Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
To try and give a bit more perspective, the question I pose is whether or not the actual existence of Yahweh (OT and NT references being one and the same) has any significance on the actual contexts and meanings in OT scripture?
No. The Jewish commentaries I cited were obviously written by individuals who believe in the existence of Yahweh ...and so do you. Even still, your understandings of the meaning of the Bible are quite far apart.
But if the entire exodus texts are fictional, then the author(s) wouldn't have any accountability to carrying out humanitarian practices, thus would not need to create laws favoring their position.
It is not about what was true, but about what the audience believed to be true. Drawing upon a shared belief can be quite powerful.
For clarification, I am merely saying the laws taken as a whole (rather than cherry picked) clearly speak to the 'children of Israel' (which would include foreigners who have come to believe in the Hebrew god).There's a difference between believing in the Hebrew God, and converting to Judaism.
No. A convert to Judaism would necessarily believe in the Hebrew god. I imagine you supplied Matthew 23:15 after searching the Bible for the word "convert". Unfortunately for you, sharing a word with our discussion does not mean it's relevant. (Matthew 23:15 is a condemnation of self-righteous believers - not converts)
Psalm 14 King James Version (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.Do you think this verse is meant in a general sense? Strictly foreigners? Includes or relegated to Israelites? If it includes Israelites, we might have a bit of a problem here.
I did specify "the laws". Psalms is not part of the laws.
Why do you find the passage in question abusive?
What passage? We've discussed quite a few. Exodus 20:16 was a passage brought up (not by me) in an ignorant attempt to refute (the bad kind of) slavery in the Bible.
Deut 21:13[...] and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.I still, after numerous readings of this text, have yet to see where rape comes in. I always thought it fairly natural for husband and wife to have sexual intercourse at some point.
[...] After that, you may be intimate with her and possess her, and she will be a wife for you. [Link]
It seems clear to me sex is happening before 'marriage' and there is little concern of the woman's wishes. But, hey, it doesn't say "rape", so it must not be that.
And God, in the Bible, never condoned anything remotely close to an allowance for sex outside of marriage. .Are you unaware of well-respected Biblical figures having concubines? King David had sons with some of his 10 concubines. ConcWhat is revealed is that David never had a good marriage relationship. His adultery and fornication obviously lead to a lot of problems in his life.
That's not the same thing as a Biblical condemnation of sex outside of marriage. In fact, the Bible says David was a righteous man and disobeyed god once (Uriah the Hittite/Bathsheba) and that was not sex with concubines outside of his marriage.
Unfortunately the argument about ownership (owning another human) develops arguments about similarity. The ownership of soldiers may be different (or maybe not so different) from the ownership of an OT servant, but the argument is not about similarity.
I find nothing between soldiers and chattel slaves to be analogous. This is a poor attempt at equivocation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
You've touched on "assuming no god" a few times now. Why is that? Are you suggesting the Jewish commentaries I've cited assume no god? It seems to me that your own assumptions are more troublesome than anything, friend.No, I actually wasn't even thinking of the Jewish commentaries when I said that. I don't know what individual Jewish commentators believe.
You mean other than the Jewish commentaries I've cited? Why would we talk about sources neither of us have used in this discussion?
The only assumption I am making is the men who authored the laws (whether inspired by a god or not) mean exactly what they've said. Given this, there is sufficient reason to believe these laws were directed at believers, and non-believers could be kidnapped, beaten, raped, and otherwise treated as property. Appealing to a god-concept which obviously differs from that of the Israelites (and modern Jews) provides no (rational) defense.I definitely agree that the men who authored the laws meant exactly what they said. And I also believe that Jesus (and the author) meant exactly what he said when he stated "If your eye offend thee, pluck it out!" Would you agree?And it would appear here that you don't really think they meant it.Exodus 21:16 "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."You've placed an obvious limitation to Israelite men. That the author didn't really mean men as this text suggests point blank they're referring to men in general.
Well, if you really want to play the hyper-literalist game, I can point out that this Exo 21:16 still allows kidnapping of men by men...so long as the victim isn't sold...and, apparently women can kidnap whoever they like! But that is taking *exactly* a bit too far. For clarification, I am merely saying the laws taken as a whole (rather than cherry picked) clearly speak to the 'children of Israel' (which would include foreigners who have come to believe in the Hebrew god).
