Are we blind, or playing stupid?

To me if a story can be corroborated historically and by eye witness account then it is fact. The funny thing about atheists/agnostics is that they offer no intelligent rebuttals nor do they display any knowledge of the scripture or belief that they refute. It's always the same, " no that's not true, that never happened, you're stupid" remark. Makes me laugh, then troubled because you don't even know what belief you deny and mock. The best strategy in warfare is to know thy enemy. Obviously this isn't war but rather a debate. Same thing still applies, know thy opposition. Your side lacks knowledge of what you refute, plain and simple

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

To me if a story can be corroborated historically and by eye witness account then it is fact.

---

True in a sense. But not in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

The funny thing about atheists/agnostics is that they offer no intelligent rebuttals ...

---

What's equally humorous is when "Christian" people get their beliefs questioned, they immediately fall back on insulting the other. Funnier still is reading what they want to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

It's always the same, " no that's not true, that never happened, you're stupid" remark.

---

Huh? I never said it wasn't true. I simply ask for proof. Unlike yourself, I've never outright insulted your intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

The best strategy in warfare is to know thy enemy. Obviously this isn't war but rather a debate. Same thing still applies, know thy opposition.

---

Who said anything about this being a war? As far as I'm concerned, it's been a debate the entire time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

Your side lacks knowledge of what you refute, plain and simple

---

My side? And you make me laugh at times, too, Geoff. I wonder how the tables would be turned if I fought fire with fire and started to insult you. Next time, I think we'll see.

I will say, though, just because I don't sit down and study scriptures, does not make me an idiot. Far from it, I might add. Later, QD.

quickdodge: I mean no insult to you. If i came off that way then I apologize. What I was getting at was this, you really don't know much on the subject of the Bible or the scriptures. How then can you refute something you lack knowledge of?

Quote:

---

True in a sense. But not in this case.

---

Why? If this document is corroborated by history and eye witness account then whats the problem? Not every story or every person in the Bible can be corroborated by history, I admit that, but is that to say that every single document from every period of history has been discovered? I think not. The reason the Bible isn't accepted is simply due to the claims that it makes.

Quote:

---

What's equally humorous is when "Christian" people get their beliefs questioned, they immediately fall back on insulting the other. Funnier still is reading what they want to read.

---

Like I said, no insult was intended. But the fact remains, you do not have an extensive knowledge of the Bible or what the scriptures say. If I am wrong then please demonstrate the extent of your knowledge on this subject.

Quote:

---

Huh? I never said it wasn't true. I simply ask for proof. Unlike yourself, I've never outright insulted your intelligence.

---

If I gave you historical evidence or eyewitness accounts of events/people of the Bible....would that be enough for you?

Quote:

---

Who said anything about this being a war? As far as I'm concerned, it's been a debate the entire time.

---

Come on QD....you know what I meant by this. I know your side of it....do you know mine?

[QUOTEI will say, though, just because I don't sit down and study scriptures, does not make me an idiot. Far from it, I might add. Later, QD.][/QUOTE]
I completely agree with you. But, to say a man has no knowledge of a particular subject is no insult...it is simply true. I didn't question your overall intelligence....just your knowledge of scripture. I personally would not be offended if you said the same of me and early model civics....the fact is that you probably know more about them than i do.

Alas, my challenge goes out to you as well QD...I asked those with opposing views what their personal knowledge of scripture was. So, the same goes to you sir....tell me please how one in the Old Testament obtained salvation. If you can not answer this simple question then you show a lack of understanding and comprehension of scripture...therefore you really have no argument to debate with me on this subject. Once again, I'm not trying to insult you; but when someone wishes to debate this subject with me and make me out to be some kind of fool or moron for my beliefs and they demonstrate ignorance of the subject I will by all means make them out to be as foolish as their statements.

calm on you guys this is a car import site

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

To me if a story can be corroborated historically and by eye witness account then it is fact. The funny thing about atheists/agnostics is that they offer no intelligent rebuttals nor do they display any knowledge of the scripture or belief that they refute. It's always the same, " no that's not true, that never happened, you're stupid" remark. Makes me laugh, then troubled because you don't even know what belief you deny and mock. The best strategy in warfare is to know thy enemy. Obviously this isn't war but rather a debate. Same thing still applies, know thy opposition. Your side lacks knowledge of what you refute, plain and simple

---

We're still wating on an intelligent thought from you to begin intelligent debate. The fact that you deny facts because they don't corroborate with your beliefs already tells me you're irrational.

There are a number of different copies of many of the biblical books in the collection, with many disagreements between themselves, let alone our modern text:

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.

-- Oxford Companion to Archaeology

There are also many major differences we already knew about between the Septuagint, which is the Greek version of the OT and the Hebrew Tanakh, which the Dead Sea Scrolls only add to.

Now, it is true that our Greek text of the NT is very likely reliable to what they had in the mid 2nd century, and likely pretty close to the originals.

For the OT however, pretty much all scholars agree there never were originals, and that the collecting and editing of the texts went on for centuries

Not to mention it was translated from dead languages by people who could barely read or write themselves, DECADES AFTER the events supposedly took place. You end up with the fairy tale that is the Holy Bible. You can try to make a case that god divinely instructed each editor on what to write, but we would have to first believe that there is a god actually capable of doing that. Sorry to burst your evangelical bubble. The bible is at best a period representation of scientific technology of the bronze age. Nothing further.

As for salvation in the Old testament...

Blessed are all those who take refuge in him.

And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness. Genesis 15. And then came the silly forced genital mutilation ritual performed on children who cant speak for themselves.

