/New Testament go back to the earliest part of the second century,within 50 years or so since the originals were penned.

 

The problem with claiming that the Gospel accounts were written years after the events when none of the eye witnesses were alive that it places those original documents having been written long after Rome's destruction and razing of Jerusalem.   When Rome destroyed Jerusalem, they were pretty thorough.  They tore things down and pretty much covered everything over.  They changed the entire landscape of the city.  The  temple was torn down and a temple to Jupiter put in its place.

 

The point is that the Gospels contain all kinds of details about the landscape of Jerusalem and Judea that only someone living at that time would have known given that those features were not available to some one living years after the fact, who didn't live in Jerusalem prior to its destruction

 

Not only were they likely written during the life time of the alleged authors, but it is important to note that their enemies were also very acquainted with story line of Jesus life and ministry and would have challenged the gospel writers had they made up or distorted any facts.

I just don't find this evidence very substantial. Having said that, I'll investigate the historical evidence for the gospels a bit more. I can't say that I'm well educated in the topic.

 

There is evidence, but none that anyone is willing to entertain.

So your stance is that there's a global conspiracy to ignore the evidence for the global flood [or something along these lines]? Why would anyone ignore the evidence? It's not like if the global flood story turned out to be true that it would prove anything else about the Bible, it would simply tell us that there was indeed a global flood at one time. You admitted yourself that there have been findings by researchers that supports the Bible, why would it be different with a global flood?

 

In other words, you can't really come up with significant examples of how faith is just doing damage all over place.  You certainly can't match the devastation and destruction caused by nazism, fascism or communism.  You can't seem to find Christians that are murdering people like the despots in the east.

I think you misunderstand my position. I'm not just talking about Christian faith, I'm including all or any "faith" in the supernatural. Also, Christians aren't killing people TODAY, the past however is a very different story. I'm saying as a principle, religious faith isn't wise. It allows people to believe in things they haven't verified and it has repercussions in our society. Even today in America we cases of parents refusing to take their sick children to a hospital because they had faith that prayer would work. Tell the parents of these dead kids that faith is worthwhile.

 

We live in a fallen, broken world.  Our bodies don't do what they were created to do because of sin.   What is wrong with the eating and breathing from the same area of the body?   Why is that an error?

If God designed our bodies what does sin have to do with the fact that we have organs that are very problematic? Ask the relatives of the 2500 folks [just in America] that die from choking each year. It's not a great design to breathe through the same pipe you eat/drink with.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Bonky

[Bonky]

I don't know of anyone who abandoned science and said "God did it."   That is usually the oversimplified and lazy man's way of characterizing scientists  who are Christians.  They simply see science through the prism of the God who created the natural world and the ability of man to do science.   they are not using the supernatural to solve problems at all.  That is a nonsensical accusation.  No one is using the supernatural as an explanation now.   What we are saying is that science is itself a means of understanding the scope of God's creation.  God created the natural laws and forces that science detects.

So when God created the Universe, this was a natural act? I thought it was a supernatural event? You're convinced that there's intentional design and therefore a designer, but this isn't demonstrated to be true. Saying that an undetectable being created our Universe is essentially resorting to magic. It's also fallacy, argument from ignorance...I don't know how else we can explain the existence of the Universe, therefore God.

 

 

If books and Stonehenge songs, and paintings, cars and computers, food, clothing and everything else we use had to be created, why is it irrational to believe that a world or that biological life which is far more complex just came about for no reason by through no intelligent impetus?

Because you have good reason to believe that cars and computers are designed and created. When we start talking about the origin of the Universe and get into quantum mechanics, it's a bit different game.

From Stephen Hawkings book The Grand Design:

"If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative: One has to do work to separate a gravitationally bound system, such as the earth and moon. This negative energy can balance the positive energy needed to create matter, but it’s not quite that simple. The negative gravitational energy of the earth, for example, is less than a billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the earth is made of. A body such as a star will have more negative gravitational energy, and the smaller it is (the closer the different parts of it are to each other), the greater the negative gravitational energy will be. But before it can become greater than the positive energy of the matter, the star will collapse to a black hole, and black holes have positive energy. That’s why empty space is stable. Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can."

I feel that Hawking has a better understand of this topic than either of us. I'm not suggesting that means that what he says is true, but I think he knows what he's talking about. Remember, "I have no need for that hypothesis". We don't NEED a God to explain anything.

 

It is shot down, but it was never really defeated.  It was mocked and ridiculed.  'but it was never refuted.  The empty hypothesis is that a unvierse with every earmark of design needs no designer.  In fact it rather stupid.

Well depends on how you mean defeated. Every time someone has tried to get ID implemented in a public school [via court] it's been defeated in that sense. Michael Behe had to admit that his definition of "theory" [as applied to ID] was so broad it would include astrology!

 

 

He could have not required that, but then He would not have redeemed humanity if he made that choice.  There was only way to redeem Humanity and God was the only one who could make it happen.

