The Problem of Slavery in the Bible

[Agema]

Got any fun Greek insults you could share with us?

Balle eis korakas.

You... you know he's greek, right? That his first language is greek? That he lives in greece, and speaks it every day?

Here's some 1000-year-old English. Good luck arguing a native English speaker of 2020 knows what it means.

Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. þæt wæs god cyning.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

I feel at this point it may be relevant to point out that when a person tells you about their god, they're telling you about themselves.

True. I’m just interested in how far some people will go with it, how much they feel they can justify

 

[Neuromancer]

Here's some 1000-year-old English. Good luck arguing a native English speaker of 2020 knows what it means.

The transition from ancient to medieval to modern greek has been rather more close-knit than English. Ancient Greek forms, words and phrases still survive almost unscathed, and the alphabet has remained the same for at least 3k years. They are similar enough that with a year's worth of classes a 13 year old can read (not well, mind) ancient Greek. And of course, perhaps more importantly, Ancient Greek is mandatory education for 6 school years here.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

The transition from ancient to medieval to modern greek has been rather more close-knit than English. Ancient Greek forms, words and phrases still survive almost unscathed, and the alphabet has remained the same for at least 3k years. They are similar enough that with a year's worth of classes a 13 year old can read (not well, mind) ancient Greek. And of course, perhaps more importantly, Ancient Greek is mandatory education for 6 school years here.

It works the other way round as well. I’ve only studied Ancient Greek but when visiting there have little trouble understanding the signs written in modern

 

[Houseman]

Πορνεια was not used for fornication and there was an important legal distinction between unmarried sex and prostitution per Solon's laws. Per the laws of Solon, and in formal speech, the term for fornication is Αταιρησις.

Neat, I just learned about the Solonian Constitution! Never heard of it before.

Per the laws of Solon, and in formal speech, the term for fornication is Αταιρησις.

I'm having a hard time finding an English translation of that word. Could you post the transliteration? Is that word ever used in the Bible?

I have linked a Greek dictionary with the word πορνεια and the words that use it as a root. All of them have citations as from whom the definitions come from...It is only your biblical scholars that have decided to make such a distinction and casually link one word with another to suit their purposes

That's a serious accusation to hurl against a whole lot of professors and experts.
And yet, so many experts agree that porneia means any illicit sexual action. Why is that? I'm curious about the answer, so I'll look into that.

So I shall be withdrawing from this thread with this as my final post. Thank you for the discussion.

No, thank you.

 

[fOx]

Balle eis korakas.



Here's some 1000-year-old English. Good luck arguing a native English speaker of 2020 knows what it means.

Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. þæt wæs god cyning.

All this tells me is that you don't really know much about the history of the English language. The evolution of english and greek aren't really comparable, and it's easier for a modern greek to read ancient greek then a modern english speaker to read old english.

It's certainly much easier for a modern native greek speaker to read it then an english speaker on the internet who can't read either modern or ancient greek.

 

[Houseman]

I lost my draft of this post and had to start over :c

”Deflection!” is a bold criticism to make while insisting we move on from a situation where you have to admit a mistake either way. So no I don’t think we’ll be doing that. You’ve picked Option B then, that if something is misinterpreted it is the fault of the thing being misinterpreted. So in addition to you now being at fault for f0x supposedly misinterpreted you, we can instantly render all those arguments you’ve made about people misinterpreting the Bible null and void because now, according to your conditions here, that’s the fault of the bible for being too unclear. And if the Bible is at fault then it’s not infallible. And if it’s not infallible then its worth no more as a source of morality than any other millennia old text

It's very possible for the author to be at fault in one case, and the reader be at fault in a different case. It's not as if there's only one universal rule that states "either the author must ALWAYS be at fault or the reader must ALWAYS be at fault".

So I can say "fOx misinterpreted me. It's his fault" and "the author is at fault", given two different scenarios, and not be a hypocrite.

So your false dichotomy is just that. Also you're still deflecting.

A text written by humans, compiled by humans and mistranslated by humans. If all that can be considered the invisible hand of god at work then so can modern laws.

Except for the part about Satan being in control of governments, and therefore, laws. Seems like you keep forgetting about this every time you claim "but laws could be from God!"

Yeah you’re still saying the passage of time should result in different conditions coming into play. So how about two thousand years being enough passage of time?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the bible is outdated? Feel free to present it.

This entire topic was started because Jesus has no problem with slavery while the modern world does. We started with one example, how many more do you want?

See below regarding slavery

I can search more later but for now here’s two And you’ll notice they’re actual Greek translators not the dubious biblical usage translator you provided.

Didn't you tell me that I needed to look at my own source more carefully? Twice?
Didn't I ask you to provide me a screenshot that demonstrated how my own source disagrees with me as you claimed it does? Three times?

And yet you never provided that screenshot. You never explained how my own source disagreed with me.
Just pointing that out.

Okay, so, your first link is just an empty translation tool. Your second is a dictionary that says that the word means "prostitute".
Great, so that's 1 link from you versus 7 from me? That's the kind of overwhelming evidence I'm talking about.

If bible says slavery is okay and the rest of the world disagrees either the bible is wrong and needs updating or you’re sayingthenworld is wrong and slavery is okay. Pick which.

Given a true conflict between the laws of the world and the Bible, wouldn't you expect a Christian to pick the bible? If the latter is written by an omniscient deity, wouldn't it be certain that the deity is wiser than any human or group of humans, from any time period?

See below regarding slavery

That strikes me as a bad thing. We already know god has no issue updating the bible, we had the switch from old to new testaments. That modern laws might be compiled into a new new testament is not beyond the realm of possibility

Is your main argument that "old = bad"?

If you’re saying “if you’re a slave, be a good slave” then you’resaying you’re fine with slavery. Because they shouldn’t not be slaves, they should be good slaves. So if your boy Jesus condones slavery but modern laws do that’s a contradiction

You never responded to my rebuttal (as usual). Please answer the question. If a state says "If you are overdosing on illegal drugs, call 911" but also says "drugs are illegal?" Is the state saying that they are "fine with drugs"? Yes or no.

If the answer is zero why did you even bring the Nazis up in the first place?

To explain that laws aren't always good, and so basing morality off of what is legal and what isn't is not a good idea.

Why'd you bring up the crusades?

Sorry are you genuinely trying to argue the Crusades were not a religious thing? They were supported by the Papacy, used the Bible to support their actions, wore biblical symbols. The morality of the Bible guided them to warfare and slaughter

Oh, so you're using inductive reasoning again?
It didn't work out for you the last four times you tried it, so I don't understand why you think it would work a fifth time.

You can't look at some nutter saying "The bible told me to kill you!" and then conclude that's what the Bible really says.

Your claim is the bible should be the ultimate moral code because it is based on an omniscient deity’s vision. But if that omniscience didn’t seethings like modern medicine coming, is it really all that omniscient? And since it is it, how can it be that ultimate moral guide. I ran through this in my last post, was this time round easier for you?

Why do you think that God didn't "see things like modern medicine coming"? Oh, wait, nevermind, I know why: Inductive reasoning. You look at the bible, note that it doesn't mention modern medicine, and then you wrongly conclude that God didn't know about modern medicine. Hopefully now that you're looking your own argument in the face, you realize how ridiculous it is.

 

[Houseman]

For those interested in why some scholars think 'porneia' means "fornication" as opposed to only "prostitution", the answer might be because of the Septuagint, the earliest Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures (among other things), created around 300 BCE.

In that link I use, in the Greek Lexicon section, it says that the word was used in the Septuagint to replace: תַּזְנוּת, זְנוּת, זְנוּנִים
One of those words is here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8457&t=KJV

For example, Ezekiel 23:8 and everywhere else in that book in chapters 16 and 23. It speaks about a prostitute in one sense of the word, but it also applies to the acts of those who visit her, for example "they defiled her with their πορνεία" or "they poured out their πορνεία upon her". You can see how it doesn't make sense for the word to strictly refer to prostitution, unless there's some kind of concept where one who visits a prostitute also somehow also becomes a prostitute.

In addition, in that same link for the Greek word, in the Thayer's Greek Lexicon section, it says:
"of illicit sexual intercourse in general (Demosthenes, 403, 27; 433, 25) "

The citation is the important part. The source of this definition seems to be from Demosthenes, who predated Solon (Neuromancer brought him up in post #180)
Those numbers next to his name I think, refer to his works, which are numbered. If this is true, we have an ancient Greek, speaking ancient Greek, and using the word to mean "illicit sexual intercourse in general".

@Neuromancer , I respect your decision to leave the discussion and I'm not pinging you to argue, I just thought you might be interested in the Demosthenes part above. You'd probably know more about him than I would.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

I lost my draft of this post and had to start over :c

Between deleting your draft and erasing half of my post I’ve got to wonder if the forums themselves are trying to tell us to shut up

It's very possible for the author to be at fault in one case, and the reader be at fault in a different case. It's not as if there's only one universal rule that states "either the author must ALWAYS be at fault or the reader must ALWAYS be at fault".

So I can say "fOx misinterpreted me. It's his fault" and "the author is at fault", given two different scenarios, and not be a hypocrite.

So your false dichotomy is just that. Also you're still deflecting.

Ah ah ah House, your argument thus far has been the Bible is a flawless document and anyone with a different interpretation than yours hasn’t done enough research. If you’re even grudgingly accepting the author can be at fault you’re admitting the faults may just lie with the Bible being vague and unclear

Except for the part about Satan being in control of governments, and therefore, laws. Seems like you keep forgetting about this every time you claim "but laws could be from God!"

And as I keep pointing out in reply to this argument that means either god cannot control Satan, in which case he is not all powerful, or is deliberately letting a malevolent entity mess with us, in which case he is not moral

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the bible is outdated? Feel free to present it.

The fact that’s is millennia old and, with a variety of variations and translations is easily misunderstood

Didn't you tell me that I needed to look at my own source more carefully? Twice?
Didn't I ask you to provide me a screenshot that demonstrated how my own source disagrees with me as you claimed it does? Three times?

And yet you never provided that screenshot. You never explained how my own source disagreed with me.
Just pointing that out.

I explained quite clearly how your source was flawed. Ignoring that because I haven’t jumped through the exact hoopsyou want is more deflection than you can ever accuse me of

Okay, so, your first link is just an empty translation tool. Your second is a dictionary that says that the word means "prostitute".
Great, so that's 1 link from you versus 7 from me? That's the kind of overwhelming evidence I'm talking about.

Oh no no, that’s two websites from me and one from you. Trying to spin your one link into multiple sources is like claiming linking a Wikipedia page is you having a thousand sources

Given a true conflict between the laws of the world and the Bible, wouldn't you expect a Christian to pick the bible? If the latter is written by an omniscient deity, wouldn't it be certain that the deity is wiser than any human or group of humans, from any time period?

And had the Bible actually been written by that deity and not by a group humans, then compiled by a group of humans, then given various translations by a bunch of different humans that might be a valid argument.

Is your main argument that "old = bad"?

If people refuse to re-examine and rethink the old, yes

You never responded to my rebuttal (as usual). Please answer the question. If a state says "If you are overdosing on illegal drugs, call 911" but also says "drugs are illegal?" Is the state saying that they are "fine with drugs"? Yes or no.

How are those two things contradictory? A person isn’t going to avoid trouble just because they overdosed on illegal drugs in place of taking a suitable amount. This isn’t a rebuttal, it’s nonsense.
Also, you said several times you’d get back to the slavery issue? Was this it? Never actually mentioning slavery in your logical or argument? Come on dude it’s the point of the topic. If the Bible says slavery is fine but the law does not which is the more moral?

To explain that laws aren't always good, and so basing morality off of what is legal and what isn't is not a good idea.

Why'd you bring up the crusades?

To demonstrate the same applies. If people doing bad stuff in the name of the Nazi government means government moralities are fallible (an argument no one is denying) then people doing bad stuff in the name of the bible demonstrates the bibles morality is fallible (an argument you arestrenuously denying)

Oh, so you're using inductive reasoning again?
It didn't work out for you the last four times you tried it, so I don't understand why you think it would work a fifth time.

You can't look at some nutter saying "The bible told me to kill you!" and then conclude that's what the Bible really says.

I would indeed think such a person was crazy. ButI fail to see why his interpretation is any less crazy than yours. Neither of you have the actual evidence, you’ve got reimagined and reinterpreted versions of the original sources. He can read it one way, you can read it another. That’s the issue I’ve been highlighting since the beginning, that’s it’s very easy to just pick and choose what you want from it

Why do you think that God didn't "see things like modern medicine coming"? Oh, wait, nevermind, I know why: Inductive reasoning. You look at the bible, note that it doesn't mention modern medicine, and then you wrongly conclude that God didn't know about modern medicine. Hopefully now that you're looking your own argument in the face, you realize how ridiculous it is.

If god can see fit to speak through Matthew to specify what he wants from divorce why not speak through someone else to clarify issues about medicine? Surely that would be far more helpful and useful than who gets married to who. Doesn’t seem like this god fellow is a particularly moral dude if he’s not going to share things like that

 

[Agema]

The transition from ancient to medieval to modern greek has been rather more close-knit than English. Ancient Greek forms, words and phrases still survive almost unscathed, and the alphabet has remained the same for at least 3k years. They are similar enough that with a year's worth of classes a 13 year old can read (not well, mind) ancient Greek. And of course, perhaps more importantly, Ancient Greek is mandatory education for 6 school years here.

All this tells me is that you don't really know much about the history of the English language. The evolution of english and greek aren't really comparable, and it's easier for a modern greek to read ancient greek then a modern english speaker to read old english.

I don't disagree. I did some ancient Greek at school such that I could just about understand some simple modern Greek too (before I got too rusty on it all).

But language drifts over time in any case: often connotations or contextual meaning of words, sometimes the meaning entirely. Knowing a modern language does not necessarily give any special understanding of what a word in an ancient text means, even where that word has survived into modern usage (plus, of course, there can be geographical differences too). If Houseman's sources are reputable scholars of ancient Greek, they're superior to the opinion of a modern Greek speaker.

 

[Houseman]

you’re admitting the faults may just lie with the Bible being vague and unclear

I've never denied that the faults may lie with the bible being vague and unclear. Otherwise I wouldn't be considering your arguments. Instead, I'm waiting patiently for you to demonstrate your claim.

And as I keep pointing out in reply to this argument that means either god cannot control Satan, in which case he is not all powerful, or is deliberately letting a malevolent entity mess with us, in which case he is not moral

Yes, my apologies. The last time you wrote this, I overlooked it because you had some low-hanging fruit as your lede.

Your conclusion that "deliberately letting a malevolent entity mess with us is not moral", is based on the assumption that you know what is and what isn't moral.
Do you? What makes you think so?

The fact that’s is millennia old and, with a variety of variations and translations is easily misunderstood

Something being old does not mean that something is outdated.
The rule: "do not murder" is probably as old as human society, yet you'd agree that it isn't outdated.

And you've yet to demonstrate how the bible is "easily misunderstood".

Oh no no, that’s two websites from me and one from you. Trying to spin your one link into multiple sources is like claiming linking a Wikipedia page is you having a thousand sources

You must have missed post #161 , which contains my other 6 sources (the BLB link only counts as one).

And had the Bible actually been written by that deity and not by a group humans, then compiled by a group of humans, then given various translations by a bunch of different humans that might be a valid argument.

So you don't think an omnipotent, omniscient deity could protect such a book from corruption, even after all that? Yes or no: would doing such a thing be outside of this deity's power?

How are those two things contradictory?

Exactly. They aren't.
So if "If you're overdosing on drugs, call 911" isn't contradictory with "illegal drugs are illegal" and doesn't mean "drugs are okay!"
So neither is "If you're a slave obey your master" contradictory with "slavery is not allowed" and doesn't mean "slavery is okay!"
Thanks.

Also, you said several times you’d get back to the slavery issue? Was this it?

Yes, that was it, because the only thing you've said about slavery is "Jesus says slavery is ok" and "the bible says slavery is ok".
But that has been proven false now.

 

[Houseman]

Had to double-post. I think I hit some sort of limit that the site's non-descript error message wouldn't tell me about.

To demonstrate the same applies. If people doing bad stuff in the name of the Nazi government means government moralities are fallible (an argument no one is denying) then people doing bad stuff in the name of the bible demonstrates the bibles morality is fallible (an argument you arestrenuously denying)

I'm not pointing out that the Nazis were "doing bad stuff in the name of" their government. I'm pointing that what they did was LEGAL and EXPLICITLY ALLOWED.

You can't make the same claim regarding the crusades. You can't say that the bible explicitly allowed the crusades or that they were considered "legal" according to the bible.

He can read it one way, you can read it another. That’s the issue I’ve been highlighting since the beginning, that’s it’s very easy to just pick and choose what you want from it

But you have yet to actually demonstrate that, and attempts to use inductive reasoning as evidence will never work.

If god can see fit to speak through Matthew to specify what he wants from divorce why not speak through someone else to clarify issues about medicine? Surely that would be far more helpful and useful than who gets married to who. Doesn’t seem like this god fellow is a particularly moral dude if he’s not going to share things like that

This is still inductive reasoning, and won't work. You can't reliably draw conclusions about one's thought processes or motivations or attributes by working backwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

I've never denied that the faults may lie with the bible being vague and unclear. Otherwise I wouldn't be considering your arguments. Instead, I'm waiting patiently for you to demonstrate your claim.

We just had a whole argument where we debated the meaning of a single word. That such an argument even happened demonstrates lack of clarity. If it were clear, we wouldn’t have had the argument. History is full of such debates and fights about the Bible, over more than just one word. It’s why the religion as a whole gets so fractious. If it were clear you would have a thousand different denominations based on a thousand different interpretations

Your conclusion that "deliberately letting a malevolent entity mess with us is not moral", is based on the assumption that you know what is and what isn't moral.
Do you? What makes you think so?

If your idea of “all loving” and “moral” includes letting a malevolent entity mess with us then frankly its you who doesn’t know what those mean, not me

Something being old does not mean that something is outdated.
The rule: "do not murder" is probably as old as human society, yet you'd agree that it isn't outdated.

Because we keep reassessing it and deciding murder is still bad. It’s not a continuous rule because we don’t question it, like you think the Bible shouldn’t be, but because we do and keep finding it valid

And you've yet to demonstrate how the bible is "easily misunderstood".

Again, whole argument. Right in this topic. Over one word. If it’s so easily understood how could such a thing happen?

You must have missed post #161 , which contains my other 6 sources (the BLB link only counts as one).

Oh so I did, my bad. However you will notice with your sources that the ones that are purely translators still do not agree that the word means adultery. We can get as far afield as fornication, sure. But that’s not adultery. Your only sources that say as such are ones that are saying “no, this is what the Bible means, honest”

So you don't think an omnipotent, omniscient deity could protect such a book from corruption, even after all that? Yes or no: would doing such a thing be outside of this deity's power?

For the record, this is the same entity that you say is perfectly willing to sit back and let a malevolent entity mess with us, yes? I fail to see why, if he’s going to allow Satan such leeway, it would not also stretch to warping Our view of the Bible

Exactly. They aren't.
So if "If you're overdosing on drugs, call 911" isn't contradictory with "illegal drugs are illegal" and doesn't mean "drugs are okay!"
So neither is "If you're a slave obey your master" contradictory with "slavery is not allowed" and doesn't mean "slavery is okay!"
Thanks.

I genuinely have no idea what you’re trying to say with this argument. Like, what connection does any of this have with any of the rest of it? Are you just asking me for drugs at this point?
If Jesus, in all of his moral rectitude, did not see fit to decry slavery, but instead told slaves to bunker down and be good slaves, Jesus is condoning slavery. He’s saying it is something that is fine, that he’s not worried about changing, that is okay as the will of the world. So if Jesus says slavery is acceptable and modern laws say it is not, which is the more moral?

I'm not pointing out that the Nazis were "doing bad stuff in the name of" their government. I'm pointing that what they did was LEGAL and EXPLICITLY ALLOWED.

You can't make the same claim regarding the crusades. You can't say that the bible explicitly allowed the crusades or that they were considered "legal" according to the bible.

I refer you to your previous comments about researching the Bible to the level of your peers. Pretty sure “the institution of the church” are your peers. They literally wrote the book after all, can’t really get more knowledgeable about it than that. So if your peers are saying the bible‘a morality allowed the Crusades, then the bible‘s morality allowed the Crusades

But you have yet to actually demonstrate that, and attempts to use inductive reasoning as evidence will never work.

If it weren’t easy to pick and choose why are there so branches and denominations of Christianity following different versions of it?

This is still inductive reasoning, and won't work. You can't reliably draw conclusions about one's thought processes or motivations or attributes by working backwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

No it’s pointing out flaws, failings, lapses etc. And given your argument is the Bible is perfect, pointing out imperfections is all I need to do. So why doesn’t the omniscient being who loves us see fit to tell us about so many things if he really wants what’s best for us?

 

[Buyetyen]

For the record, this is the same entity that you say is perfectly willing to sit back and let a malevolent entity mess with us, yes? I fail to see why, if he’s going to allow Satan such leeway, it would not also stretch to warping Our view of the Bible

This reminds me of an interesting thought experiment I came across once. If God allows Satan to work on the earth and doesn't stop him, and Satan's goal is to lead people away from salvation, how do Christians know that Satan didn't write some or even all of the bible in order to deceive them?

Think about it. The Christian argument is that the bible was written by prophets and holy men receiving divine visions to serve as a moral guide. So right off the bat, there are no external sources of morality to compare it to. It is simply assumed that this is morality, the origin of all moral and ethical standards. So is it then possible that Satan actually created the bible to hold civilization and humanity back and it was God who inspired in humanity the scientific method so we may reveal the devil's lies?

We've already established there's a lot of shit in the bible that would never pass muster in a court of law today: slavery, rape, violence, blood sacrifice and genocide just to name a few. So how does a Christian go about proving that Satan is not the author of the bible? That he is not the one who put in the passages approving of slavery and all that other icky stuff? Can't reference the bible, because you have no way of knowing Satan didn't write the part you're quoting specifically to keep you believing the con. And since the bible is the only credible authority on morality to Christians, there are no external references to judge right and wrong. In fact, the act of bringing in external references would necessarily invalidate the claims that the bible is a moral guide because now it's fallible.

I do not envy the religious who insist on trying to square that circle.

 

[Houseman]

We just had a whole argument where we debated the meaning of a single word. That such an argument even happened demonstrates lack of clarity. If it were clear, we wouldn’t have had the argument. History is full of such debates and fights about the Bible, over more than just one word. It’s why the religion as a whole gets so fractious. If it were clear you would have a thousand different denominations based on a thousand different interpretations

Does it demonstrate lack of clarity on the author's part? Or does it demonstrate lack of research on your part? Does it demonstrate that you, not wanting to be proven wrong, and with a personal grudge, went out of your way to cherry-pick sources that disagreed with mine?

Also, you're still working backwards.

If your idea of “all loving” and “moral” includes letting a malevolent entity mess with us then frankly its you who doesn’t know what those mean, not me

You didn't answer the question.

Because we keep reassessing it and deciding murder is still bad. It’s not a continuous rule because we don’t question it, like you think the Bible shouldn’t be, but because we do and keep finding it valid

Okay.

However you will notice with your sources that the ones that are purely translators still do not agree that the word means adultery.

What I said, in post 136, was "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."

Then, in reply, you said: "The word Matthew uses in the original Greek is "porneia" which doesn't mean adultery;"

See? I never said that the word meant adultery.

We can get as far afield as fornication, sure. But that’s not adultery.

Fornicating with anyone other than your spouse is adultery, isn't it?

For the record, this is the same entity that you say is perfectly willing to sit back and let a malevolent entity mess with us, yes? I fail to see why, if he’s going to allow Satan such leeway, it would not also stretch to warping Our view of the Bible

You didn't answer the question.

If Jesus, in all of his moral rectitude, did not see fit to decry slavery, but instead told slaves to bunker down and be good slaves, Jesus is condoning slavery.

You're working backwards again.

If I say "comply with the orders of the police to lessen your chances of getting hurt", am I condoning police brutality? Am I saying that police brutality is fine?
If I say "if you're getting robbed at gunpoint, just hand over your stuff and don't fight back", am I condoning armed robbery? Am I saying that armed robbery is fine?

No, and No. Likewise, Jesus is not condoning slavery, or saying it is fine.

I refer you to your previous comments about researching the Bible to the level of your peers. Pretty sure “the institution of the church” are your peers. They literally wrote the book after all

You're working backwards again.
I'm asking you to prove that the bible endorses the crusades.
Instead of opening a bible and pointing to the verses that endorse the crusades (they don't exist), you're pointing at the church and then assuming that they must have gotten their information from the bible. See? That's backwards.

If it weren’t easy to pick and choose why are there so branches and denominations of Christianity following different versions of it?

I never said it wasn't easy. It's easy to fail a math test. It's easy to not do any research. It's easy to just make blind, uneducated guesses. It's easy to just do whatever is convenient.

You're working backwards again by assuming that all these different branches and denominations have any desire whatsoever to be correct, as opposed to, say, desiring to be popular and powerful.

No it’s pointing out flaws, failings, lapses etc. And given your argument is the Bible is perfect, pointing out imperfections is all I need to do.

You haven't pointed out a single flaw, failing, lapse, or imperfection.

So why doesn’t the omniscient being who loves us see fit to tell us about so many things if he really wants what’s best for us?

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Houseman]

Can't reference the bible, because you have no way of knowing Satan didn't write the part you're quoting specifically to keep you believing the con

It's like you said. You can't reference the bible. So where are you getting that "Satan works on the earth" or "misleads people" or any other bit of info about Satan's intentions? The bible? The bible that you just said can't be referenced? Whoops!

This line of reasoning only makes sense when you begin from an extra-biblical source. You can't start with assuming that the bible is true, and then use that premise to come to the conclusion that the bible is false. You can't contradict your own premise like that.

Edit: Where are my likes? How come a bad argument gets likes, but a post pointing out the logical flaw in the bad argument doesn't get any?

 

[Buyetyen]

Curiosity got the better of me and I had to check. He took the bait. And of course, he proved me right. "Thebible says Satan is bad, therefor he couldn't possibly have written it, therefor the bible was written by God because it says so."

And of course, he tries to quibble over the nature of the devil. That burden's not on me, because I don't believe in the devil. Christians do. So they're in a real conundrum trying to use scripture to prove that Satan didn't write scripture.

 

[Houseman]

Curiosity got the better of me and I had to check. He took the bait. And of course, he proved me right. "Thebible says Satan is bad, therefor he couldn't possibly have written it, therefor the bible was written by God because it says so."

Actually, I just pointed out a logical flaw in your own argument.

- You said "Can't reference the bible..."
- But then you referenced the bible to determine Satan's motivations.
- Therefore you've contradicted your own premise.

But it seems like you aren't interested in having a conversation since you're referring to me in the third person, and you probably even have me on ignore (because you had "to check"), so I'll do you the same courtesy and hopefully we can both enjoy the forums without seeing each other.

 

[Satinavian]

This reminds me of an interesting thought experiment I came across once. If God allows Satan to work on the earth and doesn't stop him, and Satan's goal is to lead people away from salvation, how do Christians know that Satan didn't write some or even all of the bible in order to deceive them?

There are/were Christian sects that actually do believe that is the case.

But most Christians simply don't believe that Satan actually has free reign on earth or is actually opposed to god or even actually does exist instead of being a metaphor.



That highlights the main problem with most of the arguments against the "Christian" faith. As soon as go into such details, you are basically argueing against a tiny subset of Christians. All the others can only say "Yes, but... that is not actually how we interpret this part in the first place. It only disproves what that particularly group of heretics think. Or rather it supposedly does because i am not sure i or you understand them correctly or they don't have a counterargument."


Most of those arguments are for biblical literalists only anyway. Which is not what most Christians are. That is only popular with some protestant denominations.

 

[Buyetyen]

But most Christians simply don't believe that Satan actually has free reign on earth or is actually opposed to god or even actually does exist instead of being a metaphor.

If that has been your experience, I envy you. All of the hardcore Christians I've met were pretty convinced that Satan was a literal figure who stalked the earth looking to tempt mortals to hell and that every time you had self-doubt, a crisis of faith, or any other kind of negative emotion it was Satan trying to make you be bad.