"Maybe its Bible study time ~ an eternal perspective we might see this more fully."

That's all well and good for them, but it doesn't explain why I have never received a command from god to choose for myself. I have no problem accepting responsibility for my own actions. I draw the line at accepting responsibility for the actions of others. Whether 4.5 billion years ago or a mere 5000, I was never given the choice.

"The fact that we are born in sin and a slave to it dictates much of our desires. We enjoy this deception because it allows us the mirage of freedom that we want but don’t really have."

See, this is a demonstration of your ignorance of evolution and biology. No offense intended. The way it works, to keep it simple, is that our freedom is as restricted as your own, it's only the source that changes. I can't choose not to be angered at someone who intentionally hurts me, it's a natural biological response. So the assertion that I ignore god to be free is false.

@mellestad

The reason that what humans establish as 'moral' has not stayed consistent is not because it doesn't exist objectively. That would be like saying the reason science has not stayed consistent over the centuries is because there are no objective or scientific facts in the world...

The reason that it has not been the same is because with the exception of the Israelites, the rule-makers of society have always been men, and men are sinful...

Rape, murder, torture, abortion etc has always been wrong despite what society claims... IE: Nazi Germany's standard of morality during the Holocaust.

You are confusing my confidence and resolve with arrogance, it has nothing to do with me at all or pride. Think about it from your own perspective. I'm just a foolish man who believes in fairy tales... If you are right then all I am doing is explaining the social implications of a fairy tale. How is that arrogance? It might seem foolish, sure... but not arrogant. Now let's examine your comment: every God believer on Earth has a mental disorder and you are of a superior selection of super-human with a superior ability who rejoices in getting behind a keyboard and making fun of handicapped people who believe in fairy tales... I think it might be you who are arrogant, at least when we define it properly.

@Vastet

“a system of law which the society agrees with”

IE: Hitler’s Nazi Germany… Stalin’s Russia, et al. Legal consensus clearly rebels against morality.

“I'm not in favour of punishment for crimes…”

I have a feeling that you have intuitively wanted to or have taken vengeance before, but I digress. So ignore the serial-rapist, reward the tax payer? Ted Bundy is an interesting case of a fairly normal man on the outside… he played the game quite well, even holding office. But apparently he had a mental disorder because he was capable of killing? Many men get angry and kill someone in the moment, it’s not linked to psychology, it’s linked to sin.

“I fight christians, and other theists (but that's a different topic), because they try to force their beliefs on others, with dispicable tactics.”

Where does the Bible teach us to force people into believing? When have I attempted to force you into believing? What morally reprehensible tactic have I used? (Overlooking the irony of yet another appeal to objective moral standards… )

As for Africa… if not for the love of Jesus shown to us we wouldn’t go to begin with… from your worldview I have no reason to leave my group of successful hunter-gatherers and seek the benefit of poor African children starving who have aids which will harm the species… That is merely the nature selecting the fittest… I have too many movies that I need to watch. Your God-given sense of compassion is evident, yet you deny its power… Sad.

"I can't choose not to be angered at someone who intentionally hurts me, it's a natural biological response."

I can... It's actually not that hard when 'self' is in second place to God.

"All it would take for me to believe in god, thereby giving me the opportunity to choose whether to follow him or reject him, would be proof of his existence."

Creation, morality, logic.

"Hambydammit and others have written some good posts on the scientific dilemma of free will..."

You may need to clarify. The will of man is not a 'free will'

"Ted Bundy is an interesting case of a fairly normal man on the outside… he played the game quite well, even holding office. But apparently he had a mental disorder because he was capable of killing? Many men get angry and kill someone in the moment, it’s not linked to psychology, it’s linked to sin."

Crimes of passion are very different from premeditated murder. That's why the law differenciates between them.
Anyone is capable of killing. That does not mean everyone will. If everyone who didn't have your jesus were necessarily killers, then I'd be a killer. Many atheists here would be. And don't try to suggest fear of punishment stops me. If I were to decide someone needed to die, I'd be quite capable of covering it up.

"Where does the Bible teach us to force people into believing? When have I attempted to force you into believing? What morally reprehensible tactic have I used? (Overlooking the irony of yet another appeal to objective moral standards… )"

If instead christians spread their faith by allowing people to join of their own volition instead of telling them to join or starve, some actions in Africa wouldn't look so bad. If they said sex is bad, but if you're going to have it then use a condom, then other actions wouldn't look so bad. I might still have a problem with the suggestion sex is bad, but at least christians would be helping them instead of making things worse.

Regarding the rest, what about jews and atheists and moslems and pagans who give to charity and volunteer their time? They don't have your moral imperitve from god.

"I can... It's actually not that hard when 'self' is in second place to God."

Perhaps you feel sad then. Different people can experience different emotions under the same experiences. The point is that you don't consciously choose your emotions.

"Creation, morality, logic."

Creation certainly didn't happen the way you believe. Even if I somehow began to believe in a god, I wouldn't believe Earth was 5000 years old.

Creation by God, especially as described in Genesis, is logically inconsistent with modern knowledge.

Christianity encapsulates the pre-existing morality of a particular set of tribes living a few thousand years ago, and is mostly way inappropriate and inferior to that of the most enlightened modern societies.

Oh My God, I think you are serious....

You really are wedded to that nonsense, aren't you?

The whole f**king observable Universe is inconsistent with Genesis, you ignorant fool!!

Having the Bible as your sole ultimate authority means you have no actual foundation for any knowledge or morals - you are caught up in the worst form of self-justifying circular logic.

"Killing someone doesn't make a killer."

Oh yes it does:
Killer:
-someone who causes the death of a person or animal cause of death:
-the causal agent resulting in death; "heart disease is the biggest killer in the United States"

The rest of that segment makes no sense to me.

"I doubt that this would ever be the only difference, but for the sake of argument I would be in favor of the science books conforming to the literal Biblical accounts..."

Then you'd be forcing your religion on everyone who attended school, myself included at one point.

"I think we should seek to explain the normative condiitions of the universe but also acknowledge that God is sovereign over His creation and can interject at any point to cause a miracle. I think miracles have significant purposes and that is why they are rare, but we should not teach materialism, naturalism, or teach our kids to be evolutionists because it flies in the face of axiomatic Biblical truth."

The bible flies in the face of axiomatic universal law.

“Careful here or you will have to defend Paul the deceiver's orders to obey your master. He didn't suggest the slaves escape and gain freedom. You will also have to defend all the OT's advocacy of slave ownership as well.”

-- O rly?

“Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.)” – 1 Cor 7:21

And regarding the OT advocacy of slavery… it was more of a social service to people who couldn’t feed themselves. They were made to be productive in return for the food that helped them live. They also had the Jubilee in place to enforce regulation so that no one could be taken advantage of… Defended? You will probably understand better if you are in America and they begin to socialize health care. You will wish that we forced people to work oppose to the lavish economically devastating handouts we give…

For some reason your comment brought to memory a kid jumping headlong into a running ceiling fan… only kidding.

“There are logical reasons why humans cooperate that have nothing to do with mythical gods.”

Amen. It’s due to the one true God, the triune God of the Christian scriptures.

“Except I don't recall where Jesus told his followers to only give help to others with a sermon. You have a citation for this that indicates you should only help your fellow man if they listen to the Gospel?”

You set up a straw man, took of his head, placed the remains back on the stake and went at him with a bat. I didn’t say or claim any of that.

My church feeds people on Sunday afternoons every week. We only do it because we have the opportunity to share the message of the Cross every week. You would be surprised at how thankful people are that we told them about Jesus before they eat. If we feed them without telling them why we care to do it, we waste our time.

“Unbelievable that you consider myths and legends documented by less than knowledgeable people to be more reliable than scientific documentation and repeated observations.”

And it’s unbelievable that you keep asserting this falsity without a single iota of evidence to back it up, I wonder why? Get me some verifiable sources that pre-date Christianity… Go for it.

@BobSpence1

“Having the Bible as your sole ultimate authority means you have no actual foundation for any knowledge or morals - you are caught up in the worst form of self-justifying circular logic.”

Not true. I have an inherently consistent and explanatory worldview, you don’t. You can argue that my foundation is this or that, but you can’t say that I don’t have one or that I’m not justified in my beliefs. Intellectually honest atheists typically grant that to Christians by the way. You can argue against our premise, but you can’t prevent us from having it, and it follows that from our premise the entire world-view is cogent.

@Vastet

“There is no slavery in the US today.”

Just hope that Canada never establishes a holiday called ‘Kill Vastet Day’

Sure, in a couple of hundred years it will be all good, but in the mean time you’re in trouble… but it’s all relative, who cares? Regardless of law, slavery was damn wrong. The men and women who were shackled, beaten, and abused mentally physically, and sexually were wronged regardless of what the law of the land stated.

“Then we lock him up away from society, or exile him.”

Double-standard McGee. So punishment is OK after all?

You are a killer even if you just foot the bill of some hitman, just a secondary cause. The point is that if you were not already a killer, you would not entertain such notions. When people take action to kill, they evidence that they were killers, not the other way around.

“Then you'd be forcing your religion on everyone who attended school, myself included at one point.”

Whatever is taught in school is forced on kids, one way or the other. If it’s evolution, it’s forced, if it’s creation, it’s forced. We have to respect our democracy at that point. We live (here at least) in a free democracy with a majority rule. If they outlaw Bibles, we gain influence or leave, and if you don’t like creation in schools, you can attempt to gain influence or leave… I wouldn’t go so far as to force children to learn something they didn’t want to learn, if it were my decision I would give them freedom to opt out of religious courses just as they can opt out of dissecting a cat.

“The bible flies in the face of axiomatic universal law.”

Which one(s) ? And why? And where did they come from? And are they material? And how are they universally applied to a creature who may have just evolved into a higher level of thinking right before you commented?

“The church has a lot of reason to do it. In the end they'll have donating members of the church. Almost all religions come down to power and money.”

We probably spent more per capita to get there then they will ever make in their lives, we sure are some money hungry villains… What do starving people have to give? People are supposed to give according to what they have, and if that is nothing, that is nothing

To all: Stop being a rebel and turn to Christ in genuine faith and repentance. He says that if you keep His commandments that He will reveal Himself to you... It's a sure fire way to falsify the Bible, go for it! Jesus said that if you do not believe that He is who He said you will die in your sin and face the eternal wrath of Almighty God.

You must repent, or you will surely perish.

Look for God, He is there.

Interestingly enough, some Christian theologies don't believe in souls.
Instead, they believe that God will resurrect them physically - i.e. the after life is their dead bodies being re-created.
Except the re-created bodies will now be perfect without the influence of sin.

@pauljohntheskeptic

Well you certainly want to justify your unbelief, it is sad. You chose a bad translation and you read into this what you wanted it to say, you did not seek to understand the true meaning of the text. Your method of interpretation may best be understood as a ‘Bible fail.’ Let’s go through it:

“7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.”

Ok, so if a man sells his daughter into slavery, she is not to go free after six years as the previous context was talking about. (You failed to quote the actual context by the way.) This is actually a good thing, because many (not all) slave women were taken as wives or concubines and if they were able to be let free after six years, this would actually open up the door for the mistreatment of women. If the woman was no longer a virgin and has bore children, then she was unfit for marriage in the eyes of most men. This is done to protect her.

“8 If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”

If she didn’t please her master, can’t have children, etc… (I think you have to read in a post-modern view of female oriented magazine articles to think this means that she didn’t know the ’20 ways to please your man.’ ) So to protect her, the law prohibited her being sold to a foreign land who may not have so many laws in place to keep her safe. Redeemed is regarding her father, He would get back his daughter. (We don’t know that he even really wanted to sell her, perhaps he could not take care of her and it was a good thing that her master took her, lest she starve.)

“9 And if he espouse her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.”

If given in marriage to his son, she becomes his legal daughter, which is not so bad as her master is now obligated by law to care for her on even stricter terms.

“10 If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish.”

If they have sex and the master takes another women, she cannot be short-changed on food, clothing, or sex if she still wants to have sex with her husband and bear children, a very noble concept in that day. (Another wife here implies that the master has chosen to marry her in this case, hence ‘another.’ )

“11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money.”

If he does not hold his end of the bargain, she is freed, simple enough. If I were a woman at that time, I probably wouldn’t want to go free, I would want to be taken care of in a heavily poverty stricken culture. We have a very high view of ‘self’ today. Perhaps we are coming close to the end of days… When you have the peace of knowing God, your circumstances seem to matter far less then if you only have 70 years of life and you hope to go out with a bang… All of this was done to protect the women…

“In other words, if you beat up your slave make sure he dies in a day or 2 lest you be punished. Death isn't mentioned here for the killer master.”

There is a line between having slaves for help and treating them well and treating them only as property… The point of this law as I understand it was like our death penalty today. It was in place to discourage the beating of slaves. You can’t ‘over do it’ if you don’t do it at all… I would probably err on the side of caution as a slave owner if there was a law like this on the books. Again this was for the good of the slaves.

“Deuteronomy 20:13-14 - JPS - 13 And when the LORD thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword;  14 but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

This seems to indicate they are taken against their will. Freedom isn't mentioned.”

They were taken against their will yes, but it was a direct command of God… God can use any method of judgment He wants, and despite our lack of understanding why He commanded this, it was not wrong. None of the people were innocent, and if God chooses to punish them for what they have done here and now and/or in eternal Hell, that is His prerogative.   

“You can start here to see where some of the Bible you hold so dear has origins in Canaanite (Ugaritic) mythology:”

Nothing new… This would only prove that the Baal cycle copied from the Jews if anything. The Bible clearly demonstrates that the God of the Israelites is the one true God; there is no possible way for it to have been borrowed.

Did I choose a translation that doesn't support your way of interpretation EX, sorry about that. However if you discuss this with the Jewish Theist FurryCatherder you'll see I didn't. It's the best one can do in English, have her explain what the Hebrew says.

Please support your statement that many slave women were taken as wives.

Please support your assumption that if they were set free this would open the door to mistreatment of women. It would seem that mistreatment was already evident from the fact they were either seized as war booty, or sold by their family to a man to be his sex toy. Explain how that is not mistreatment and your conjecture regarding possible mistreatment if they were free has any merit.

Please note that you are defending the ownership of one human by another and there is nothing you can say that makes it sound any better. If your God so cared for his chosen people he would have at least put some decency and values of freedom in their hearts along with the other tripe you claim he has inserted. Since his people did in fact sell even their own children it indicates that your God has an epic fail when it comes to even basic values and morals. If freedom and respect  of individuals is not considered to be one of the most important morals and or values then your God is evil incarnate. The owning of one human by another can not be defended.

At least hookers get paid, women who have been sex slaves and get the short end in this situation don't.

I really don't think the average life span at the time was more than 30 to 35 years.

Protect the women, yeah right. I suggest you read a little of Celtic and Sumerian history how women were treated in those cultures. They didn't have your God to inspire them with morality yet they were further advanced in equality.

See above, you can't defend anything regarding the owning of another as advocated in your Holy Book. It is evil incarnate and shows how your God did not put ethics and morality into anyone's heart.

Excuse noted. God can do whatever he chooses even if it indicates he is just as petty as the Greek gods, as we can't understand his ways. Slavery was wrong then and it's wrong now. You advocate evil in your acceptance of these events. Your god does not show anything resembling morality or ethics by advocating seizing people for slavery. Your dismissal of this indicates you'd accept anything supposedly from the god as justified regardless of the inhumanity.

Yes it is possible that your 'one true god' is nothing but a recopied legend or myth drawn from ancient ignorance.

"Just hope that Canada never establishes a holiday called ‘Kill Vastet Day’"

Why would I need to hope that? Do you know how many laws would have to be changed for such to even be possible? I'd have to do something unprecedentedly horrific to even worry about anything more than jail time. Like drop nukes on the 5 biggest cities in Canada, killing 5-8 million people (I'm not going to bother looking it up). Even then I'd be taken into custody and jailed unless I resisted arrest. I'd even be protected from the general population. Things have come a long way since christians were in charge. Look at islam and see where your religion would be today if it had not been leashed by secular government for a few hundred years.

"Double-standard McGee. So punishment is OK after all?"

Strawman McGoo. Locking someone away from society doesn't have to be punishment. It can simply be locking them away from society.

"Which one(s)? ~ you commented?"

Almost all of them. There was no adam and eve, no garden of eden. The moon reflects light, it is not a source. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not a few thousand. Snakes "lost" their legs the same way we "lost" our tails. We are not even the centre of our own solar system, let alone our galaxy or the universe. There was never a global flood. People don't rise from the dead.
The bible was compiled from stories written in ignorance. It is a work of fiction.

"We probably spent more per capita to get there then they will ever make in their lives, we sure are some money hungry villains…"

Not even remotely true.

"To all: Stop being a rebel and turn to Christ in genuine faith and repentance. "

Noone here is going to be impressed with your preaching. Many of us have tested your god thus, and he did not appear. It doesn't exist. Stop deluding yourself, and come into the light of reason.

Could you please find the quote from Jesus, while he was still alive and walking around in a human body, in which he said

a). He is a god.

b). Failure to believe he is a god results in punishment.

c). That punishment involves some kind of "Hell" concept.

Red letter bible notice -- only use the red letters in your red letter bible.  And I'll be checking your work, so pick y

And the great thing about Christianity -- you guys have THREE of them!

So, when Avraham Aveinu, (Abraham, our father) was a young man, his Uncle ran an idol making shop.  One day, Abraham, because he's such a strict monotheist, goes into the idol making shop and smashes up all the idols, except for the biggest one.  His Uncle comes home and asks what happened.  Abraham points to the biggest idol and say "He did it."

That's what's so fun about polytheism.  Getting to pick and choose who does what to whom out of the bunch.

I understand that is so for a wife, what about a woman who was sold to be a slave if the master does not espouse himself to her, marry in plain English. I see nothing here that covers that. So if she refuses to do her duties whatever they may be,  he can do whatever,  beat her, sell her to other Jewish people or whatever. Since she would not be married and is in effect property, it seemed clear to me that even killing a slave was not specifically a death penalty issue, only some sort of punishment. When death is the punishment it is very clearly specified in the laws in the Bible. Here it is not.

Indefinitely is probably pushing it as if no offspring are produced the man can demand and get a divorce can he not?

Again, I was not speaking of a slave that has been married to the master but rather one that has been sold not of her choice and for whatever reason won't marry the master, which may be really a concubine or a mistress in effect.

I understand that to be the case if she had assets, but if one was sold to be a slave it was likely done because her family had no money therefore neither would she. If she had no children by the master and never married him she would leave with nada not mucho dinero as you suggest.

It seems to me that 21:9 is in regards to her to be treated as family in effect a daughter if she is married to one of the master's sons, is that not what it says? If she is not married to anyone but is a purchased slave please explain how the rules apply regarding her uses and duties. If she was property and not a wife of anyone what then? Is she much different in that case then the man's ox?

The one that says 3=1 and 1=3?  Doesn't that violate an axiomatic universal law?

How, specifically, are the three related to the one then, if not equivalent?

Logically, from "The Son is the Father or the Spirit", there are only two persons. Unless that is a typo, and you meant it to match the others, IOW,

 "The Son is not the Father or the Spirit".

Which simply describes three persons.

You have not provided a logic statement tying 'God' into the other statements, so your account has described four entities: one God and three Persons.

Do you mean that God is a group of three 'persons'? Some sort of 'group mind'?

It's right up there with your best work so far, eX.

I'm not about to let you take my words out of context here. Ex is arguing that you follow a lie as much as I do. I am therefore utilising positions counter to his own to demonstrate he is wrong. Any position which is not his is equally valid in this context, because he says so. It is recommended that observers to a discussion I have with a hardline christian merely observe, or begin a new conversation if they must. I'm a tactician when it comes to debate with people like Ex. I may use strategies and claims that others have a problem with, but you can't necessarily use reason alone to combat this depth of brainwashing. I therefore don't limit myself to logic and reality alone. I can't, because my opponent is neither logical nor accepting of reality. I must argue from his or her point of view, to show how it is inconsistent with itself from within.

@v4ultingbassist

"How, specifically, are the three related to the one then, if not equivalent?"

They share in the essence of being God, but are distinct in personality and role.

A useful analogy might be to think of three soldiers of equal rank. Three separate persons, with equal rank. No analogy is perfect though.

@BobSpence1

"Unless that is a typo, and you meant it to match the others..."

God is not 'a person,' rather God is described as being triune in nature, being comprised of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That was an awful typo!
 

"So, none of the three are actually fully God, right?  If they were, then it'd be a polytheistic religion.  It was my understanding that Jesus is FULLY God (read equals)"

They are all fully God, and equally God, but God is their nature, not their 'personality.'

There is nothing I can use to properly illustrate the point because God is not entirely comprehensible to a human mind. We can easily apprehend the idea of a triune God, but because the way man was created we are unable to identify with God's tri-unity.

All the best.

Does your ability to understand the mechanical functions of a TV or automobile change the truth that they do in fact work out logically? Of course not. Your ability to understand any given truth statement has absolutely no effect on its veracity.

Sorry, you seem to have misread what I was asking. You wrote

"The Father is not the Son or the Spirit

The Son is the Father or the Spirit

The Spirit is not the Father or the Son".

I was asking why the second line does not match the others - it doesn't quite make sense to me, unless you meant to include the word "not" in there as in the other two statements, to make it read:

"The Son is not the Father or the Spirit",

Then it is all symmetrical.

Just asking for clarification on that - if the original post was what you meant to type, just curious why the "Son" is described so differently, seeming to imply that he has no separate existence, ie he is either the Father or the Spirit. I don't see how it fits into the idea of three, whereas the version with "not" in it makes sense as describing three separate persons which are nevertheless part of one God.