Ok, but again why did humanity needed to be redeemed at all? He decided that was the case. He could have merely forgave humanity, no need for elaborate miracles or special nations to bring about messiahs.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Bonky

[Guest shiloh357]

I guess I just struggle understanding this faith concept. I think part of it is people may struggle with believing in something that isn't detectable. I think the other thing I struggle with is that there isn't a mechanism to tell you when/if you're wrong. No matter what happens after someone prays, they can just conclude "it was God's will". If you don't have a mechanism that would warn you that you're going in the wrong direction [with your faith] you can be completely deluded.

 

That is why we have the indwelling Holy Spirit.  This is something you can't possibly understand as an unbeliever.  Christianity isn't merely the acceptance of a set of propositional claims.  It is a real and transformative relationship with God.  It is not merely believing and hoping you are believing the right thing.  There is a real relationship that frankly someone like yourself can't really understand.  The Holy Spirit is the one who guides us and moves within us convicts us when we have done wrong.

 

We know God's will through His word, the Bible.  Everything we need to know about God's will is there.  God's plan is more individual and that is again, where the Holy Spirit comes into play.  He calls us individually, but he also calls us corporately.  He has plan for me, but that plan is part of His larger, overall will for believers.

 

 

just don't find this evidence very substantial. Having said that, I'll investigate the historical evidence for the gospels a bit more. I can't say that I'm well educated in the topic.

 

Why don't you find that evidence substantial?

 

 

So your stance is that there's a global conspiracy to ignore the evidence for the global flood [or something along these lines]? Why would anyone ignore the evidence? It's not like if the global flood story turned out to be true that it would prove anything else about the Bible, it would simply tell us that there was indeed a global flood at one time. You admitted yourself that there have been findings by researchers that supports the Bible, why would it be different with a global flood?

 

Because people, particularly in the scientific community don't want to consider evidence that contradicts their scientific claims.  Scientists are people and they have biases and beliefs and they defend them as passionately as Christians defend the Bible.   Books have been written.  People have earned their Ph.D's looking at the world and the Bible a certain way.  There are Bible scholars who have made a career out of studying the Bible and they don't believe a word of it.  To have to admit that there is evidence for a global flood is the kiss of death to their reputation and credibility in the science community.   Truth can often take a backseat when admitting the truth can extract a personal cost that one doesn't want to pay.

 

I have watched scientists in documentaries behave like this over nonbiblical issues, where a new bombshell archeological discovery unravels decades of research and peer-reviewed journal articles about a particular ancient culture or city.   So, there is a lot of reasons for scientists to fight tooth and nail to make sure contrary evidence doesn't get reviewed and that includes ridiculing the scientist whose research contains the contrary information.

 

I think you misunderstand my position. I'm not just talking about Christian faith, I'm including all or any "faith" in the supernatural. Also, Christians aren't killing people TODAY, the past however is a very different story. I'm saying as a principle, religious faith isn't wise. It allows people to believe in things they haven't verified and it has repercussions in our society. Even today in America we have parents refusing to take their sick children to a hospital because they had faith that prayer would work. Tell the parents of these dead kids that faith is worthwhile.

 

Christians weren't going around killing people in the past, either.   That is a misreading of history.  There is a big difference between those who h-jacked Christianity to murder others in God's name to justify their actions and genuine followers of Jesus.  again, you really can't find anything that is really based on real faith.  Yes there are some people who misunderstand faith and the nature of faith and they do some dumb things like not taking their children to the hospital.  But that doesn't mean faith is unwise.  It means there is a problem with the person and how they misapply faith.   If I mess around with electricity and don't know what I am doing, I can be electrocuted. That doesn't mean that having electricity is unwise.  The issue is operator error. 

 

You cannot produce ONE example where genuine faith in Jesus has ever worked anyone's detriment.  As an unbeliever it is clear that you really don't know enough about faith to know the difference between genuine faith and some of the religious quackery that exists in the world.

 

If God designed our bodies what does sin have to do with the fact that we have organs that are very problematic? Ask the relatives of the 2500 folks [just in America] that die from choking each year. It's not a great design to breathe through the same pipe you eat/drink with.

 

Well, sin is separation from God; it is spiritual death.  The imperfections that we see in the human body are how death works itself out in our bodies.  Our bodies die because we are separated from the Giver of life.  Man's body was created perfectly and our life was eternal because it was breathed into us by God Himself.  Our life originally came from Him.  But when Adam fell, we inherited a sin nature and one of the symptoms of sin is that while we remain biologically alive, we are spiritually dead.  And that death affects the bodies we have.  it is why we contract diseases and other illnesses. 

 

People who choke do so for a variety of reasons, many times because of the mistakes of the person.  I can find any number of things humans make that they misuse and cause harm.  That is not the fault of the manufacturer.   People eat too fast, they take bigger bites than they should or  they breathe and talk with food in their mouth.   That they choke is the result of their error, not a flaw in the design of the human body. 

 

So when God created the Universe, this was a natural act? I thought it was a supernatural event? You're convinced that there's intentional design and therefore a designer, but this isn't demonstrated to be true. Saying that an undetectable being created our Universe is essentially resorting to magic. It's also fallacy, argument from ignorance...I don't know how else we can explain the existence of the Universe, therefore God.

It was a supernatural event.  But God created the natural laws and forces that govern how the universe works and God sustains those laws and forces.  To say that design needing a designer isn't demonstrated is false. One can look at the human being's operating system (DNA) and see a design that even Bill Gates says is more complex than any software written today.   When we start comparing DNA to computer software we talking about design and design MUST have a designer.  To claim otherwise is pure intellectual suicide.

 

Your comparison of our claim that God created the universe to magic is bereft of any respectability and I will not stoop to address such inane drivel.

 

 

Because you have good reason to believe that cars and computers are designed and created. When we start talking about the origin of the Universe and get into quantum mechanics, it's a bit different game.

 

But why does quantum mechanics rule out God? 

 

From Stephen Hawkings book The Grand Design:

"If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative: One has to do work to separate a gravitationally bound system, such as the earth and moon. This negative energy can balance the positive energy needed to create matter, but it’s not quite that simple. The negative gravitational energy of the earth, for example, is less than a billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the earth is made of. A body such as a star will have more negative gravitational energy, and the smaller it is (the closer the different parts of it are to each other), the greater the negative gravitational energy will be. But before it can become greater than the positive energy of the matter, the star will collapse to a black hole, and black holes have positive energy. That’s why empty space is stable. Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can."

I feel that Hawking has a better understand of this topic than either of us. I'm not suggesting that means that what he says is true, but I think he knows what he's talking about. Remember, "I have no need for that hypothesis". We don't NEED a God to explain anything.

 

Again, how does any of that rule out God?

 

Well depends on how you mean defeated. Every time someone has tried to get ID implemented in a public school [via court] it's been defeated in that sense. Michael Behe had to admit that his definition of "theory" [as applied to ID] was so broad it would include astrology!

 

 

there is an atheistic worldview that dominates the scientific community.  Scientists are not bereft of passionate beliefs in their own views.  They are not uber rational automatons.  They have a worldview and ID stands to threaten it.  It is defeated in the sense that they have been able to block any discussion of ID in the classroom.  The notion of an intelligent design hasn't been defeated in the sense that it has been shown to be conclusively false.

 

Ok, but again why did humanity needed to be redeemed at all? He decided that was the case. He could have merely forgave humanity, no need for elaborate miracles or special nations to bring about messiahs.

 

Humanity needed to be redeemed because God's justice against our sin had to be satisfied.  God operates from a perfect system of justice and God's justness declared that sin must be punished.  Forgiveness was not possible without the sin debt being paid for.  It required a sinless sacrifice and Jesus was that sacrifice.   God didn't send a Messiah to save us from sin. He sent a Savior.  Jesus' role of Messiah isn't redemptive.  It pertains to Jesus as King over Israel.  That is  different issue.   Our sin had to be dealt with and God dealt with it and defeated it. He redeemed mankind from sin, but man still rejects Him.

 

Sorry but you really don't know what you are talking about here and don't understand the scope or necessity for redemption.

[jerryR34]

Wouldn't it have made life so much easier if God had put into his Holy Book that we were not to own each other....?  So simple...I'll never understand that one, but I'm sure He's glad I'm asking the question if only to teach some about His Book.

Edited June 18, 2014 by jerryR34

[anthonyjmcgirr]

It's funny that the atheist quickly tried to shut up the context debate.  She didn't want to hear any of that.  She read on some atheist website that the bible condones rape and slavery and uses that to deny God.  She then calls you a monster and attacks your beliefs, then mocks Christians by how they are constantly on the attack.  I know us Christians should be the 'bigger man' in these instances, but how much do atheists attack Christians and call us ignorant idiots for our beliefs?  So she was a total hypocrite in that debate.

 

But context is exactly the right explanation there.  If atheists take the verses out of context, why is it wrong for us to try and explain the right context?  You were right about the rape.  Back-to-back it describes a sexual situation and how to handle it.  So are both statements contradictory?  Really, they're not.  One describes consentual sex and how the man must take the woman as his wife.  There's nothing that says the woman must marry him. The second instance is rape and talks about what will happen to the man in that instance and he will be killed.  So if both of them are rape, why does the man just have to marry her in one and be killed in the other?  It's obviously two different situations.

 

You were also right about slavery.  Slavery in that day, in most circumstances, was more like welfare.  People would sell themselves or their family into 'slavery' (who were more like servants than slaves).  God told the slave owners how to treat their servants and not to abuse them.  So God was protecting the people by making that law, not condoning our idea of what we think slavery is.  It was a way to pay off debts or to make sure their family didn't starve or go homeless in hard times.  After six years they were to be released, but in most circumstances they wanted to stay!

 

So atheists do this a lot.  They don't even read the bible or try to study context.  They quickly jump on any 'discrepancy' and ride it hard as any excuse necessary not to accept it.  Like atheists making fun of the fact that the word 'unicorn' shows up in the bible.  No, it's not talking about the mythological beast.  It's a one-horned rhino.  Or the whole cloven toe thing.  Yeah, like they had the same biological classifications that they do today.