And yes, I most certainly do think they mean what they say. When we look at the broader context of this Exo 21:16 (the entire chapter), we see trouble being taken to specify "Hebrew slaves" because... there are different rules for foreign slaves. Also, foreigners are disallowed as an option for secondhand daughters (sold into slavery). It is clear distinctions are being made between Hebrew and foreigner wherever confusion might arise. The absence of this distinction in Exo 21:16 means this verse was directed to the nation of Israel FOR the nation of Israel.
The Bible doesn't make any claim whatsoever to allowing the rape of foreign women. No where.
Deuteronomy 21
10 “When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive,11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and [a]trim her nails.13 She shall also [b]remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
And God, in the Bible, never condoned anything remotely close to an allowance for sex outside of marriage. .
Are you unaware of well-respected Biblical figures having concubines? King David had sons with some of his 10 concubines. Concubine
The beaten part is interesting because I don't think you're implying that the slave had to be an Israelite to benefit from the law against beating someone to death. Or, are you? Do you think the slave beaten who's life or death determined the outcome of his master could only be a foreign servant? That the law in question was not including the Israelite servant?
The law (Exodus 21:20-21) would have been understood to apply to permanent (non-israelite) slaves since the Israelites believed they belonged to Yahweh: Leviticus 25:38-42 The Israelite would never be a "slave" or any Hebrew's property - there would be other applicable laws if a "brother" were to beat him.
The treated as property part seems to be simply a way to make the list appear a bit longer. What does that mean? Is it okay to own a human in, say, a military setting (U.S. army, navy, marines, air force) just so long as soldiers are not treated as they are (property)?
Soldiers are not "property". They sign a contract of their own free will and they obligate themselves to it. Regardless of what they sign, the US government cannot buy, sell, or rape them.
When you immediately default to concept of God, it certainly appears to suggest that you "assume no God". If I'm wrong, I apologize. But that's how it would appear.
It's true, I don't assume your god or the god of the Israelites can possibly be upset by my words...not even "god-concept". ;-)
FWIW, I no longer have a god-concept of my own, but that doesn't mean I assume there is no god - I just don't believe in yours (or anyone else's).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The problem with assuming no God is that you have to look for evidences that contradict explicit laws against oppression aimed at any fellow human being, because that's what the scriptures imply.
Of course, if we were to assume there's no God, then the skies the limit on how the Jews would have manipulated scripture to one hand appear humanitarian, and the other allow for abuse (if someone doesn't convert). So what you claim makes sense may very well be the case, but only if we assume no God, and the Jews were simply creating laws that supports abuse for foreigners.
You've touched on "assuming no god" a few times now. Why is that? Are you suggesting the Jewish commentaries I've cited assume no god? It seems to me that your own assumptions are more troublesome than anything, friend.
The only assumption I am making is the men who authored the laws (whether inspired by a god or not) mean exactly what they've said. Given this, there is sufficient reason to believe these laws were directed at believers, and non-believers could be kidnapped, beaten, raped, and otherwise treated as property. Appealing to a god-concept which obviously differs from that of the Israelites (and modern Jews) provides no (rational) defense.
I am not opposed to a formal debate on this topic if you or anyone is interested
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
If Ollivander didn't give Harry Potter a wand, then who did?
I hope you see if someone doesnt hold a story to necessarily be true, then appealing to the story (as a proof of the overall narrative) is a waste of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
The notion that the words and actions of Jesus are significant comes only with the presupposition that there is a God and Jesus was his son. To use the words of Jesus as evidence for god is a circular argument.
Starting with the existence of a god to prove the existence of a god is cheating logic. It's sort of like saying "the daughter of the Flying Spaghetti Monster said X". What is being said is irrelevant if the existence of the FSM and his daughter are not established fact...especially when trying to establish their existence as fact!
Created:
Posted in:
If someone starts with "[my] senses are [generally] correct" I don't see that this leads to any absurdity. My sense can be fooled, but I can ask my neighbor to verify. It is not a matter of [my] sense being used to prove reality as my perception stands independent of my neighnors.
An individual's senses are like one scale. It is not absurd to use a scale to weigh things in reality so long as we have a way to calibrate it. Another scale can calibrate...two other scales increase our confidence..and billions of other scales makes the results pretty darn certain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Decartes got it right: thinking = existince.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Why would a man elected by other men to be the 'conduit to God' be evidence of a god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
You should never argue with religious people because they have magic on their side. When you have magic on your side literally anything you can think of is possible.
This is too general to be accurate. Religion alone doesn't keep people from being reasonable or from being reasoned with. If it did, then no one would ever de-convert. Some believers can be extremely dogmatic and may distrust anyone who believes differently. Reasoning with these folks may be a lost cause. However, this is a subset of believers much like anti-theists are a subset of atheists. Let's not pigeonhole believers based on the most extreme examples of theism.
In short, don't push away reasonable people by being unreasonable towards them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
point 2i was thinking of the human brain which is just a computer but a billion times more advance. but you make a good point. we can not even recreate a rock. personally i think it is because we have not bothered to.a a rocket ship to the moon is so much cooler. It is unfair to compare the human DNA or human brain to a rock. Human dna and brain are a billion times more advance then then computers and phones while a rock is not. the reason why it is so complex is because it came from god
If there was a creator, rocks and brains would be comparable as they would both would be from the same source. That being said, my question stands: If we didn't know how to form a rock, would rocks be evidence of a creator? (BTW, we know how to form rocks in multiple ways.)
Point 3God created immorality we were not created biologically to follow survival of the fittest. for instance a bunch of newborns were orphaned. so there was a couple thousand babies that needed to be taken care of. So they decided to make a factory line to take care of the babies. they fed and watered them and changed them. they were physical fine but they spiritually/emotionally they were not. so because they did not get any love they all died.a teacher named Mr colby of mine said this but i found a site that mentions instances like thisthey died because of no love. it is the same reason of when an old person looses a spouse to death. the other spouse dies of sadness because of it.bible has been saying this for years stress can be physically bad. This has been confirmed by science.the reason why most Christians feel empathy and most so called free thinking atheist can not. Is because god has hardened the atheist heart while not the Christians. Do you feel empathy if you do something wrong. if not it is because god has harden your heart. this can be seen to be true just by observing people.god wrote in our hearts that pedophilia and homosexuality is wrong. god put rules on slavery. I believe that he wants us to obey authority. that's why he created parenting/slavery.So we follow him more willfully. These are my own heretic believe. Do not take this as factAborting babies is a billion time more immoral then slavery.my dad said this
This doesn't have anything to do with the original point 3 which was 'actions affect DNA'. If you intend to debate, then sticking to your argument is important.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Point 1:
There did not seem to be a point 1.
Point 2: '[Some] things in nature are more complex than those humans are capable of making'
So what? If we didn't know how to make a rock, would that mean a rock must be the product of a designer? No, of course not. Ignorance is not an argument for a designer or anything else.
Point 3: "Our actions affect our dna"
It is not as simple as telling people to 'be moral so you don't affect your children's DNA'. Some acts the Bible might deem immoral are not immoral (homosexuality for instance) and some acts the Bible condones are not moral (chattel slavery for instance). Plus, this has nothing to do with what the Bible says - it says children (and children of the children) will be punished for the father's sins. Not only would this be a vicious circle (everyone alive is a child of an imperfect father), but if punishment were changing DNA to prefer immorality then society would be ever worsening...and it's not. Clearly, society has progressed from the norms of old.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Dolphins are known to protect not just strangers, but strangers of other species....people die for other people, even strangers, what other animals do that?
Well, I would argue protecting seals or humans from shark attack can be hazardous to your health, but let's say no dolphins have died while protecting strangers...does that make their motivation different than humans who lose their lives protecting strangers?
Additionally, even if we dont know another human, we still recognize them as one of our own. Perhaps a dolphin attempting to save a being unlike itself is actually more noble?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Dolphins are known to protect not just strangers, but strangers of other species....Are there any other creatures other than humans which would sacrifice themselves for a stranger?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Funny thing, I say I woke up too
For me, "waking up" means paying attention to beliefs (pretty much everything is a belief) and checking to see they have merit before I assign any positive value to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I'm a preacher's kid that became disillusioned with the church. This lead me to skepticism and critical thinking, and I woke up.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Strong’s Definitions
קָשָׁה qâshâh, kaw-shaw'; a primitive root; properly, to be dense, i.e. tough or severe (in various applications):—be cruel, be fiercer, make grievous, be ((ask a), be in, have, seem, would) hard(-en, (labour), -ly, thing), be sore, (be, make) stiff(-en, (-necked)). LINK
@keithprosser
Created:
Posted in:
For Zeus to beat Thor...he'd have to catch him. Good luck, pedestrian! 🤣🤣 Plus, here is a picture of Thor from this millennium: LINK.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I understand how you mean the spirituality, but that definition requires there to be a soul. The notion of a soul is dead. (Pun intended)
Split brain individuals can have dueling beliefs such as believer and non believer. Does that mean they developed a second soul with a corpus calloscotomy? Assuming souls are created/granted at conception, what happens if one twin ends up absorbing the other in utero..does the remaining twin has two souls? What about the reverse case where one individual splits into two in utero...does this mean each twin has half a soul? How does an immaterial soul affect a material brain? How can damage to a material brain damage an immaterial soul?
The notion of a soul raises many more questions than it could possibly answer for me. I'm fairly certain Occam's razor slices it out of a reasonable understanding of reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Religious people sometimes say things that embarrass me...I wish everybody would consult me first! 😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
God exists! I know this because I like the size ratio of the moon and earth...and crystals!
😜😜
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I wish I would have parodied Jane's views...darn it!! 😜
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Both Zeus and Thor are part of the thunder-God archetype...but Thor can fly. Thor>Zeus
Created:
Posted in:
Whatever you do...don't express your own views here!!
Thor is the one true god. Prove me wrong!
Created:
Posted in:
Highlight and exaggerate core components of the views of the person above you. This is for fun - leave the thin-skins out in the hall! 😜
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The default position is not belief. Beliefs don't form in a vacuum...at least not justified belief.Thanks for the laugh. Yet in that sentence I am not actually presenting an argument; merely positing an opinion and conceding I don't have an explanation. Only a default position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Exodus is right, They are Egyptian Chariots sunk because in the SeaI doubt this claim. I have only ever seen psuedo-experts whose religious beliefs would benefit from this claim utter it. In reality, it is not clear what 'sea' the Bible is referring to, so finding chariot wheels in an unknown sea is quite a trick...I think the story of Exodus is true. It is difficult to demonstrate based on the lack of evidence found. Yet, the lack of evidence by itself does not prove it did not happen.
Alternate argument using same reasoning: "I think Tradesecret is a secret atheist. It is difficult to demonstrate based on the lack of evidence. Yet the lack of evidence by itself does not prove its not true."
If no evidence for Tradesecret's atheism exists, then why believe it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Hardly anyone identifies as a deist, so why would so many people want to advocate deism unless they simply wanted to sanitize their beliefs to make them less objectionable?Why don't you ask me what my beliefs are instead of assuming what they are? Let me describe it not you.
If someone wants to talk about god and pretend their personal religious text isn't a thing, then they are functionally advocating deism. That's not me attempting to read your mind so much as reading your words! I would be interested in knowing your beliefs with as little ambiguity as possible though.
So, let's ask the burning question here - are you REALLY advocating deism... No heaven, no hell, no 'revealed' deity, no personal god?God can't be impersonal, God is within all of life and awareness, how could there be no personal element? if you are personal so is the Creator. You can't be something that the Creator is not, whatever you have the Creator has and much more.
Would a deistic god be personal? No. Clearly, there are god-concepts which run contrary to your belief in a personal god. Would a tapeworm (like the human) be a lesser version of a creator too? Is the creator the *perfect* parasite? I'm not following your reasoning.
I have not denied evidence. I encourage you to re-read my words. If you can show evidence for god, I'd be very interested in it. IfWe're talking about the evidence that correlates with the nature of God, spirituality, religions, NDE's, OBE's, spiritual encounters ect ect all fall under the category which indicates a proposition true. We're talking about more evidence for spirituality than any other topic.
None of these evidences can be verified or validated by other people. That alone makes these extremely weak evidences. (crap). Pushing crap arguments together doesn't make a stronger case - it only makes a bigger pile of crap.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Proposition: (logic) a statement that affirms or denies something and is either true or false
Wanting a discussion is not a proposition, and "atheists are boring, why do they bother?" is much too angsty to be taken seriously. If you want a discussion, I'm game so long as the pretension of belief is not required.
No. That is not a fair statement.Okay I concede and apologize maybe we could move forward anyways, it's just what I observe most of the time, it's just a general attitude mainly. Perhaps hate was the wrong word to use sorry about that.
Thank you for that.
Spirituality is all about observations, and of course application. This is your nature and origins, there's nothing that will remain unknown to you. It's just a matter of understanding how to connect with that transcendent reality, be willing to look fairly at all sides and consider. I help you to consider things by engaging in either a discussion or an argument. Spirituality has a science behind it just like the physical world. This isn't about beliefs or imagination there is an objective reality involved, if you understand the difference in the nature of it. In other words this wouldn't be about the physical sense perception.
First thing I notice is that you mean something different than I do by "spirituality". For me, spirituality describes a hyper-awareness of some aspect of the world and the sublime feeling it spawns. A 'spiritual experience' can be derived from a hike in the mountains, wind through the hair, a moving piece of music, art that begs for attention, a child's carefree laugh, etc (triggers vary). There is nothing in my spirituality that calls for a reality beyond detection, but rather it is realized when a particular part of known reality is utterly and blissfully captivating for a moment in time. It is wonderful and ...natural.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
[...]we might allow this assumption for the sake of an argument, but you are proselytizing rather than making a logical argument.Not at all what a silly claim, I'm prepared to argue, why would you think otherwise
Ok...what's the proposition?
Is no one interested in discussing God apart from religion?
Sure, I am, so long as Im not required to assume god just to have the discussion about god.
on one hand, atheists hate religion.
No. That is not a fair statement. I personally think religion is unnecessary. Once we realize religion doesnt justify anything, we'll (hopefully) be able to more easily address innate human deficiencies that are often masked by it. That being said, I don't hate religion. In some places religious institutions are the community. Until a viable alternative exists, hating religion is to hate community itself in many instances.
In short, "atheists hate religion" is a trope that isn't necessarily true.
do you want to know about God or do you have no interest in that at all?
I'm interested in believing as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. I don't want to believe things other people dubiously hold to be true - that's a good way to end up believing in false things!
To be honest, I don't know what people mean when they say "God". Sometimes, an individual's religious beliefs help narrow a definition down - and there is typically a lot of (legitimate) baggage that comes with this understanding. When someone wants to talk about "God" outside of a religious context, it tends to set off alarm bells for me. Hardly anyone identifies as a deist, so why would so many people want to advocate deism unless they simply wanted to sanitize their beliefs to make them less objectionable?
So, let's ask the burning question here - are you REALLY advocating deism... No heaven, no hell, no 'revealed' deity, no personal god?
That being said, I challenge the requested assumption. Let's not assume a god until it can be legitimately established with verifiable evidence.It has been, but again this is about perspective and perception. To deny there is evidence is simply intellectual dishonesty.
I have not denied evidence. I encourage you to re-read my words. If you can show evidence for god, I'd be very interested in it. If not, then intellectual honesty would be admitting subjective evidence without verification is (at best) evidence for one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Dr. Franklin: "awesome"Debunk my claim: I found wood from Noah's Ark when I climbed Mt. Ararat.
...basically, if he likes your claim - it MUST be true!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If the claims are made by persons not qualified as experts, then the claims are meaningless. No debunking is necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Backing it up? I'm asking for evidence...who were those archeologists which found chariot wheels at the bottom of a sea?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I care about the evidence
A claim is not evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If that is the case, I'm not sure why you or anyone else would be so tight-lipped about the names of experts involved...unless you don't know and don't really care. If that is the case, why should I (as someone who doesn't believe it is true) care?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Presumably, you care about chariot wheels at the bottom of a sea or you wouldn't have brought it up...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I'm not going to work harder to address your claim than you are working to substantiate it. What are the names of the archeologists who found Egyptian chariot wheels at the bottom of a sea?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What archeologists? (What are their names?)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The second school of thought doesn't suggest the necessity a god, no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Why? I mean, we might allow this assumption for the sake of an argument, but you are proselytizing rather than making a logical argument.I've tried this before but didn't get a good response but let's try it again. Pretend the Bible doesn't exist and all the little things you hate about it and religion, while we're at it let's assume God exists just for this thread
That being said, I challenge the requested assumption. Let's not assume a god until it can be legitimately established with verifiable evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I doubt this claim. I have only ever seen psuedo-experts whose religious beliefs would benefit from this claim utter it. In reality, it is not clear what 'sea' the Bible is referring to, so finding chariot wheels in an unknown sea is quite a trick...Exodus is right, They are Egyptian Chariots sunk because in the Sea
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I actually really like you, but the subjects you create are nauseating, I feel like maybe you could do much better, perhaps reach a little deeper in religious topics. What stops you from connecting at a deeper level
A deeper level? Religion is a shallow topic with a broad footprint. It touches on most any subject that can be imagined, but it is nothing more than a veneer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I just want to make sure you've seen this. You've responded to everything else.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Absolutely. The Bible itself is not necessary for the progression of spiritual growth.While this is absolutely true, there are things within the Bible that are true. Meaning there are principles that could lead you to spiritual growth.
There are things within Harry Potter that are true. Meaning there are principles that could lead you to spiritual growth...
Created: