The Problem of Slavery in the Bible

[Houseman]

You literally asked to talk about something more complicated than just new vs old testaments right here.

No I didn't. I just said that your argument wasn't going to work.

And you don't think that people being able to interpret things their own way like that suggests how poorly the Bible is suited to being a code of morality?

If a math test is graded on a curve, so that a C becomes an A, it's not necessarily the fault of the math book that the students all did so poorly.

If you don't devote enough time towards studying the book and end up with wrong answers, that's your own fault, not the book's.

I mean by that logic dude its gods will that all modern laws and new beliefs get put into place, meaning the Bible is outdated and shouldn't be listened to. God had us create the modern systems so its those he wants us to listen to, not the old versions

That contradicts what the Bible says, though. The Bible says that the world, outside of the Christian congregation, is controlled by Satan, which includes governments, laws, and other religions.

I didn't say "you can claim that everything is God's will!"

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

No I didn't. I just said that your argument wasn't going to work.

So I switch a different argument, or start using different evidence. That is how debating works, why are you outraged at it?

If a math test is graded on a curve, so that a C becomes an A, it's not necessarily the fault of the math book that the students all did so poorly.

If you don't devote enough time towards studying the book and end up with wrong answers, that's your own fault, not the book's.

See this harkens back to my earlier criticisms of you, where you gave exceedingly limited answers and then got annoyed when people supposedly misunderstood you. And if I think you're in the wrong for giving vague answers that people can misinterpret what excuse does an omnipotent god have?

That contradicts what the Bible says, though. The Bible says that the world, outside of the Christian congregation, is controlled by Satan, which includes governments, laws, and other religions.

I didn't say "you can claim that everything is God's will!"

And would that be a bit of the Bible conveniently left in by human decision or one of the bits of the Bible that isn't supposed to count? You see what I'm getting at here? Why are only the bits that agree with you the ones that god must have had a hand in doing but the bits that don't must be satan? How do you know the modern laws that contravene the Bible aren't gods will?

 

[Houseman]

So I switch a different argument, or start using different evidence. That is how debating works, why are you outraged at it?

Because you accused me of "[making] the mistake of assuming I've gone back to talking about the differences between old and new testaments when we've already moved past that", when you gave absolutely zero previous indication that you weren't talking about the testaments.

If you would have said something like "Okay, I concede to that point. But what about this..." it would have been fine.
If you would have mentioned the creed or the council in post #110 , it would have been fine.
But you didn't. You accused me of some mistake. In reality, you either deliberately lied about switching to a different argument, or it just skipped your mind that you should clue me in that you had switched to a different argument.

And if I think you're in the wrong for giving vague answers that people can misinterpret what excuse does an omnipotent god have?

Are any of the moral commandments in the bible actually vague, though? Or is it that the reader just hasn't done enough study in order to properly understand it? How do you determine the difference?

People "misinterpreting" something means that they're the ones who messed up. That's what "misinterpret" implies. You can't blame this on the book or on God. If God says that 2 + 2 = 4, and you "misinterpret" that as "2 + 2 = 5", that's entirely your fault for getting it wrong.

And would that be a bit of the Bible conveniently left in by human decision or one of the bits of the Bible that isn't supposed to count? You see what I'm getting at here? Why are only the bits that agree with you the ones that god must have had a hand in doing but the bits that don't must be satan?

Why? Because of the premises we agreed upon at the start.

Your question is based on the premise that the books that make up the bible, and the books that don't, were chosen by human decisions.
Like I said: "God is more than capable of manipulating the actions of humans so that things end up working out in God's favor."
This follows the premises we agreed upon at the start. An omnipotent, omniscient, loving God would want to give His accurate Word to us.

So I don't agree with your premise because it contradicts the others. An omnipotent, omniscient, loving God wouldn't let "human decision" erase His own message, or make it useless as a moral guide.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

Because you accused me of "[making] the mistake of assuming I've gone back to talking about the differences between old and new testaments when we've already moved past that", when you gave absolutely zero previous indication that you weren't talking about the testaments.

If you would have said something like "Okay, I concede to that point. But what about this..." it would have been fine.
If you would have mentioned the creed or the council in post #110 , it would have been fine.
But you didn't. You accused me of some mistake. In reality, you either deliberately lied about switching to a different argument, or it just skipped your mind that you should clue me in that you had switched to a different argument.

If I say we want to talk about contradictions in the Bible that kind of implies we're talking contradictions in the Bible. Not just the difference between old and new testaments. This is an assumption on your part based on your desire to insult me. Maybe don't be so quick to do so next time.

Are any of the moral commandments in the bible actually vague, though? Or is it that the reader just hasn't done enough study in order to properly understand it? How do you determine the difference?

People "misinterpreting" something means that they're the ones who messed up. That's what "misinterpret" implies. You can't blame this on the book or on God. If God says that 2 + 2 = 4, and you "misinterpret" that as "2 + 2 = 5", that's entirely your fault for getting it wrong.