Also, do some research on christian biblical canon

I don't see your point in that article and it in fact defeats itself. The scriptures were edited by men that could barely read or write.... Seriously? Did you even think before you posted? Yes the are slight differences in text between the languages. I speak Romanian. In my language "good night" is nuapta buna. But literally translated it means night good. Does that change the over all message? No it does not. Once again I state that the message in both Old and New Testaments has stayed the same from the time they were first introduced. You also have to understand that many in those times could not read or write. The duties of the priest hood were reserved for the Levites who were educated holy men. It is not uncommon for these times for the entirety of the text to not be written but passed down through oral tradition. The fact that the stories themselves stayed so accurate and fluid through many generations shows these were devout men who took their faith very seriously. It's very simple to copy and paste from a web site.any scholars and theologians alike find no reason to be believe that the scriptures themselves were written by anyone other than whom it states wrote it.

Also, fail on how they obtained salvation in the Old Testament. Google let you down. Righteousness is not salvation. To obtain forgiveness of sin, a family would have the head male bring a sacrifice to the alter for the blood to be shed to cover sin for the previous year. Also, the High Priest would go once a year into the holy of hilts to offer a sacrifice for the forgiveness of the people. You failed to demonstrate any knowledge of the scriptures. You only succeeded in showing you know how to use google search.

Here is an easier question. When was the very first Christian church body formed according to scripture and history?

Honestly, man to man. What is your problem with Christ that you would mock Him and His teachings? You do me no harm, but rather yourself. You argue against a belief that you know you don't truly comprehend, and for what? Im not sure what your experiences with Christians in general is, but I can see that you have never known God on a personal level. Are you so sure of your unbelief that you're willing to gabble eternity? Many a man smarter than you and I have believed in Christ, and did not find it foolish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

Yes the are slight differences in text between the languages. I speak Romanian. In my language "good night" is nuapta buna. But literally translated it means night good. Does that change the over all message? No it does not. Once again I state that the message in both Old and New Testaments has stayed the same from the time they were first introduced. You also have to understand that many in those times could not read or write. The duties of the priest hood were reserved for the Levites who were educated holy men. It is not uncommon for these times for the entirety of the text to not be written but passed down through oral tradition. The fact that the stories themselves stayed so accurate and fluid through many generations shows these were devout men who took their faith very seriously. It's very simple to copy and paste from a web site.any scholars and theologians alike find no reason to be believe that the scriptures themselves were written by anyone other than whom it states wrote it.

---

So you admit, the bible is just a big game of telephone?

Quote:

---

Also, fail on how they obtained salvation in the Old Testament. Google let you down. Righteousness is not salvation. To obtain forgiveness of sin, a family would have the head male bring a sacrifice to the alter for the blood to be shed to cover sin for the previous year. Also, the High Priest would go once a year into the holy of hilts to offer a sacrifice for the forgiveness of the people. You failed to demonstrate any knowledge of the scriptures. You only succeeded in showing you know how to use google search.

---

Thats the beauty of your holy book, I suppose. Its up to the end user to interpret it how they want. The bible says one thing, you say another. The difference between you and me is I dont have to physically suspend reality to fully understand a book. Fail on you for asking a leading, open ended question as well. My answer was correct according to the bible.

Quote:

---

Honestly, man to man. What is your problem with Christ that you would mock Him and His teachings? You do me no harm, but rather yourself. You argue against a belief that you know you don't truly comprehend, and for what? Im not sure what your experiences with Christians in general is, but I can see that you have never known God on a personal level. Are you so sure of your unbelief that you're willing to gabble eternity? Many a man smarter than you and I have believed in Christ, and did not find it foolish.

---

My problem with Jesus is that if we're picking men to worship, there are much better men who have accomplished much more for me and modern history than some Jewish carpenter who thought he was the son of god. I do myself no harm in not basing my life on barbaric fariy tales. I fully comprehend religious belief, and you and I both know I know history better than you do. Is that the reason you believe? Cause someone you think is smarter than you believes and doesnt consider it foolish? If someone I thought was smarter than me thought jumping off a cliff with no parachute wasnt a foolish idea, I'd have to question how smart he really is.

Furthermore, I dont need a holy book to tell me how to be a good person, especially when the better half of said book is about killing and death and how to hate, and the other half is just a rehashing of something we were all born with. Morality

Just for shits and giggles, how does it feel to know that Jesus was a liberal socialist? Does that bother you, being a conservative? That your poster child goes against everything the conservative message stands for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

Sinfix: I believe i answered your questions regarding the scriptures in Matthew, Luke, and John with my above post. But I will attempt to go into further detail below.

Matthew 5:17- “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Simple really, if you have any understanding of the Old Testament and how the men of this time "got right with God" you would understand this scripture. See my above comments to get this answer.

Luke 16:17-"It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." In this instance Jesus is stating to the Pharises that the Old Testament Law is not void. They aimed to say He was a blasphemer for not following their laws. He was telling them He is the Messiah, yet they remained blind and chose not to see.

John 10:35-"If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside " To understand this one must simply read the scriptures around it....as such below-
John 10:30-38-" I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods' ? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken-- what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

When you have the entirety of the scripture it makes sense now. Please don't get offended to what I am about to say next because that is not my intention. I understand now what your problem is. It is not that you are confused about anything. For you to be confused would mean that you read the scriptures and simply could not understand or comprehend what was said. That is a common mistake that after more careful reading and study, one will understand. Your problem is this, you are guilty as every atheist is of treating the Bible as a buffet. You pick and chose certain scriptures and take them out of context to support your argument. You probably entered some phrase into google to find scriptures to match what you wanted to say, found them on some atheist supporting website by a man or group that they themselves know nothing of scripture, and then you pasted it here. The problem is that you have no desire to know the truth nor do you care to research yourself the accuracy of the statements you make. You are following the argument of someone before you and in all honesty it is quite lame. Have a mind of your own and find something that is relevant. Continuing to do as you have been only shows a weak argument.

I know I am right with my interpretation of you, to test it i will simply ask you for something simple. Tell me what you know or believe you know about the Old Testament and New Testament. Simply, tell me how the men in the Old Testament sought salvation and tell me how men in the New Testament did so.

---

I can see how you would come to that conclusion and it a lot of cases, you would be 100% correct. I've spent years of my life in church and i've attempted to read and believe the bible. Yes, i can google scriptures to support my arguments, but i knew they were there before i searched. It's not as simple as saying "let me see if i can find this in the bible, google it". I'm not sure what to call myself, but i dont think atheist is the right title. I feel i'm seeking the "answers", but there are no real answers to be found. My interest in the bible and religion is strictly curiosity. I'm not one of the types who are trying to prove to myself that god isnt real to feel good about not believing. I would not be a christian even if profound evidence of God's existence were found. I would not be a christian if God himself came down from heaven and introduced himself. So, with that said... i have no reason to favor your side of the story over the atheist side of the story. I am sincerely interested in the "truth", whatever that truth may be. Finding the answers to these questions will not change my stance. Whether God is or is not real, i am not a servant.

According to the bible, at some point in time God was ok with rape and slavery. His own son died on a cross to save us from burning in hell because the laws of his father were too harsh for us to live by. In the old testament God was vengeful. Jesus died for our sins and saved us.

Ok, even if you do believe this to be true, what part of this story makes you want to worship this person?

Blank: First off your answer was not correct. The question was in no way leading or open ended. There was one simple answer and you answered wrong. I highly doubt you know more about the history behind the Old Tesrament Israelites, your wrong answer showed that. As far as interpretation of the scriptures. I am not qualified to give my own interpretation, rather I read it for what it is. Better men then Jesus to worship? False, there has never been one who lived to such a standard as He. He taught the highest code of morality. Also, your interpretation of the Bible being a book of death and killing shows yet again your lack of understanding. No insult my friend but honestly try to get some background on what we are discussing here.

Sinfix: First off, how long ago was it that you attempted to find God? I also wouldn't know what to call you other than rebellious. You say if God came to you and told you Christ was the way you would still refuse. Not sure why you are even curious or say you would be interested in the truth. Like I said before, it takes a spiritual awareness. Honestly if you ever find God it would be a great day. You seem intelligent and headstrong, the qualities of one that would make a strong Christian. You could do a lot for the kingdom of God. People like this are what's needed to bring back the honest and correct face to Christianity.

Once again, God never condoned rape. The we're punishments for it, more in detail than the one reference you gave. Just as there are punishments for rape today, God also set consequences for it then. As far as slavery goes. The slaves then were treated well and there were punishments too for mistreatment and abuse. Slavery to Gods people was more of a contract between a free man and indentured servant. After 7 years that man was set free no questions asked.

Sinfix: by the way, Christians are to serve in love not through fear or obligation. It is not a burden but rather an honor. Much like a man who serves his family to provide food, shelter, love, guidance, and so on...To me, serving God was my life's greatest joy.

Just found this online. This is what a spiritual life and one of faith is. This is why so many choose to believe through the jokes, ridicule, and mockery.

"A while back i was Agnostic, but then i started beinging in God and Jesus. My faith wasnt strong what so ever. About five months ago i was compleatly saved by God, i was forgiven and i had never felt a love so strong. I was happy and thankful for every single breath. I was addicted to the was his love made me feel. For the past few months ive sorta lost faith, i mean i know he's real still but i often have doubts and i dont feel happy and loved anymore. I dont know what i did wrong but i dont feel okay with him "gone". Ive got down on my knees and preyed aand begged him to let me feel the love. I'd do anything to feel his compleate love again and be forgiven ((eventhough i dont deserve forgivness))
Does anyone know any prayrs i can say thatll work? Or anything that will help me feel loved and help me give my life to him again??? please take this seriously, its drivin me crazy" anonymous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

Once again, God never condoned rape. The we're punishments for it, more in detail than the one reference you gave. Just as there are punishments for rape today, God also set consequences for it then. As far as slavery goes. The slaves then were treated well and there were punishments too for mistreatment and abuse. Slavery to Gods people was more of a contract between a free man and indentured servant. After 7 years that man was set free no questions asked.

---

Once again, you've shown your lack of understanding of the bible. Have you really even read it?....

The ENTIRE BIBLE is supposedly the divine word of God correct? Lets open our textbooks...

Judges 21
¹⁰ So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. ¹¹ “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin. ” ¹² They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.

After the murdering, it gets better. Watch....


²⁰ So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, “Go and hide in the vineyards ²¹ and watch. When the young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you seize one of them to be your wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin. ²² When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Do us the favor of helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war. You will not be guilty of breaking your oath because you did not give your daughters to them.’”
²³ So that is what the Benjamites did. While the young women were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.


Rape AND murder, all in one chapter! This book has it all. You can claim I'm taking it out of context all you want, but I'm reading this as any sane person reads a book that understands that it was gods words transcribed through man. Lets continue.

¹⁰ “As you approach a town to attack it, you must first offer its people terms for peace. ¹¹ If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. ¹² But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. ¹³ When the Lord your God hands the town over to you, use your swords to kill every man in the town. ¹⁴ But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the plunder from your enemies that the Lord your God has given you.



So there must be some punishment for rape right?

²⁸ “If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found,
²⁹ then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Couple hundred bucks and marriage for eternity. Sounds a bit better than 25yrs in prison doesnt it? LOL. If she is married, and she gets raped in a town, They both die.

First off, are you just trying to point that slavery, death, and rape are in the Bible or that they were condoned by God? I hope it's not the latter, because you already demonstrated your extent of knowledge of scripture when you answered a simple question wrong and didn't attempt an easier one. Yes its in the Bible, but not condoned or approved by God. Yes Gid commanded the Israelites to kill their enemies in war. They were societies filled with sin and corrupt. The punishment for sin was always death. Yes they had slaves either through conquest or voluntary. Those slaves were treated huimanly and just. After 7 years they were freed no questions asked. That was the law of the land. Yes there was rape and those who committed it were punished according to their laws. Much how we have consequences for lawlessness today. It was never condoned or approved otherwise there would be no punishment or offense. Are you insinuating that you are the ultimate judge in high morality and righteousness? That you would know how to punish crimes accordingly? I think not. Their code of justice was their own to establish. Funny you ridicule them, yet we in modern times kill unborn children simply because we don't want them. Yes, our society is deffinately held at higher standards.

Once again you show a lack of knowledge of history of the Israelites and even less about scripture, especially since you answered a simple question wrong and ignored an even easier one. If you cannot even show knowledge of simple basic scriptures then your argument is irrelevant.

I will give you one more chance to redeem yourself. If you cannot answer this simple question, then I will ignore you from here on out due to your hateful, misguided, ignorant comments. Here we go, tell me, according to scripture how does a believer obtain salvation in the New Testament. It's in the book about 9 or 10 times. Let's see how good you can google search.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

Makes me laugh, then troubled because you don't even know what belief you deny and mock. The best strategy in warfare is to know thy enemy. Obviously this isn't war but rather a debate. Same thing still applies, know thy opposition. Your side lacks knowledge of what you refute, plain and simple

---

Certainly you don't study every religion yet you have no problem denying all of them except for your own. And by the way, I don't mock Christianity and I'm sorry you feel that atheists and agnostics are your enemy/opposition.

What you you know about what I have studied. I have not gone in depth into every religion but rather studied the ones that focused on one God and those that had historical evidence. I can give my reasons for choosing the faith I did and not another of you choose to hear. You are not my enemy but due to opposing views you are my opposition. That doesn't mean there can't be mutual respect though.

By the way, why did they do away with the religion section?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

quickdodge: I mean no insult to you. If i came off that way then I apologize. What I was getting at was this, you really don't know much on the subject of the Bible or the scriptures. How then can you refute something you lack knowledge of?

---

Apology accepted, sir. I would just prefer to be (I guess you could say) recognized as unknowing rather than unintelligent in the religious realm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

Why? If this document is corroborated by history and eye witness account then whats the problem? Not every story or every person in the Bible can be corroborated by history, I admit that, but is that to say that every single document from every period of history has been discovered? I think not. The reason the Bible isn't accepted is simply due to the claims that it makes.

---

These are "eye-witness" accounts you refer to also characters in the Bible so that really doesn't say much. There's no family passed down stories of yore here. There's no proof that one man parted an entire sea. There's no proof that men built an ark to hold a pair of every each animal to escape a massive flood. There are so many inconsistencies with these historical corroborations.

Like I said, no insult was intended. But the fact remains, you do not have an extensive knowledge of the Bible or what the scriptures say. If I am wrong then please demonstrate the extent of your knowledge on this subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

If I gave you historical evidence or eyewitness accounts of events/people of the Bible....would that be enough for you?

---

To be hones, no. Because you can't show me evidence of anything the Bible says. Unless you can bring me this eye-witness and he/she can tell me some things.

Come on QD....you know what I meant by this. I know your side of it....do you know mine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

I personally would not be offended if you said the same of me and early model civics....the fact is that you probably know more about them than i do.

---

I just would choose my words differently to lessen my chances of coming off offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

If you can not answer this simple question then you show a lack of understanding and comprehension of scripture...therefore you really have no argument to debate with me on this subject.

---

I actually can have a debate with you...despite my lack of knowledge with scripture. Of course, if you're trying to do the "Christian" thing and go almighty on me by telling me I'm not worthy of your words because I'm not on your level, then may God welcome you in His open arms because you're doing Him proud.

Dumbass. See? I can come off with insults as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

Once again, I'm not trying to insult you; but when someone wishes to debate this subject with me and make me out to be some kind of fool or moron for my beliefs and they demonstrate ignorance of the subject I will by all means make them out to be as foolish as their statements.

---

I never tried to make you look like a fool. But with your insistence in casting snide insults my way, you're making my job of actually making you look the fool pretty easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jdmdc2kid

calm on you guys this is a car import site

---

It's not an auto forum only. We're allowed to have discussions on other topics as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

By the way, why did they do away with the religion section?

---

It was combined with all this. I don't know why, but it was. I asked about it a month ago. Later, QD.

[QUOTEApology accepted, sir. I would just prefer to be (I guess you could say) recognized as unknowing rather than unintelligent in the religious realm. ][/QUOTE]

This is what I was trying to say the whole time, not strictly of you but of those that are debating me on this. Once again, no insult intended.

[QUOTEThese are "eye-witness" accounts you refer to also characters in the Bible so that really doesn't say much. There's no family passed down stories of yore here. There's no proof that one man parted an entire sea. There's no proof that men built an ark to hold a pair of every each animal to escape a massive flood. There are so many inconsistencies with these historical corroborations.][/QUOTE]

There are also eye witness accounts from others during this time, Babylonians, Egyptians, ect....that could be used to corroborate the events and characters. True there is no proof of the ark and parting of the red sea, Science cannot be used to test these, so then we look to historical accounts. One can not simply say that these events never took place. There is eye witness account to them happening to my knowledge there are none that say it didn't take place. Also there is suggested scientific evidence and unexplainable phenomena that show a global flood of extreme proportions. As far as inconsistencies with historical corroborations, it is understandable that not every source is going to give the exact same interpretation of what took place, rather they do so based on what they witnessed and how they perceived it. The fact that there is historical evidence shows that something indeed did take place rather than not.

[QUOTETo be hones, no. Because you can't show me evidence of anything the Bible says. Unless you can bring me this eye-witness and he/she can tell me some things.
][/QUOTE]

Really? One can not interpret history this way. That would be like you wouldn't accept the history of early america, the roman empire, or stories of the revolutionary war unless we some how magically brought the eye witnesses back to life. The simple truth is this, you just don't accept the evidences or stories while I do. Also, Jericho has been found with the walls indeed collapsed outwards as the Bible says, as well as Mt. Sinai that for some peculiar reason has a singed mountain peak...I can post a link to some videos that go really in depth to historical and archeological evidence but its kind of long....like 2 hour documentary long.

[QUOTEI actually can have a debate with you...despite my lack of knowledge with scripture. Of course, if you're trying to do the "Christian" thing and go almighty on me by telling me I'm not worthy of your words because I'm not on your level, then may God welcome you in His open arms because you're doing Him proud.
][/QUOTE]

Yes you can have a debate with me. But for you or the others in here to try and use scripture out of context to prove a point is irrelevant to the debate. You admitted to having a lack of knowledge of scripture and in turn to try to use it to prove a point makes your argument futile. You personally have not done so yet, but there are others on here who have and will say, " look your Bible says that murder is ok and here is the proof" (uses * scripture to make point) but in all actuality they failed to read the entire passage and took it out of context or they had no knowledge of historical Israel. You as an intelligent person would not make the same mistake I hope. Also, I will readily admit that I am by no means justified to go "almighty" on anyone. I have faith, I believe in God, but i have not been living according to His ways. I say that to say that I don't believe myself to be better or more righteous than any man. To have faith but live like you don't is no better than having no faith at all.

[QUOTEI never tried to make you look like a fool. But with your insistence in casting snide insults my way, you're making my job of actually making you look the fool pretty easy][/QUOTE]

This was actually not directed at you. This was more for Blankcd and the other guys who post insulting immature pictures and make snide comments about the faith. You are usually level headed.

Now let the intelligent mature debate between us commence. I will start with a simple question. How extensive is your knowledge of scripture or the Christian faith? How extensive is your knowledge of the History of the people of Israel?

I think anyone still posting in this thread is an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

Sinfix: by the way, Christians are to serve in love not through fear or obligation. It is not a burden but rather an honor. Much like a man who serves his family to provide food, shelter, love, guidance, and so on...To me, serving God was my life's greatest joy.

---

Religion is interesting to me. I am interested in it without wanting to be a part of it. The God that the bible describes is not one that i would worship. Fear and obligation are two of the first things that come to mind when i think about christianity. It's simply not for me. I admire a lot of christians and recognize that being christian has a lot to do with what makes that person worthy of admiration. I also believe that people are capable of doing good things without belief or religion.

back to the debate, you say that God didnt condone rape, but according to the scripture, god gave them the power to conquer their enemies knowing that the end result would be the victors taking slaves and raping women. How many scriptures does the bible speak of women like objects?

2 Samuel 12:11-14 - Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”

Are women things to be given away? do they not have free will like everyone else?

Like i said..... my issue with the bible is that i have 2 options. I either do not believe in it, or i believe in and chose not to follow it. A god that would allow or empower soldiers to take a city in his name knowing that they were going to enslave and rape women is not a god that i would want to serve. A god that gives someone's wife to someone else to punish them is not a god i would want to serve.

What explanation can you offer for the lack of respect given to women in the bible?

Exodus 21:7-11 - If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

I have no doubt that many things in the bible are historically accurate and there is evidence to support them. However, that doesn't mean everything else in the bible is true. Furthermore, eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable (incorrect witness accounts are the number one reason for false crime convictions). That is not to say they should not be considered but rather they should be considered with a does of skepticism. To an atheist, there is just no objective way to verify many of Christianity's central claims and thus, they can not be assumed true.

Sinfix: first let me say that you're probably the first person I've met who doesn't believe yet still has a high respect for Christianity. A rare thing and I respect you for that. From the outside it seems like fear and obligation, but when you know God it's reverence and appreciation. I see you are really trying to make a point here, but without proper knowledge of scripture and the history of the people your point is misleading. For example your reference to 2 Samuel 12:11-14....god is not punishing Israel. He is punishing king David ( same David in the story of David and Goliath). God placed David as king of Israel. David saw Bathseba and lusted after her, he sent her husband to be killed, and then took her as his wife. David commuted murder and adultery, which were punishable by death. The insult and sin was worse as David was directly appointed by God. David repented and instead of God punishing him with death he punished him by the scripture you posted. Bloodshed and war would occur for the rest of David's life, he would face adversity from his own family, and his wives would be taken by another just as he did.

Your reference to Exodus 21:7-11. In ancient times, a family might be reduced to such a desperate state that they would sell a daughter into bondage. If she was not acceptable to her new master, he would let her be redeemed, that is, her freedom might be purchased by another. If she was purchased as a bride, she was to be treated as one would treat a daughter. If the man took another wife later, her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights would continue. This daughter was not sold by her family against her will. She did so willingly to help her family as she would be fulfilling her duty to them.

Yes God would grant his people victory over their enemies. Yes the took slaves although I already pointed out what life was like for them. Yes rape occurred, but it was punished as I had pointed out. Your point here would be like me saying why did God allow you Sinfix to be born knowing you would sin and someday not only reject Him but also question his existence. The truth is, God does not involve Himself in mans choices. We are given free will to make our own decisions and live how we want. He gives us guidance and then rewards and consequences according to our choices. He does not force any man to be righteouss or evil, that alone is up to us.

By villain: what would be enough for you to believe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

Yes God would grant his people victory over their enemies. Yes the took slaves although I already pointed out what life was like for them. Yes rape occurred, but it was punished as I had pointed out.

---

Where did you point out the punishment for slavery again?

I didn't point out any punishment for slavery. Israeli slaves were enemy troops whom were captured or indentured servants. They were to be treated exceptionally well and were set free every seven years. If a master abused his slave, he was punished for it. You almost seem to think Israeli slave trade was the same as that of the blacks. Get it right, Israelis took care of their slaves and set them free on the 7th year. They were punished if they abused them. Whites treated black slaves like animals and creatures without souls. They could murder a slave simply for insubordination. Your nit picking at how the Bible describes slave ownership yet are proud of your own American heritage? I say your own because my family did not immigrate here until 1980s...we were never slave owners.

I meant to say rape, where did you point out the punishment for rape

I believe that was already pointed out by Sinfix. But if it wasn't, the punishment for rape was that the man would pay a sum for the girl ( as she was no longer able to be married off) and this payment was a dowry of sorts. Also the man was by law required to marry her and could not divorce her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

Sinfix: first let me say that you're probably the first person I've met who doesn't believe yet still has a high respect for Christianity. A rare thing and I respect you for that. From the outside it seems like fear and obligation, but when you know God it's reverence and appreciation. I see you are really trying to make a point here, but without proper knowledge of scripture and the history of the people your point is misleading. For example your reference to 2 Samuel 12:11-14....god is not punishing Israel. He is punishing king David ( same David in the story of David and Goliath). God placed David as king of Israel. David saw Bathseba and lusted after her, he sent her husband to be killed, and then took her as his wife. David commuted murder and adultery, which were punishable by death. The insult and sin was worse as David was directly appointed by God. David repented and instead of God punishing him with death he punished him by the scripture you posted. Bloodshed and war would occur for the rest of David's life, he would face adversity from his own family, and his wives would be taken by another just as he did.

Your reference to Exodus 21:7-11. In ancient times, a family might be reduced to such a desperate state that they would sell a daughter into bondage. If she was not acceptable to her new master, he would let her be redeemed, that is, her freedom might be purchased by another. If she was purchased as a bride, she was to be treated as one would treat a daughter. If the man took another wife later, her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights would continue. This daughter was not sold by her family against her will. She did so willingly to help her family as she would be fulfilling her duty to them.

Yes God would grant his people victory over their enemies. Yes the took slaves although I already pointed out what life was like for them. Yes rape occurred, but it was punished as I had pointed out. Your point here would be like me saying why did God allow you Sinfix to be born knowing you would sin and someday not only reject Him but also question his existence. The truth is, God does not involve Himself in mans choices. We are given free will to make our own decisions and live how we want. He gives us guidance and then rewards and consequences according to our choices. He does not force any man to be righteouss or evil, that alone is up to us.

---

I do have great respect for Christians... if not Christianity. The best way to describe my view of Christianity is that i treat it like a loaded gun. A loaded gun can be used to protect your family the same way it can be used to rob a liquor store. Christianity has produced a lot of great individuals who accomplished great things, but it has also spilled a lot of blood for no reason at all.

What did God accomplish by punishing David with war and bloodshed? how did he use women in David's life as pawns for such punishment? are people just God's play things to be moved around?

God gives an army the power to conquer a city, they do, then they take slaves and rape women. Now he's left with a new group of people that he just empowered that need to be punished? Seems like an endless cycle.

It being "normal" for a daughter to be sold into slavery doesnt make it right. Why doesnt the bible just address that as being wrong? why isnt slavery and rape condemned in the bible? The daughter accepting this fate doesnt make it right either. To say she would "want" to is a bold statement. You act as if women had any choice about anything in that time period. Of course she wanted to..... over death.

If God doesnt involve himself in man's choices, how did he decide the fate of so many? Why couldnt David's wives chose to be loyal to him?

You cant play both sides of the fence..... you cant claim that God has a part in all of the victories, then blame man for all of the wrong doing. God's might allowed a city to be conquered, but man's free will allowed women to be raped and slaves to be had, it doesnt work that way.

If i own a business that does house cleaning and i send a murderer to clean your house and he kills your family. That is my fault. If God empowered people to overthrow a city and take slaves and women, then he empowered them to take slaves and rape women. You cant accept the victory without accepting the casualty.


I respect some CHRISTIANS............ but i dont necessarily respect Christianity. When i see the impact someone like Tim Tebow has on the world, i dont care why he does it. I dont care why he helps children or built a hospital, but i recognize that him being a Christian is what led him to live the life he does and i respect *that*...... i give both credit and criticism for the good and bad of religion. Where we might be in disagreement is whether there is more good or bad. A lot of blood has been shed over religion....... Christians are so quick to say that the world would be chaos without religion, well.... the world is chaos with it. How many wars have been fought over religion????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

I didn't point out any punishment for slavery. Israeli slaves were enemy troops whom were captured or indentured servants. They were to be treated exceptionally well and were set free every seven years. If a master abused his slave, he was punished for it. You almost seem to think Israeli slave trade was the same as that of the blacks. Get it right, Israelis took care of their slaves and set them free on the 7th year. They were punished if they abused them. Whites treated black slaves like animals and creatures without souls. They could murder a slave simply for insubordination. Your nit picking at how the Bible describes slave ownership yet are proud of your own American heritage? I say your own because my family did not immigrate here until 1980s...we were never slave owners.

---

So slavery is ok, as long as its this biblical slavery? Would you condone this kind of slavery if it were practiced today? Recent research tells us that American slavery wasn't always as barbaric as the media has made it out to be, and that much literature written before the 60's had sort of a racist bias. Slaves were also clothed and fed and housed. Some were even freed, some bought themselves free (see Manumission and the Manumission Society). Which is not to say that slavery was ok. Your reference of abuse and punishment for insubordination are not mutually exclusive. One can punish for insubordination and not abuse. Not to say that abuse or killing were not happening. Killing wasn't exactly commonplace in american slavery as slave owners purchased slaves with their own money. Killing a slave was hardly a good investment. Slave states also had codes on how slaves should be treated. However, the deprivation of liberty of another human being (even in the name of god) is still wrong, be it in biblical context, or recent history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

I believe that was already pointed out by Sinfix. But if it wasn't, the punishment for rape was that the man would pay a sum for the girl ( as she was no longer able to be married off) and this payment was a dowry of sorts. Also the man was by law required to marry her and could not divorce her.

---

I just wanted to see you say it, since when I quote the exact same book, Deuteronomy, its out of context. Pretty lax punishment, even in those times. Wouldnt you agree? Or maybe we should relax the modern punishment? Cause you can go to jail for a long time. I guess wealthy people wouldnt be affected, pay a few hundred bucks and marry another woman. Shit, even for me, theres a few girls I'd marry if it only cost me a couple hundred bucks.

You said earlier that you supported North Carolinas Amendment one. What benefit do you believe it brings to society to have a state re-define marriage as solely a christian institution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

I respect some CHRISTIANS............ but i dont necessarily respect Christianity. When i see the impact someone like Tim Tebow has on the world, i dont care why he does it. I dont care why he helps children or built a hospital, but i recognize that him being a Christian is what led him to live the life he does and i respect *that*...... i give both credit and criticism for the good and bad of religion. Where we might be in disagreement is whether there is more good or bad. A lot of blood has been shed over religion....... Christians are so quick to say that the world would be chaos without religion, well.... the world is chaos with it. How many wars have been fought over religion????

---

I dont have much respect for Christianity, especially in the political realm. It really needs to stop being used to shape policy to deprive others of human liberty. I have respect for good humanity. If you do bad things, fuck you. If you do good things, great. Why discredit yourself and do it in the name of god and say you wouldn't have done it had you not read this book? Who is the better person: The atheist who bought 1000 hungry kids dinner, or the believer who bought 1000 kids dinner because "someone" told him to?

I'm going to try and make this simple. The Israelites had two types of slaves. Men whom they conquered and farces to work the land. They were fed, clothed, sheltered, respected, and cared for like one would family. They had punishments for if slaves were mistreated or abused. The second kind was one that willingly sold themselves into slavery. In all honestly "slave" is not the proper term to be used but rather indentured servant. They came to a mutual understanding that the "slave" would be provided food, clothing, shelter, and goods in return for their labor. I know you are not trying to praise american slavery and demonize Biblical, as far as I have ever read their was nothing positive about American slavery. I do not see anything wrong with slavery in the Bible as it was nothing like the "slavery" that we in modern times envision. And men still do it today. When you go into employment for a man, you agree to labor or provide services for a mutually agreed upon payment of those labors/services. When one nation goes in and conquers another, the conquered are now servants to the conquerors. They follow the rules of their new "master" and pay tax to their ruling nation and what not.

As far as rape goes, it was a sin/crime and there was punishment for it. A man could not simply just take another wife. He would be commuting adultery and sin and as such, no woman or family would be willing to arrange marriage with said man. They would not willingly commit adultery. Marriage to them had much more meaning and was forever. Also, the punishment for rape in modern times is lax. One could get off in a few months or years with good behavior.

I have shown that your interpretation of these scriptures is wrong, I have showed that it was not condoned, and you have demonstrated that you do not hold even basic knowledge of scripture or the Israeli people. With that said, I have put this argument of yours to rest. You are now simply beating a dead horse. Find some other topic to debate as I have defeated this one. You may not agree but you are not the standard of high morality or righteouss judgement. I pointed what the scriptures say, what they mean, and how they were applied.

As far as my beliefs on marriage, it is off topic and a political debate your trying to get into. This original topic has nothing to do with it. We are talking about scripture not politics. I will simply say that I disagree with same sex marriage, no religion condones it, and it in fact is supportive of an unnatural relationship. If you wish to discuss this, start another thread. Otherwise find a different point to discuss/debate on the current subject. Stay on course sir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

I'm going to try and make this simple. The Israelites had two types of slaves. Men whom they conquered and farces to work the land. They were fed, clothed, sheltered, respected, and cared for like one would family. They had punishments for if slaves were mistreated or abused. The second kind was one that willingly sold themselves into slavery. In all honestly "slave" is not the proper term to be used but rather indentured servant. They came to a mutual understanding that the "slave" would be provided food, clothing, shelter, and goods in return for their labor. I know you are not trying to praise american slavery and demonize Biblical, as far as I have ever read their was nothing positive about American slavery. I do not see anything wrong with slavery in the Bible as it was nothing like the "slavery" that we in modern times envision. And men still do it today. When you go into employment for a man, you agree to labor or provide services for a mutually agreed upon payment of those labors/services. When one nation goes in and conquers another, the conquered are now servants to the conquerors. They follow the rules of their new "master" and pay tax to their ruling nation and what not.

As far as rape goes, it was a sin/crime and there was punishment for it. A man could not simply just take another wife. He would be commuting adultery and sin and as such, no woman or family would be willing to arrange marriage with said man. They would not willingly commit adultery. Marriage to them had much more meaning and was forever. Also, the punishment for rape in modern times is lax. One could get off in a few months or years with good behavior.

I have shown that your interpretation of these scriptures is wrong, I have showed that it was not condoned, and you have demonstrated that you do not hold even basic knowledge of scripture or the Israeli people. With that said, I have put this argument of yours to rest. You are now simply beating a dead horse. Find some other topic to debate as I have defeated this one. You may not agree but you are not the standard of high morality or righteouss judgement. I pointed what the scriptures say, what they mean, and how they were applied.

As far as my beliefs on marriage, it is off topic and a political debate your trying to get into. This original topic has nothing to do with it. We are talking about scripture not politics. I will simply say that I disagree with same sex marriage, no religion condones it, and it in fact is supportive of an unnatural relationship. If you wish to discuss this, start another thread. Otherwise find a different point to discuss/debate on the current subject. Stay on course sir.

---

So i guess the crusades was the same as christians holding a mobile job fair and going around giving people the option of accepting the terms of christianity?

i feel the base of your argument is sugarcoating the history. your basically saying "the slavery wasnt that bad".

Not all american slaves were whip beaten cotton pickers forced to plow fields either, im sure some of them were content..... not happy with their arrangement. The ones who were happy with being a slave was because they didnt know any better. You can enslave someone mentally, you dont always need shackles and chains. Go around today and ask any black people who are having a hard time paying for their homes if they would like to go be a slave on a plantation and be fed and sheltered..... i would say come back and tell me what they say, but you probably wouldnt make it back alive. Slavery is slavery. Selling your daughter is both slavery and rape, whether she agreed to it or not.


I have a problem you might can help me with......

I have a 15 year old daughter. I have always told her that if she has sex before she is married that she will no longer be welcome under my roof and that i will ship her off to boarding school until shes 18 and never speak to her again. She is well aware of this strict punishment that i predetermined. A week ago i find out that my 15 year old daughter is pregnant, but she swears on her life that she has never had sex. My neighbor tells me that it must be a miracle, i think she's just lying to me. What do you think?

also, you keep pointing out that im not a biblical scholar..... no and dont claim to be. Not everything i ask is meant to be challenging your story. Some of questions are just questions.....

When you say God used David's wives to punish him.... How? How did God have control over David's wives and what they did. God had the power to make David's wives not be loyal to him but he didnt have the power to stop "his" soldiers from raping women?

Can something God says be wrong? if so... can everything God says be wrong.... just going by what youre saying, it seems that God takes a lot of gambles. He says that he is going to punish David by giving his wives to another, what if David's wives chose to be loyal to him for the rest of his life? then what? Did they have that choice and decide to do what God wanted or did they have no choice at all?

A lot of things just simply dont make sense. Why did they feel the need to mention "dont steal your neighbors donkey" in the 10 commandments, but not "hey, lets stop enslaving defeated soldiers of war and raping their wives and daughters"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

I'm going to try and make this simple

---

Good, cause I don't think you even understand what you're saying. Lol.

Quote:

---

The Israelites had two types of slaves. Men whom they conquered and forced to work the land. They were fed, clothed, sheltered, respected, and cared for like one would family. They had punishments for if slaves were mistreated or abused.

---

Citation for this?

Quote:

---

In all honestly "slave" is not the proper term to be used but rather indentured servant.

---

So the bible says "slave", but means "paid employees"? Why the inconsistency? Something change in translation/revision?

Quote:

---

As far as rape goes, it was a sin/crime and there was punishment for it.

---

Didnt see that in the commandments, must have missed it.

Quote:

---

A man could not simply just take another wife. He would be commuting adultery and sin and as such, no woman or family would be willing to arrange marriage with said man. They would not willingly commit adultery.

---

Rape and adultery, two different things.

Quote:

---

I have shown that your interpretation of these scriptures is wrong, I have showed that it was not condoned, and you have demonstrated that you do not hold even basic knowledge of scripture or the Israeli people. With that said, I have put this argument of yours to rest. You are now simply beating a dead horse. Find some other topic to debate as I have defeated this one

---

Hardly. Lol. You've just shown that you can interpret the bible different than me.

Quote:

---

You may not agree but you are not the standard of high morality or righteouss judgement. I pointed what the scriptures say, what they mean, and how they were applied.

---

So, for a book open to interpretation, the literal way I interpret it is wrong, and the way YOU interpret it is correct, am I right, or am I off base with this?

And yes, I and the rest of my fellow humans are the ultimate authority for morality.

Quote:

---

I will simply say that I disagree with same sex marriage, no religion condones it,

---

I could name quite a few religions and Christian churches that condone it. And science has shown that homosexual behavior occurs in nature, as well as humans. So it is in fact a natural behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geoff

historical evidence

---

That's a pandora's box you might not want to open.

But side note, I respect Geoff for being strong in what he believes, whether I agree with it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

And science has shown that homosexual behavior occurs in nature, as well as humans. So it is in fact a natural behavior.

---

So does cannibalism... Just sayin'

Being "natural" is irrelevant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

So does cannibalism... Just sayin'

---

True, but wouldnt you say cannibalism falls under the "depriving someone else of life/liberty" category, or the "infringing on someone else's rights/freedoms" category? If two consenting humans have a relationship, do you believe that infringes on someone else's rights/freedoms? If so, which ones?

there are a lot of posts for me to respond to. i will get to them as soon as i can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

True, but wouldnt you say cannibalism falls under the "depriving someone else of life/liberty" category, or the "infringing on someone else's rights/freedoms" category? If two consenting humans have a relationship, do you believe that infringes on someone else's rights/freedoms? If so, which ones?

---

I don't care about judging others like that or telling others what to do. I'm stating that just because something exists in nature doesn't mean anything. Even in nature you can see self-destructive behaviors. I guess this can go much deeper than the scope of this convo and at the end of the day it'll turn back into apples and oranges. It'll probably come down to what you consider to be the meaning of life or the importance of biological progeny.

To answer your question, I don't think it infringes on anyone else. I also don't think anyone can tell someone who to pair with, but I think it's a common notion that organized religions are (allegedly) "life frameworks for success". Your genes likely won't be carried on should you voluntarily stray from this "framework", which allegedly seeks to guide you to success (depending on religion, either spiritually or worldly). Success is subjective, but imagine a colony of only homosexuals existed on an island, somehow. How long would their kind survive? Surely genes wont flow as well as in the general population. Is this good/bad? Should whatever happens after the scope of your life matter to you? Lol probably the fundamental argument. :dunno: