INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[SkepticThinker]

Firstly, you miss the point. You equated lack of proof in God with a lack of proof in the existence of love and morality. But they are not equitable. You make claims for God's nature that you do not make for the nature of love and morals. Maybe feelings was not the right word. They are immaterial concepts. But you say God actually exists. He has attributes, intelligence. You c;laim He exists in a very different way to people understand love and morals to exist.

When you say then I understand why you need a rule book to live by. We are very different people, as what I want to do is usually moral too. Perhaps this is the problem - you assume that everyone else would naturally do wrong because that is what you 'want to do'. I don't run around raping and pillaging because I don't want to.

Your argument for morals having no meaning without God is biased. Most humans, of whatever religion, creed, ethnicity or intelligence know that wanton murder, rape, theft etc are wrong. We see exactly the same in the animal world - animals do not generally wantonly attack others of their species. Has God instilled morals in them too? If you say morals are doing what God says then they are not right and wrong - just pleasing, or not, to God.

It is funny that you give the example of the murder of a million people as being immoral given the mass murders and genocide that the Bible attributes to God. (I'll not list all the verses - it's rather dull, and I'm sure you'll know them.) Was God immoral or morally shcizophrenic?

This is perfect! I wish I said this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My point still stands as a general claim but I do not like this point and have little reason to contend it so I will drop it for length. [/quote]
Great.

You are simply redefining morality as equal to your value system which it isn't. If you value something, precious or not that does not make anything actually wrong or right. It makes it exactly what I have always said a preference based on a self-centered opinion. You claim your life is valuable yet you kill thousands of lives no less precious or valuable that in your worldview are just as valuable as yours. That is specieism and has nothing to do with morality, only preference.

That's what morals are; they come from ourselves. They are the product of our human value system, fine-tuned throughout the course of our existence. If I value something, then someone elsedevaluing it, does make it wrong.

I haven’t killed anything at any point in my life. And I don’t intend to in the future.

That is not what I said. I meant that 95% of atheists only have evolution left as a method to produce moral codes. Without God you have arbitrary evolutionary ethics or preference and opinion available. Nothing else.

Then you’re wrong. We have brains. We have logic and reason and experience on top of that.

It was not my point to say that Stalin yelled go atheism and then killed 20 million people, nor was it my goal to distract from Biblical violence (I do not even remember that being brought it though it may have been). My point was that atheism removes the most significant hurdles to genocide and murder - the sanctity and value of human life, as well as slavery - the equality of man, or eugenics - the dignity of human life, etc....

And I’ve already explained to you why that is not the case. And if you really want to continue with this line of reasoning, then please explain why the Israelites killed, who knows how many people, on god’s command. Where these people actually atheists?

When you reject God you have left the door wide open to the eradication of millions of mere biological anomalies that have no inherent worth or value.

I disagree. I have no desire to kill anyone, never mind millions, given that I think we only get one life to live. I have no desire to end this one life for anyone.

You also remove any accountability and final reckoning, as well as a way to show murder is actually wrong at all.

No, not really. If I murder someone, I go to prison and rot away until I’m dead, thus wasting this one life I get, or they throw me in the electric chair. Or if not caught, I have to live with what I’ve done for the rest of my life.

We are all accountable to OTHER PEOPLE. To EACH OTHER. Accountability is not removed at all, in my worldview.

This is evident in the fact that it is always the Christian west that is first on the scene of global hunger and oppression. It is never atheistic Russia, atheistic China, atheistic N Korea, nor for that matter Islamic anywhere.

It’s free societies where people have the opportunity to attain wealth, and thus share it with the less fortunate that facilitates charity. The poor inhabitants of Russia, China or North Korea don’t fall into this category. We don’t see Ethiopians showing up at disaster sites with medical equipment and supplies because they don’t have it to give.

I have no reason to avoid a Biblical violence verses atheistic violence comparisons (even with the wars fought by non-Christians claiming to be such thrown in the totals) because there is no comparison and God is the only being capable of making wars for perfectly justifiable reasons.

Okay great, then you can address the question I posed above.

It is an obvious fact that the murder of a biological anomalies is made much easier by removing the person's divine sanctity and worth, making law an institution of opinion only, and the absence of any inescapable and eternal accountability even if that was all false (but it isn't).

It’s not an obvious fact to me, and I’m the one who’s the atheist.

That is how you assign value and there is no reason I nor anyone else should agree or even care. You only showed that you think precious equals valuable. Maybe I don't, maybe no one else does, maybe half do and half don't. Which half is moral?

And yet most everyone does agree and does care.

I do not have to. Even if they only gleaned these things from experience and evaluation then the fact that science could not even do this much 4000 years later and killed hundreds of thousands in their absurd ignorance on a global scale is sufficient reason to take science from the pedestal it never earned. Whether God told them or they figured out sanitations role in health it makes science look no better.

Ohhhh, you don’t have to back up your claims. How convenient for you. I guess we can just chuck them out then.

So now you’re admitting that they don’t know anything more than what we would expect of people living 2000 years ago? God didn’t hand down any special knowledge to them?

Science does way more than that, 4000 years later. What are you talking about? Science has most definitely earned its place on the pedestal. It has given us just about everything we presently have, including our knowledge of just about everything.

Who do you think is read more and who will be around a thousand years from now?

What does that have to do with anything?? Who cares?

Much of what Dawkin's says is crap, and almost everything he says about theology is worse.

Like what?

Biology is crap?

Paul explained why what Dawkin's says about biology is relatively meaningless compared with salvation. This was a silly argument anyway. I could say "Oh Yea, Paul describes how to exist with God forever", let's see Dawkins do that. Sounds kind of silly but silly or not the implications and relative worth of their writings is certainly evident and acknowledged.

Why should I care what Paul says? Is it demonstrable in any way? I’ll take knowledge over blind faith any day. Thanks.
I'll have to continue with the rest tomorrow. ...

 

[1robin]

This cut and paste job is meaningless to me.

I realized a long time ago, two things. 1. Verses are more relevant than any other thing concerning a discussion about the Biblical God and 2. They mean nothing to a person who desires to condemn God and dismisses any fact or information that stands in the way.
Nothing new or valid here. If the Bible means nothing then a discussion of God means even less.

You have proclaimed that nothing is moral unless god says it is. That means an individual's moral interpretations and/or judgments are irrelevant. You merely have to do what god tells you to do, and that equates to being moral. So when god tells you to murder someone, it is moral because "he" says so. When god tells the Israelites to murder their enemies (including the children), to take all their stuff, and to keep the women for themselves, that is moral because god commanded it. THAT is a system of obedience to authority. That is not morality.

Where did you get any of this? Was it from the very verses you say mean nothing. If they mean nothing there is no God to contend with. If they mean anything then full, not selective context, means everything and there is little of that here, but there was plenty in my previous statements about these verses.

I didn't say anything about obeying earthly figures. I'm talking about obedience to your god, whom you assert is the ultimate arbiter of morality.

I contend that God as a concept is obviously not only the arbiter but is morality it's self. I added many verses completely contradictory to your claims and context that renders the rest invalid. What possible motivation did the apostles have to force obedience to a God they knew did not exist if true? They were obedient to that message in spite of the loss of possessions, privilege, and even their lives and freedom. That is about the worst motivation I have ever heard of. I think you are getting this bizarre idea from the later political Catholic Church. However they are not the ones who created the religion. You can argue they misused it for that purpose but I am not defending Catholicism so why would I care?

If god told you to murder your child, what would you do?

Probably not, but I could never as you falsely claim, know that his instruction was wrong. If that child grew up to be another Hitler as did Haman did in the OT then I might as all others do who live to see why, admit that God was right all along and wish I had obeyed. Fortunately God being God that has not occurred. I guess verses are of no value but hypotheticals are just the thing.

Boy, oh boy. Do you ever make the most sweeping generalizations and assertions I've ever seen.

Since all of those things are historical facts that completely defy your claims then your labels have no relevance. Claiming the being that sent his son to save an obviously faulty and wayward mankind or the book that is more universally associated with goodness and love than any and maybe all others combined, is evil, is far more deserving of your labels and censorship. That is all I can stand for one day. Have a good one.

 

[camanintx]

That is simply not true in the vast majority of cases and is an example of your lack of grasp of Biblical theology. Name me a single story that has a large group on either side of whether it is a parable or a literal.

Take any story from the books Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, I Maccabees, II Maccabees, Judith, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Additions to Esther, Prayer of Azariah, Suzanna and Bel and the Dragon. Catholics consider them cannon while Protestants completely leave them out of their Bible.

I never said the Bible was the basis for morality. I said God is and if he exists then there is no possible better source even conceivable.

And how do you determine God's morality if not through the Bible?

No one could possibly fully define God and what is more no one could fully evaluate or understand God or what his characteristics mean. Using our minds and what they have produced to evaluate God is like one of the "lost boys" deciding whether going to the moon was possible. They simply have no frame of reference or knowledge base capable of meaningfully evaluating it and neither do you. However I agree with what description exists in the Bible concerning God or at least have no reason to reject any of them.

Maybe you can handle an easier question. How do you define the universe?

 

[Skeptisch]

If the Bible means nothing then a discussion of (a biblical) God means even less.

Exactly.
And all that biblical woo woo nonsense you are spreading means nothing to many and little to most who have access to critical thinking, reason and logic.

 

[1robin]

Take any story from the books Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, I Maccabees, II Maccabees, Judith, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Additions to Esther, Prayer of Azariah, Suzanna and Bel and the Dragon. Catholics consider them cannon while Protestants completely leave them out of their Bible.

That was a bizarre response though I left the door open for it. I should have said that since we are discussing Biblical events that you need to pick a story from the actual Bible. As for these books, it is not the question about literal or symbolic that affects these books and is what I asked for. The issue with these, is inspiration. The Catholics actually arrived at the 66 books we have as cannon and do not consider any of these to be among them. They do add in some of these books:
Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, (and longer versions of Daniel and Esther)
I actually have a Catholic Bible with these books in them. They are Apocrypha and contain a section that details they are not canonical or at least not inspired. They came from a period before Christ in which no revelation was given from God. The have nothing to do with any literal/symbolic issues and as long as they contain an explanation of what they are I see no problem with them being associated with the Bible though they are never to superseded anything in the Bible and I have never known to be used for such.
These books make for an interesting discussion but independent from what we are discussing. The main or primary directive of what went into the NT was apostolic in nature and we have the same NT and OT, they just add a independent section with these additional books.

And how do you determine God's morality if not through the Bible?

I thought you meant "determined" as in founded upon. Yes Christians find God's morality in the Bible but the Bible is not the original source, God is. We also use experience and the apprehension of a moral realm almost everyone claims exists beyond natural law. I think this was a misunderstanding.

Maybe you can handle an easier question. How do you define the universe?

Maybe a simpler one is possible to answer. The single sum total of all natural existence. Law, Matter, time etc... equals the universe
If it helps, concepts like meaning, purpose, abstracts, morality, God etc... do not seem to have sufficient cause or domain within only the natural universe alone.

 

[1robin]

Exactly.
And all that biblical woo woo nonsense you are spreading means nothing to many and little to most who have access to critical thinking, reason and logic.

Then I take it you are done. I do not know why you began, if your presuppositions negate any hope of actually letting reality dictate our conclusions instead of the other way around. If you start by assuming the conclusion what is the point? In this case there is little point in going back and answering your previous and longer posts since your presuppositions are already made in a way that voids discussion. I suspected this was the case weeks ago but I always allow for the possibility of sincerity from your side but that is seldom rewarded. BTW more people by far have had faith in something you deny exists so your argument from numbers is wrong as well as invalid. I sure hope this mess has concluded.

 

[Skeptisch]

Then I take it you are done.

Yes I am done and I note that you always allow for the possibility of sincerity from the other side…too bad sincerity is not something you expect from your own side and especially your own inside. You don’t seem to have a clue what intellectual sincerity is and demonstrate this in many if not most of your posts.

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving in academia, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways, including but not limited to:
One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;

I sure hope this mess has concluded.

So do I and sincerely hope you give intellectual honesty a try.

 

[camanintx]

I actually have a Catholic Bible with these books in them. They are Apocrypha and contain a section that details they are not canonical or at least not inspired. They came from a period before Christ in which no revelation was given from God.

Actually, the correct term is deuterocanonical as these books were declared canonical by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox at the Council of Trent in 1546, but are rejected by most Protestants. The fact that there is disagreement between Christians whether these are even canonical, much less parable or a literal, refutes your claim that theological scholars are in agreement on how to interpret the Bible.

I thought you meant "determined" as in founded upon. Yes Christians find God's morality in the Bible but the Bible is not the original source, God is. We also use experience and the apprehension of a moral realm almost everyone claims exists beyond natural law. I think this was a misunderstanding.

Books are nothing more than conduits through which ideas are communicated. If there are any flaws in a book then the failure lies with the message and not the medium. The level of disagreement just among those who profess belief in the Bible, ignoring those of us who don't accept it's origins, tells us that the Bible isn't a perfect as you believe.

The single sum total of all natural existence. Law, Matter, time etc... equals the universe. If it helps, concepts like meaning, purpose, abstracts, morality, God etc... do not seem to have sufficient cause or domain within only the natural universe alone.

I would argue that concepts like meaning, purpose, abstracts, morality, God, etc., exist sufficiently and completely within the natural universe as patterns in the matter and energy that comprise the universe. Has there ever been any evidence that thoughts or ideas can exist independent of a physical brain?

 

[1robin]

Yes I am done and I note that you always allow for the possibility of sincerity from the other side…too bad sincerity is not something you expect from your own side and especially your own inside. You don’t seem to have a clue what intellectual sincerity is and demonstrate this in many if not most of your posts.

I see the sensational train is still on course and using inaccurate comments made for effect as its only fuel.

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving in academia, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways, including but not limited to:
One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;

And how were these methods followed by the multiverse science fiction camp? Or the very large camp that knows life came from non-life even though there has never been an example of this known and every experiment to prove it abjectly failed? Did they follow the rules? What about these guys who seem to be deciding what scientific claims are true based on what theology they like or dislike associated with them:
In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, (and every single cosmologist was wrong until a catholic priest straightened them out) and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[47] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[48] Arthur Eddington agreed with Aristotle that the universe did not have a beginning in time, viz., that matter is eternal. A beginning in time was "repugnant" to him.[49][50
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Bolded comment in parentheses is mine.


When the omniscient scientists will actually follow their own rules then they may be able to demand them of others.

 

[1robin]

Actually, the correct term is deuterocanonical as these books were declared canonical by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox at the Council of Trent in 1546, but are rejected by most Protestants. The fact that there is disagreement between Christians whether these are even canonical, much less parable or a literal, refutes your claim that theological scholars are in agreement on how to interpret the Bible.

I will not contend your terms because they were NEVER the issue. I asked you to provide examples of specifically what you claimed: That there were stories in the Bible that had similar amounts of scholars on both sides of whether they were literal or symbolic. You did not do this. You instead gave me some books that may or may not be in this or that groups Bibles because of inspirational concerns, not literal issues.

Books are nothing more than conduits through which ideas are communicated. If there are any flaws in a book then the failure lies with the message and not the medium. The level of disagreement just among those who profess belief in the Bible, ignoring those of us who don't accept it's origins, tells us that the Bible isn't a perfect as you believe.

Again this is another issue but one easily dealt with. A house does not cease to exist because I say it is beige and another Christian says it is brown even if you could produce an example of this in the Bible. 95% of Christians agree on 95% of the issues. Even where disagreements exist they are in the interpretation not usually (outside of scribal errors that are 99% all known) with a difference in verses. Disagreement about transsubstination does not make Christ any less a historical fact than he is. Whether a piano exists in a denomination does not make revelations inaccurate. Virtually no claim (not even the Big Bang) exists without controversy. Until science throws out the possibility of any claim that has any disagreement then I won't. It is an invalid complaint and any problems exist with man not God.

I would argue that concepts like meaning, purpose, abstracts, morality, God, etc., exist sufficiently and completely within the natural universe as patterns in the matter and energy that comprise the universe. Has there ever been any evidence that thoughts or ideas can exist independent of a physical brain?

You could make the argument that some level of these concepts exist. If Meaning has a level 2 or 3 in the natural world, the need for level 10 which we all desire and intuitively believe exists lies only with God. The same with the others. The natural universe is not devoid of purpose or relativistic almost arbitrary ethics but without God it is devoid of the ultimate purpose and actual morality we all instinctively believe exists and act as though they do. Yes there is evidence that the mind is greater than the sum of its parts. I am less competent than I wish to be with that issue but I will look into it or you can easily find great amounts of studies on it yourself. I have thought for a long time that prophecy alone is sufficient proof of God and that mind is an important issue but never seem to get around to sufficiently studying them. Without God all the meaning, purpose etc… you can find or invent ends in heat death.

 

[camanintx]

I will not contend your terms because they were NEVER the issue. I asked you to provide examples of specifically what you claimed: That there were stories in the Bible that had similar amounts of scholars on both sides of whether they were literal or symbolic. You did not do this. You instead gave me some books that may or may not be in this or that groups Bibles because of inspirational concerns, not literal issues.

Let's start at the beginning then. Is the creation of Adam and Eve described in Genesis 2:7 literal or symbolic? According to the following story from NPR, it seems like there is a pretty even split on this one.

Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve : NPR

I have thought for a long time that prophecy alone is sufficient proof of God and that mind is an important issue but never seem to get around to sufficiently studying them. Without God all the meaning, purpose etc… you can find or invent ends in heat death.

How are meaning and purpose any less valid just because they come from within instead of being imposed from the outside?

 

[camanintx]

By the way claiming God allowed for slavery is not new and not something I have denied. I think you are saying that since he allowed this life long slavery then he is evil and it is in that context I have been reasearching and will respond.

Another question for you on this issue. If the God of the Bible was really against slavery, why didn't it make his top 10 list (or was it a top 20 list)? I mean really, is treating another human being as property not as bad as working on Sunday?

 

[McBell]

When the omniscient scientists will actually follow their own rules then they may be able to demand them of others.

There goes the higher ground for you.
Wonder if you will heed to to your own proclamation?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I see the sensational train is still on course and using inaccurate comments made for effect as its only fuel.
And how were these methods followed by the multiverse science fiction camp? Or the very large camp that knows life came from non-life even though there has never been an example of this known and every experiment to prove it abjectly failed? Did they follow the rules? What about these guys who seem to be deciding what scientific claims are true based on what theology they like or dislike associated with them:
In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, (and every single cosmologist was wrong until a catholic priest straightened them out) and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[47] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[48] Arthur Eddington agreed with Aristotle that the universe did not have a beginning in time, viz., that matter is eternal. A beginning in time was "repugnant" to him.[49][50
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Bolded comment in parentheses is mine.


When the omniscient scientists will actually follow their own rules then they may be able to demand them of others.

Wow, you couldn't have proved Skeptisch's claim that you are being intellectually dishonest any better than this.

You've already brought this up several times now, and it's been negated several times by the fact that the scientific community has adopted the view that big bang is the best explanation we have so far. In order for your argument on this to have gone anywhere, they should NOT have adopted it. But they did. So your point is moot. Please stop repeating it.

 

[1robin]

Wow, you couldn't have proved Skeptisch's claim that you are being intellectually dishonest any better than this.

You've already brought this up several times now, and it's been negated several times by the fact that the scientific community has adopted the view that big bang is the best explanation we have so far. In order for your argument on this to have gone anywhere, they should NOT have adopted it. But they did. So your point is moot. Please stop repeating it.

If I was not in a hurry I would repeat again here: because you have countered nothing. I did not say they stuck to their favorites for ever and ever. I said they used theological preference in determining scientific truths. They did and that is that. I do not care if peer pressure or the eventual weight of scholarship eventually forced them to adopt something so theologically inconvenient as truth in the end, they still let preference influence fact and that is all too common in science

 

[1robin]

Another question for you on this issue. If the God of the Bible was really against slavery, why didn't it make his top 10 list (or was it a top 20 list)? I mean really, is treating another human being as property not as bad as working on Sunday?

I think that would depend a lot on when and what type of slavery we are discussing. I think God has always hated and rejected Chattel slavery. I also think slavery of any physical kind is not his preference. God has what is called an active and a permissive will and the issues get tedious but it generally goes like this. God has what he would institute if not for his allowances for us. His active will. He also has what he will allow because of us but is not necessarily a fan of and at times resents. His permissive will. He allowed divorce because we are sinful. He does not like divorce and wishes it did not exist but when dealing within a system that includes us and free will then he allowed it because we are idiots. Slavery was a system that existed everywhere in virtually every nation on earth in OT times. IN fact his people were slaves of a kind (forced labor) in Egypt for 400 years. He broke them out of chains with plagues and teh angel of death. He obviously is not on slaveries side. In the lands where Israel was going he knew they would set up shop and commence to screw up stuff just as everyone else did but he wanted them to be a little more moral and just at least. Of course they would import slavery from their neighbors but he made it more just, he also made into a form that would meet the needs of the poor and indebted. However given a world that we did not constantly screw up and there would be no slavery. God's revelations in this sense are not optimal because we are involved. However his most pure revelation, little watered down with our faults was Christ and he constantly set captives of every kind free of more and worse slavery than even the Southern US.

Points to remember
1. God many times operates within the imperfect conditions we make necessary.
2. He occasionally drastically changes things but most of the time only slowly evolves the messes we create. He even many times leaves them alone as examples of the extreme nature and cost of our rebellion and sin.
3. His primary purpose is to save us out of this world and not to fix this faulty world’s object lessons.
4. If it were not for the fact that his perfect love seems to trump his perfect justice then very few of us would have made it out of our teen age years alive, we must admit if we were honest. We have all done more than enough evil to justify his vengeance. You may not like that, I don’t, but if God is God, sin is sin, and we are us then it is true none the less.





Since it is Friday I will give you a much better argument than you have given so far (or an example anyway). It is virtually impossible to prove that a Biblical God with as many wonderful and loving actions in the Bible, the same of even thousands and thousands of his wayward children, and with the almost universal reputation he has, to ever demonstrate he is evil. However there is one story so bad that I will concede its nature without attempting an explanation.
23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” 24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number. 25 And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.
http://bible.org/seriespage/elisha-and-two-bears-2-kings-223-25

That site has an explanation but even I can't buy into this being just on any level. However a few verses I can't understand will not undue my experience with God alone not to mention the Bible. I have spent all total a few hours in God's direct presence and no words can describe the comfort, peace, and contentment I found in these too brief moments of time. Once I laid in the kitchen floor for about an hour in a contentment that was beyond measure, which without God was about the stupidest action I could have imagined. It will take a lot more than a bad understanding of a few verses to undo that.

Who wrote all this crap for one simple question? Sorry

 

[camanintx]

I think that would depend a lot on when and what type of slavery we are discussing. I think God has always hated and rejected Chattel slavery. I also think slavery of any physical kind is not his preference

And yet nowhere in the Bible does it say in no uncertain terms that chattel slavery is wrong. Isn't this the same Bible which prohibits eating shellfish and wearing wool blend fabrics?

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]
Let's start at the beginning then. Is the creation of Adam and Eve described in Genesis 2:7 literal or symbolic? According to the following story from NPR, it seems like there is a pretty even split on this one.
Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve : NPR

That is not the beginning. We have to get a universe for Adam to exist in first but very well. I used to be a Genesis literalist. I do not know what it was or what series of things led me to change my mind but now I am not sure where I stand. The first five books are debated far less than the rest by me because they cover events before the historical record existed and so coordination is impossible. I am not saying I think the Bible wrong I am saying for instance I do not know whether Adam was the first fully human or the first Homo Sapien Sapien with a soul or what. The problem is I have no recorded history to help settle these issues. Were the six days supposed to be literal or symbolic? I do not know of a way to be sure. Was the flood literal or symbolic? I don’t know. Now that you are sure you have me, I however deny that there is an even split as far as scholars go but I am an anomaly. Here is an example of this:

The verse:
New International Version (©2011)
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them
or yours
New International Version (©2011)
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Every major commentator believes these verses are literal. 100%
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
Geneva Study Bible
Wesley's Notes
King James Translators' Notes
Scofield Reference Notes
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
http://bible.cc/genesis/2-7.htm

Your link was quite confusing. One minute they are discussing what percentage of Americans believe X and next how many Evangelicals believe Y.
Polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find that four out of 10 Americans believe this account.
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve

I said scholars not Americans and not even Evangelicals but they did not give their numbers for this. Even though you did not prove your point at all, it being Friday I am generous. There does exist more disagreement in Genesis than any other book and it is not insignificant. That being said it isn't close to being even among scholars and our discussion was in the context of what Christianity actually is and Genesis has little to do with that at all. If you are wanting to post something applicable not just technically consistent with my question it is the Gospels and Paul where interpretation would make a significant difference. That article might be used as a simplistic, insufficient, and biased argument against what that verse says but it had little to do with my request.

How are meaning and purpose any less valid just because they come from within instead of being imposed from the outside?

That was not the difference that God would make in them. You I am sure will claim that your family (children and spouse etc.... ) give your life purpose or even that some cause or another do. I will simply use the same two to illustrate. My connection to my Dad for example has meaning without God at some level but it ends at death and never had any eternal implication. However with God we will continue to have a relationship in heaven for eternity, my actions concerning him or others is eternally significant and under the watchful eye of a God who created us and the bonds we share for a much greater purpose than we find without him. Without him we are all dust in a microscopic blink of cosmic time. How much relative meaning could there be in that? Is a marriage sanctified, arranged, and somewhat sealed by God for his glory not of infinite more significance than the arbitrary meeting of someone by pure chance that I could stand to associate with for a while and sealed by the omnipotence of the state of Alabama? No matter what significance factor you assign it, it is virtually infinitely more significant with God than without on every level. As far as causes go. If I was freeing the slaves in 1863, the few slaves that did not starve or freeze to death when I expelled them from their only homes and employment (in my omniscience and all too human lack of for thought) they had at the time would be grateful. Given God I am fighting a cause he may have very well equipped and placed me for and placed infinite significance on. I am answering a million prayers and fighting in God's army. There is significance in both but they are relatively of infinitely different ultimate value. I will also receive an ETERNAL inheritance for my efforts with God. Without him I die the same meaningless death that Hitler did and no ultimate justice ever occurs. I can't think of too many more obvious differences possible.

 

[1robin]

And yet nowhere in the Bible does it say in no uncertain terms that chattel slavery is wrong. Isn't this the same Bible which prohibits eating shellfish and wearing wool blend fabrics?

It does not say that blowing up the Sun is wrong either. Is God anti-Sun? Yes it is detailed in some instances and not in others therefor God is guilty of anything he did not prohibit in detail I suppose. We can melt the ice caps, make new volcanos with hydrogen weapons, and definitely kill all the holier than thou cats. God obviously never gave us a moral conscience to help solve these issues and should have written down every conceivable act that was objectionable even if that made a book taller than the Burj Khalifa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa

I get it, you hate the concept of God and apparently prefer the moral chaos our omniscience calls progress but this was not a sincere point of contention was it?