Going to have to ask for a definition on what you mean by commandments here. Because I hear "commandments" in a Biblical sense the immediate go to examples are the ten Moses brought. But that's old testament. Which you've already said doesn't count. And its that kind of vague language that A) kind of bad for a moral code and B) kind of bad for your argument that the Bible is a solid and dependable source that its our fault for misinterpreting.

Why? Because of the premises we agreed upon at the start.

Your question is based on the premise that the books that make up the bible, and the books that don't, were chosen by human decisions.
Like I said: "God is more than capable of manipulating the actions of humans so that things end up working out in God's favor."
This follows the premises we agreed upon at the start. An omnipotent, omniscient, loving God would want to give His accurate Word to us.

So I don't agree with your premise because it contradicts the others. An omnipotent, omniscient, loving God wouldn't let "human decision" erase His own message, or make it useless as a moral guide.

Circular logic, if its even logic. The Bible is infallible because...it just is? No no no, that's not going to cut it, you're going to need more than that. You can't have a moral code based on not questioning anything, thats just daft.
We already know the works of the Bible are not in fact infallible, or at the very least not permanent, because they've already been updated once before. Old to new testament where, by your own rules, new is supposed to completely supplant old. So, god is capable of changing his mind and his message. So why could it not be changed again? You state the actions of god guided what become the new testament to replace the old, how do you know it is not his will that guides new laws that will supplant the new testament? If god is omniscient and omnipotent and has every ability to make sure his message gets through regardless of infernal interference then, logically, any modern law that contravenes the bible must be gods will. Because otherwise it would cloud his message, and he wouldn't allow that. By your own rules the Bible is outdated and a poor moral guidepoint

 

[Houseman]

If I say we want to talk about contradictions in the Bible that kind of implies we're talking contradictions in the Bible. Not just the difference between old and new testaments. This is an assumption on your part based on your desire to insult me. Maybe don't be so quick to do so next time.

So tell me, what about post #110 is supposed to cause any reasonable person to believe "we've already moved past" your previous examples of the old vs new testament, and onto the Nicene Creed and Council of Rome?

Because you responded to a post about the old vs new testament, and you didn't mention the words "Nicene" or "Creed" or "Council" or "Rome".

So please, tell me, how wasn't it either a lie or a mistake on your part to say that "we've already moved past that" in post 117? How was any reasonable person supposed to know that you had switched to a different argument?

I want to hear you explain how you think that I, or any reasonable person, should have known that you switched arguments. Please explain.

Going to have to ask for a definition on what you mean by commandments here.

By "moral commandments", I mean anything that the bible commands Christians to do. Things like "love your neighbor", or rules about divorce, or what a Christian should or shouldn't do. I mean the scriptures in the Bible that make up the "code of morality".

So, now that you know, I ask again: Are any of the moral commandments in the bible actually vague, though? Or is it that the reader just hasn't done enough study in order to properly understand it? How do you determine the difference?

Because you've claimed that, because people interpret the bible differently, that means that the Bible is ill-suited to be a code of morality.

Circular logic, if its even logic. The Bible is infallible because...it just is?

That's not what I said. I said that, given the premises of a loving, omnipotent, omniscient God, He should want us to have his accurate Word, and He is more than capable of making that happen.

If you disagree that the conclusion follows from the premises, please explain why you think so.

So, god is capable of changing his mind and his message

Please explain why you think that the Law Covenant being fulfilled and replaced means that God changed his mind or his message?

If I hire a contractor to build me a shed, and then the contract is complete, and then I hire the same contractor to build me a porch, does that make me indecisive? Does that make the original contract faulty or incomplete? Does that mean I've changed my mind about what I want built?

Also, provide an example of a moral that God has changed his mind about. I don't think you can, because I don't think that there are any.
If you attempt to provide such an example, you'll probably end up confusing a practical, legal, or ritual law with a moral law, so watch out for that.

You state the actions of god guided what become the new testament to replace the old, how do you know it is not his will that guides new laws that will supplant the new testament?

I already explained that. "The Bible says that the world, outside of the Christian congregation, is controlled by Satan, which includes governments, laws, and other religions. "

Also, your logic is self-defeating. If you think that the Bible is not a good moral guide because it has been "updated", then neither are laws because they, too, have been updated. To quote you directly, "So why could it not be changed again?" Why should we use laws as a moral guide if, tomorrow, the laws could change? Why not ignore the laws and do whatever we want?

If god is omniscient and omnipotent and has every ability to make sure his message gets through regardless of infernal interference then, logically, any modern law that contravenes the bible must be gods will. Because otherwise it would cloud his message, and he wouldn't allow that.

I don't see how that makes any sense.
If God's message is the bible, then God's message is getting through due to the fact that we have access to the bible. Laws do not "cloud God's message", because no matter what laws are enacted, the bible stays the same. So please explain what laws have to do with God's message.

 

[fOx]

I dunno, can you demonstrate where I said you had to believe in God because you can't prove he doesn't exist? You're being as annoying as any evangelical I've had the misfortune of having to hear proselytize.

Have you ever been cock blocked by mormons while on a date? I've been cock blocked by mormons while on a date.

Honestly, MAP's aside, there has atleast been some interesting discussion here.

 

[fOx]

Religion doesn't have the copyright on human socialization, and never has. We evolved as a social species, and have been finding reasons to get together since, well for as long as we've existed really. You can tell by all the myriad ways humans socialize that have nothing to do with religion.

You see, I'm not sure. I don't think that any philosophy makes sense, except nihilism, if you take god out of the picture. Absurdism is just as intellectually dishonest as theism supposedly is. And I can't take existentialism very seriously either.

 

[Buyetyen]

You see, I'm not sure. I don't think that any philosophy makes sense, except nihilism, if you take god out of the picture. Absurdism is just as intellectually dishonest as theism supposedly is. And I can't take existentialism very seriously either.

What about humanism?

 

[fOx]

What about humanism?

Humanism doesn't make much sense under scrutiny. How can people promote the welfare of the human race when we can't even agree on what that should look like? Or what good and evil even are? I feel like humanists are the villagers from Nietzsche's Parable of the Madman. They don't quite realize that their philosophy, though well intentioned, doesn't hold up in the new world they have created. That's because it's still based on a series of assumptions that were largely based on old ideas of morality.

If you want a philosophical system that holds up in the absence of God, your best bet is egoism. Egoism doesn't really make any claims about good and evil, but rather exists as an analysis on human behavior.

 

[fOx]

To put it another way, the concepts of "good" and "evil" cease to even make logical sense when god is taken out of the picture. We essentially have to start at zero, and restructure our entire understanding of human behavior.


Stirner finds this thread rather spooky

 

[Neuromancer]

You see, I'm not sure. I don't think that any philosophy makes sense, except nihilism, if you take god out of the picture. Absurdism is just as intellectually dishonest as theism supposedly is. And I can't take existentialism very seriously either.

v This ugly FRENCH son of a ***** is
deriving PERSONAL MEANING OUT OF A MEANINGLESS EXISTENCE
and basically, you're a fucking idiot.

How? Just watch the free video...

 

[fOx]

v This ugly FRENCH son of a ***** is
View attachment 433 deriving PERSONAL MEANING OUT OF A MEANINGLESS EXISTENCE
and basically, you're a fucking idiot.

How? Just watch the free video...

Shit, now I have been cucked by facts and logic.

Neuro, you said you would change my crunchyroll password back after I let you have sex with my wife, but it still doesn't work.

 

[Neuromancer]

Shit, now I have been cucked by facts and logic.

Neuro, you said you would change my crunchyroll password back after I let you have sex with my wife, but it still doesn't work.

Yeah, after seeing Fate shows in your CrunchyRoll history, we decided to have an intervention, Fox. You're not getting your account back.

 

[fOx]

Yeah, after seeing Fate shows in your CrunchyRoll history, we decided to have an intervention, Fox. You're not getting your account back.

But anime is the only thing that makes my heart go doki doki in the chest. Please no bully. I need to finish fate/kaleid liner prisma illya 3rei!!! before the trolls empty my bank account again, and I have to cancel my Nord VPN and the FBI finally track me.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

So tell me, what about post #110 is supposed to cause any reasonable person to believe "we've already moved past" your previous examples of the old vs new testament, and onto the Nicene Creed and Council of Rome?

Because you responded to a post about the old vs new testament, and you didn't mention the words "Nicene" or "Creed" or "Council" or "Rome".

So please, tell me, how wasn't it either a lie or a mistake on your part to say that "we've already moved past that" in post 117? How was any reasonable person supposed to know that you had switched to a different argument?

I want to hear you explain how you think that I, or any reasonable person, should have known that you switched arguments. Please explain.

No, I didn't respond to an argument about the old vs new. I responded to an argument about picking and choosing in the Bible where you dismissed the notion of using old vs new testament. So why would I be continue using that as an example? You seem to both simultaneously want me to not talk about old vs new because you don't think it should matter but also to keep talking about it so you can take pot shots at me. Make your mind up.

By "moral commandments", I mean anything that the bible commands Christians to do. Things like "love your neighbor", or rules about divorce, or what a Christian should or shouldn't do. I mean the scriptures in the Bible that make up the "code of morality".

So, now that you know, I ask again: Are any of the moral commandments in the bible actually vague, though? Or is it that the reader just hasn't done enough study in order to properly understand it? How do you determine the difference?

Because you've claimed that, because people interpret the bible differently, that means that the Bible is ill-suited to be a code of morality.

Just to question here, are we talking interpretations in just what is currently written down in the English versions of the Bible or am I allowed to bring in the interpretation issues of a book going from Greek to Latin to English? What are we counting as "enough study" here?

That's not what I said. I said that, given the premises of a loving, omnipotent, omniscient God, He should want us to have his accurate Word, and He is more than capable of making that happen.

If you disagree that the conclusion follows from the premises, please explain why you think so.

I did explain. If you have an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god who wants to have his accurate rules and has no problem getting those rules to us...how can you be sure the rules he wants for us are still the Bible?

Please explain why you think that the Law Covenant being fulfilled and replaced means that God changed his mind or his message?

If I hire a contractor to build me a shed, and then the contract is complete, and then I hire the same contractor to build me a porch, does that make me indecisive? Does that make the original contract faulty or incomplete? Does that mean I've changed my mind about what I want built?

Yes, that does indeed mean you've changed your mind about what you want built. Because first you didn't want a porch, and then you did. Thats your mind changed.

Also, provide an example of a moral that God has changed his mind about. I don't think you can, because I don't think that there are any.
If you attempt to provide such an example, you'll probably end up confusing a practical, legal, or ritual law with a moral law, so watch out for that.

You mentioned divorce earlier, so lets go with that one. Original recipe god says divorce is doable. Then changes his mind because in the new testament divorce is immoral. So if god can change his mind once like that, how do you know the

I already explained that. "The Bible says that the world, outside of the Christian congregation, is controlled by Satan, which includes governments, laws, and other religions. "

A) But god is omnipotent and has no trouble getting his word out. Your rules. So how could satan interfere? And if satan can mess with humans enough to cloud gods message (thus negating the all-powerful premise), then how do you know he hasn't done so via the dozens revisions and reworkings the new testament has been through? Surely if you're playing the satan card he's more likely to have worked his mischief into a book thats a couple thousand years old and has seen multiple revisions than a law thats only just been put into place

Also, your logic is self-defeating. If you think that the Bible is not a good moral guide because it has been "updated", then neither are laws because they, too, have been updated. To quote you directly, "So why could it not be changed again?" Why should we use laws as a moral guide if, tomorrow, the laws could change? Why not ignore the laws and do whatever we want?

No, you see its because they can get changed I think they work better for morality. If we see something does not work about them, we push to change it. If tomorrow the laws change then we use those laws.

I don't see how that makes any sense.
If God's message is the bible, then God's message is getting through due to the fact that we have access to the bible. Laws do not "cloud God's message", because no matter what laws are enacted, the bible stays the same. So please explain what laws have to do with God's message.

My point is that those laws might be gods message. If we stick to your rules of god being all powerful and constantly wanting us to know what he thinks is best for us and having no trouble tinkering with things so his will gets through...then why would his message still be a book from so long ago?

 

[Houseman]

No, I didn't respond to an argument about the old vs new. I responded to an argument about picking and choosing in the Bible where you dismissed the notion of using old vs new testament. So why would I be continue using that as an example? You seem to both simultaneously want me to not talk about old vs new because you don't think it should matter but also to keep talking about it so you can take pot shots at me. Make your mind up.

I'm still waiting to hear you explain how any reasonable person should have discerned, after reading post #110, that you switched arguments.
Please break down the logic step-by-step. Bullet points or numbered lists would be appreciated.

Just to question here, are we talking interpretations in just what is currently written down in the English versions of the Bible or am I allowed to bring in the interpretation issues of a book going from Greek to Latin to English? What are we counting as "enough study" here?

You're allowed to bring in the interpretation issues of going from Greek to Latin to English.
"Enough study" is your burden to bear, as you have to demonstrate that it's not the person's fault, but the book's fault, as you claim. You have to prove that the people are "innocent" when they ended up with 2 + 2 = 5.

Actually, you don't have to demonstrate it, but that'll be the counter-argument I come back with, so you might as well head it off at the pass.

If you have an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god who wants to have his accurate rules and has no problem getting those rules to us...how can you be sure the rules he wants for us are still the Bible?

Because, given the premises, such a deity would make sure to update us, should the need arise.

Yes, that does indeed mean you've changed your mind about what you want built. Because first you didn't want a porch, and then you did. Thats your mind changed.

Nope.
It could be that I wanted the shed completed first, before the porch.
It could be that I didn't want to have laborers and lumber all over my front and back yards at the same time.
It could be that I wanted to know that the contractor was good and trustworthy before I hired him for a second project of higher importance.
It could be that I needed the porch area for something for a period of time, and once that period was over, work could begin on the porch.
It could be that I needed to save up money to afford the porch, and didn't have enough to pay for both at the same time.
And on and on and on.

You mentioned divorce earlier, so lets go with that one. Original recipe god says divorce is doable. Then changes his mind because in the new testament divorce is immoral. So if god can change his mind once like that, how do you know the

You seem to have cut off at the end there, but I think I can still answer your question.

Jesus actually answers your question at Matthew 19:7,8. The Jewish religious leaders questioned Jesus and asked him if it was lawful to divorce a wife "on every sort of ground", and then they followed up with "Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?", to which Jesus answers: "Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such as not been the case from the beginning".

So God didn't change his mind on divorce. He just granted the whiny Israelites some leeway.

Also, in the New Testament, divorce is still doable, it just requires cheating as the prerequisite. You can only divorce your spouse if they cheat on you.

A) But god is omnipotent and has no trouble getting his word out. Your rules. So how could satan interfere?

Correct, God is omnipotent and has no trouble getting his word out. Which he does. Via the Bible.
I'm just answering your question and explaining why governments and laws aren't the medium through which God "gets his word out". Because those things are Satan's domain, not God's.

And if satan can mess with humans enough to cloud gods message

Can he? I don't remember agreeing to that.

No, you see its because they can get changed I think they work better for morality. If we see something does not work about them, we push to change it. If tomorrow the laws change then we use those laws.

So, given that you believe that the laws changed between the old and new testaments, why do you see this as counting against the Bible? Change is good, right?
Is it just that the change is "slow"? Is it a rule that faster is better?
Also, you seem to think that every change is a positive change that makes things better. This doesn't seem to be based on anything.

For example, in California, there was affirmative action: racial hiring and admissions preferences. Then, that was made illegal by Prop 209 in 1996. Now California is voting to repeal Prop 209 so that they can re-institute affirmative action.

So we've gone from allowing something, making it illegal, and allowing it again.

Which was right? Was it right that it was allowed? Then, why was it made illegal?
If making it illegal was right, then why was it legal before, and why are they trying to make it legal again?
Are you saying that flip-flopping between right and wrong like this is how it should be?

Genocides have been legal and endorsed by the Government. So has slavery. So has torture.
And you're saying that this is preferable to the Bible's moral code?

If we stick to your rules of god being all powerful and constantly wanting us to know what he thinks is best for us and having no trouble tinkering with things so his will gets through...then why would his message still be a book from so long ago?

Because "what is best for us" hasn't changed over the thousands of years since the book was first written.
Can you demonstrate otherwise?

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

I'm still waiting to hear you explain how any reasonable person should have discerned, after reading post #110, that you switched arguments.
Please break down the logic step-by-step. Bullet points or numbered lists would be appreciated.

I'll do that once you provide a bulleted list on why you thought the topic of "the bible has been changed" would only include the old vs new. It was your assumption, you prove why it wasn't short-sighted on your part

You're allowed to bring in the interpretation issues of going from Greek to Latin to English.
"Enough study" is your burden to bear, as you have to demonstrate that it's not the person's fault, but the book's fault, as you claim. You have to prove that the people are "innocent" when they ended up with 2 + 2 = 5.

Actually, you don't have to demonstrate it, but that'll be the counter-argument I come back with, so you might as well head it off at the pass.

Actually the example I had for this ties in to something you state later, see you down there!

Because, given the premises, such a deity would make sure to update us, should the need arise.

And he is. With modern rules. Because if the human decisions that lead to the new testament being created were really gods will, why wouldn't the newer rules that contravene it?

Nope.
It could be that I wanted the shed completed first, before the porch.
It could be that I didn't want to have laborers and lumber all over my front and back yards at the same time.
It could be that I wanted to know that the contractor was good and trustworthy before I hired him for a second project of higher importance.
It could be that I needed the porch area for something for a period of time, and once that period was over, work could begin on the porch.
It could be that I needed to save up money to afford the porch, and didn't have enough to pay for both at the same time.
And on and on and on.

Right so you're saying if times or scenarios change then the rules governing what should be should change as well. So...modern laws replacing a millennia old book then

You seem to have cut off at the end there, but I think I can still answer your question.

Jesus actually answers your question at Matthew 19:7,8. The Jewish religious leaders questioned Jesus and asked him if it was lawful to divorce a wife "on every sort of ground", and then they followed up with "Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?", to which Jesus answers: "Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such as not been the case from the beginning".

So God didn't change his mind on divorce. He just granted the whiny Israelites some leeway.

Also, in the New Testament, divorce is still doable, it just requires cheating as the prerequisite. You can only divorce your spouse if they cheat on you.

So in other words he changed his mind. "Oh fine you can have some leeway. Wait, no actually, you can't have that leeway." Still changing your mind.

And this would be the point I was going to come back to; because that verse you mentioned where you're allowed to divorce under conditions of adultery. Yeah it doesn't say that. The word Matthew uses in the original Greek is "porneia" which doesn't mean adultery; its prostitution. Different things my dude. Now would you qualify that as the books failing, or the people interpreting it? And if its the people interpreting it...how can you trust any of the bible? If things like that show the signs of adjustment by human intervention how can you still claim it as the work of an omniscient entity?

Correct, God is omnipotent and has no trouble getting his word out. Which he does. Via the Bible.
I'm just answering your question and explaining why governments and laws aren't the medium through which God "gets his word out". Because those things are Satan's domain, not God's.

Two scenarios here. The first: How do you know its via the Bible? God can get his word out however he wants, he's all powerful remember, how do you know its via a book from classical history heavily edited and compiled by human hands? He got rid of the old testament by bringing in the new, how do you know he hasn't got tired of the new testament as well and is influencing mortal law?
The second: That he does leave mortal law to satan, like you seem to think...in which case how is he a moral figure? If he loves us so much and both can and has in the past affected the will of humans to get his word as he wants to, why not continue to do so? Either he's powerless against satan's machinations, in which case he loses the right to be called omniscient, or he's doing it deliberately in which case he is hardly moral

Can he? I don't remember agreeing to that.

Apparently the entirety of law and governance, a lot of which counters the Bible, is up to Satan so yeah thats your premise dude.

So, given that you believe that the laws changed between the old and new testaments, why do you see this as counting against the Bible? Change is good, right?

I don't see it counting against the Bible. My point is you either can't have both or, even better, should have neither as if you can accept god updating his code once you can accept him doing it again and shouldn't take an ancient tome as your baseline.

Is it just that the change is "slow"? Is it a rule that faster is better?
Also, you seem to think that every change is a positive change that makes things better. This doesn't seem to be based on anything.

For example, in California, there was affirmative action: racial hiring and admissions preferences. Then, that was made illegal by Prop 209 in 1996. Now California is voting to repeal Prop 209 so that they can re-institute affirmative action.

So we've gone from allowing something, making it illegal, and allowing it again.

Which was right? Was it right that it was allowed? Then, why was it made illegal?
If making it illegal was right, then why was it legal before, and why are they trying to make it legal again?
Are you saying that flip-flopping between right and wrong like this is how it should be?

Yeah pretty much. Morality is a complicated thing. It absolutely should be constantly reassessed and reexamined.

Genocides have been legal and endorsed by the Government. So has slavery. So has torture.
And you're saying that this is preferable to the Bible's moral code?

The Bible's moral code has led to people justifying wars and genocide too, and this whole topic is based around the Bible condoning slavery, you sure you really want to go down that road?

Because "what is best for us" hasn't changed over the thousands of years since the book was first written.
Can you demonstrate otherwise?

How's the bible on the subject of vaccines? Because I'm thinking of all the people who prayed to god like the Bible recommended and still died versus the people who got saved once vaccines and antibiotics entered the fray

 

[Houseman]

Now this is a nuanced discussion.

I'll do that once you provide a bulleted list on why you thought the topic of "the bible has been changed" would only include the old vs new. It was your assumption, you prove why it wasn't short-sighted on your part

I never thought that the topic of "the bible has been changed" would only include "the old vs new".

So, once again: explain how any reasonable person should have discerned, after reading post #110, that you switched arguments.
Please break down the logic step-by-step. Bullet points or numbered lists would be appreciated.

I predict that you'll never actually do this because it would reveal that you're the one at fault, so you're just stalling and deflecting.

And he is. With modern rules. Because if the human decisions that lead to the new testament being created were really gods will, why wouldn't the newer rules that contravene it?

I already explained this. Once more: "The Bible says that the world, outside of the Christian congregation, is controlled by Satan, which includes governments, laws, and other religions."

Right so you're saying if times or scenarios change then the rules governing what should be should change as well. So...modern laws replacing a millennia old book then

No, that is not what I'm saying.

So in other words he changed his mind. "Oh fine you can have some leeway. Wait, no actually, you can't have that leeway." Still changing your mind.

How do you distinguish between
A) How one feels
B) How one decides to act?

For example, if I feel that soda is unhealthy, I might not give any to my hypothetical 5-year-old. I might not allow him to have any, under normal circumstances.
If I allow him to have a small cup of soda at a special occasion, have I changed my mind on how I feel about soda? Do I think soda magically becomes less unhealthy when drunk during special occasions? What if the child grows up and learns good, healthy habits? I, as a parent, could drop the soda rule and allow him to do what he wants. I know he'll make good, healthy choices, but I also know that I can't micromanage everything he eats unlike when he was younger.

Have I changed how I feel about soda? By dropping the restriction, have I declared that soda is the healthiest thing and should be drunk without restrictions? No, that would be ridiculous. I haven't changed my mind.

Or an even simpler example: touching the stove. I can forbid a toddler from touching the stove just out of pure pragmatism. The child is unlikely to cook or handle a stove safely, so there's no sense in ever allowing her to touch it for any reason. There is a 0% chance a toddler is going to successfully cook something. The rule is: "Do not touch the stove". But as she grows up and needs to learn basic cooking skills, she can touch the stove.

You're using inductive logic, not deductive logic. You're looking at the changed end result and you're making incorrect guesses as to why and how. You're working backwards. "He no longer forbids his child from drinking soda! That means that he has been convinced that soda is healthy!" "He no longer forbids his daughter from touching the stove! He must have changed his mind that the stove is dangerous!" No, those are incorrect guesses. You're making the same error here as you did with the shed/porch example.

And this would be the point I was going to come back to; because that verse you mentioned where you're allowed to divorce under conditions of adultery. Yeah it doesn't say that. The word Matthew uses in the original Greek is "porneia" which doesn't mean adultery; its prostitution.

Here's your word: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4202&t=KJV

As you can see, it doesn't just mean "prostitution". Prostitution is porneia, but not all porneia is prostitution. Porneia covers a wide range of individual acts. It means "illicit sexual intercourse in general". Any such act, including prostitution, would necessarily be adultery.

Now would you qualify that as the books failing, or the people interpreting it? And if its the people interpreting it...how can you trust any of the bible? If things like that show the signs of adjustment by human intervention how can you still claim it as the work of an omniscient entity?

I would qualify that as your failing. You failed to do your research. How can I trust any of the bible when it's possible for you, and others, to fail to properly do research? That question doesn't make any sense. One has nothing to do with the other. My trust in the bible does not depend on you, or anyone else, doing their research.
There are no signs of "adjustment by human intervention". You failing to properly research the word does not count as an "adjustment".

Two scenarios here. The first: How do you know its via the Bible?

That God gives his instructions via the Bible is one of the premises we agreed upon in post #76

The second: That he does leave mortal law to satan, like you seem to think...in which case how is he a moral figure? If he loves us so much and both can and has in the past affected the will of humans to get his word as he wants to, why not continue to do so?``

We have "His Word as He wants to".
Why should God "continue" to do something that is already done? Your question does not make sense.

Apparently the entirety of law and governance, a lot of which counters the Bible, is up to Satan so yeah thats your premise dude.

I never said that Satan can "can mess with humans enough to cloud gods message". You said that. If you believe that Satan's ability to do such a thing follows from the premises, please explain, because I don't see how you drew that conclusion. God's message is God's message. Laws are Laws. I don't see how they interact.

My point is you either can't have both or, even better, should have neither as if you can accept god updating his code once you can accept him doing it again and shouldn't take an ancient tome as your baseline.

What if the "ancient tome" doesn't need to be updated?

Yeah pretty much. Morality is a complicated thing. It absolutely should be constantly reassessed and reexamined.

You don't think that an omniscient God would have "solved" morality already?

The Bible's moral code has led to people justifying wars and genocide too, and this whole topic is based around the Bible condoning slavery, you sure you really want to go down that road?

Yes. You're saying that laws and morals should be dictated by the government, and that this is the good, and right, and proper thing to do, which is much better than some ancient tome. So please demonstrate how being a literal Nazi in Nazi Germany is preferable to following the Bible as a code.

How's the bible on the subject of vaccines? Because I'm thinking of all the people who prayed to god like the Bible recommended and still died versus the people who got saved once vaccines and antibiotics entered the fray

The Bible does not recommend that you "pray away" diseases. It does not endorse "faith healing". It does not recommend that people avoid doctors.
You're using inductive reasoning again. You're seeing religious people do ridiculous things, and you're incorrectly guessing that they were instructed to do so by the Bible.

 

[Buyetyen]

Humanism doesn't make much sense under scrutiny. How can people promote the welfare of the human race when we can't even agree on what that should look like? Or what good and evil even are? I feel like humanists are the villagers from Nietzsche's Parable of the Madman. They don't quite realize that their philosophy, though well intentioned, doesn't hold up in the new world they have created. That's because it's still based on a series of assumptions that were largely based on old ideas of morality.

If you want a philosophical system that holds up in the absence of God, your best bet is egoism. Egoism doesn't really make any claims about good and evil, but rather exists as an analysis on human behavior.

I'm a little unclear on how we need a god in order to feel empathy or construct a values system.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

Now this is a nuanced discussion.



I never thought that the topic of "the bible has been changed" would only include "the old vs new".

So, once again: explain how any reasonable person should have discerned, after reading post #110, that you switched arguments.
Please break down the logic step-by-step. Bullet points or numbered lists would be appreciated.

I predict that you'll never actually do this because it would reveal that you're the one at fault, so you're just stalling and deflecting.

I'm stalling and deflecting? This is your tantrum dude, I'm only humouring you. You started this bizarre sideline of "Stop talking about the old testament? What? How dare you have stopped talking about the old testament!" I'm just following along for the ride here

I already explained this. Once more: "The Bible says that the world, outside of the Christian congregation, is controlled by Satan, which includes governments, laws, and other religions."

But that fails your premise. If god is omnipotent and controls everything nothing is beyond him or out of his control. You can't have it both ways; either he can control everything, in which case modern laws are just as much his will as the Bible (moreso, in fact), or things are out of control in which case he's not am omnipotent arbiter who's word should be taken as law

No, that is not what I'm saying.

A sentence that should generally be followed up by what you are saying

How do you distinguish between
A) How one feels
B) How one decides to act?

For example, if I feel that soda is unhealthy, I might not give any to my hypothetical 5-year-old. I might not allow him to have any, under normal circumstances.
If I allow him to have a small cup of soda at a special occasion, have I changed my mind on how I feel about soda? Do I think soda magically becomes less unhealthy when drunk during special occasions? What if the child grows up and learns good, healthy habits? I, as a parent, could drop the soda rule and allow him to do what he wants. I know he'll make good, healthy choices, but I also know that I can't micromanage everything he eats unlike when he was younger.

Have I changed how I feel about soda? By dropping the restriction, have I declared that soda is the healthiest thing and should be drunk without restrictions? No, that would be ridiculous. I haven't changed my mind.

Or an even simpler example: touching the stove. I can forbid a toddler from touching the stove just out of pure pragmatism. The child is unlikely to cook or handle a stove safely, so there's no sense in ever allowing her to touch it for any reason. There is a 0% chance a toddler is going to successfully cook something. The rule is: "Do not touch the stove". But as she grows up and needs to learn basic cooking skills, she can touch the stove.

You're using inductive logic, not deductive logic. You're looking at the changed end result and you're making incorrect guesses as to why and how. You're working backwards. "He no longer forbids his child from drinking soda! That means that he has been convinced that soda is healthy!" "He no longer forbids his daughter from touching the stove! He must have changed his mind that the stove is dangerous!" No, those are incorrect guesses. You're making the same error here as you did with the shed/porch example.

Yeah no in all those examples you're still changing your mind. Situation has changed, so you've changed your ruling. You have looked at your old ruling, looked at the current situation, and decided that because of that situation the old rule needs to change. Still changing your mind.

Here's your word: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G4202&t=KJV

As you can see, it doesn't just mean "prostitution". Prostitution is porneia, but not all porneia is prostitution. Porneia covers a wide range of individual acts. It means "illicit sexual intercourse in general". Any such act, including prostitution, would necessarily be adultery.

I suggest you read your link again, as it clearly says the Greek use means prostitution; its only in the bible people have decided it means adultery. So your book has taken a word that means one thing but apparently when the book is using it it means something completely different. I remind you that when you thought I had done such a thing, you complained and indeed are still complaining. How is completely shifting what a word means purely for you a great start for morality?

I would qualify that as your failing. You failed to do your research. How can I trust any of the bible when it's possible for you, and others, to fail to properly do research? That question doesn't make any sense. One has nothing to do with the other. My trust in the bible does not depend on you, or anyone else, doing their research.
There are no signs of "adjustment by human intervention". You failing to properly research the word does not count as an "adjustment".

So then that brings us back to the point of how much research I have to do exactly? If it so easy to misinterpret the Bible based on which translation I have, based on how much knowledge I have, in what way is it a suitable guideline for morality? Are you saying the only people capable of being moral are scholars of antiquity who know the original Greek?

That God gives his instructions via the Bible is one of the premises we agreed upon in post #76

The premise as stated is that he gives his instructions via a book. Not just one book, not a book that must never change. And if the book can change once, why not again?

We have "His Word as He wants to".
Why should God "continue" to do something that is already done? Your question does not make sense.

And how do you know its already done? The words of god already got updated once, old to new testament. Why should it not get updated again?

I never said that Satan can "can mess with humans enough to cloud gods message". You said that. If you believe that Satan's ability to do such a thing follows from the premises, please explain, because I don't see how you drew that conclusion. God's message is God's message. Laws are Laws. I don't see how they interact.

What if the Bible tells you to do one thing but a law tells you to do another? Slavery, for example, since thats the starting topic. Jesus is pretty a-okay on the subject of slavery, I think you'll find a lot of countries are not. Which is gods word, which is Satan's?

What if the "ancient tome" doesn't need to be updated?



You don't think that an omniscient God would have "solved" morality already?

Maybe god respects the fact that morals change with the times? Maybe he just thinks the old book is too cluttered and mistranslated and we need a new one. Maybe the new testament was neevr his word to begin with, being largely compiled of human hands. Lots of reasons why even an omniscient entity might need to make corrections

Yes. You're saying that laws and morals should be dictated by the government, and that this is the good, and right, and proper thing to do, which is much better than some ancient tome. So please demonstrate how being a literal Nazi in Nazi Germany is preferable to following the Bible as a code.

Please tell me how joining a Crusade and murdering thousands is a better moral code than, you know, not doing that

The Bible does not recommend that you "pray away" diseases. It does not endorse "faith healing". It does not recommend that people avoid doctors.
You're using inductive reasoning again. You're seeing religious people do ridiculous things, and you're incorrectly guessing that they were instructed to do so by the Bible.

Which is why I asked you to tell me what the BIble does say about vaccinations. Because a god who can see all would have known about them and thought to include a few messages about them right?