Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[1137]

"Can I just say how cute I think it is when a Christian thinks something is far-fetched?" - Sterling Crowe

There you go again assuming theism = Christianity!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There you go again assuming theism = Christianity!

The precise god you choose to believe in is irrelevant except to you.

 

[Evie]

The trouble, I think, is that too many atheists are disgruntled ex-religious people. They're still trying to solve the non-existent problem "is there a God?"

The right to be free of false beliefs. Unfortunately the human mind possesses numerous false beliefs, and prefers to cling to it's 'possessions'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The trouble, I think, is that too many atheists are disgruntled ex-religious people. They're still trying to solve the non-existent problem "is there a God?"

The problem this particular atheist is trying to solve is "why do theists believe that there are gods?"

My failure to answer this question so far has caused another question to slip in: "how can I find a way to respect theism?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yeah, right.


Seems you have me confused with someone who considers the Bible authoritative.

Instead of throwing Bible verses at me, why not back up your claims with some reliable sources?

There has been a misunderstanding. The Bible even predicted that many would become born again while few of the elite/political/military leaders would. Again, a socioeconomic pattern predicted by the scriptures.

 

[BilliardsBall]

We've had creationist members here who have argued that the flood waters came from the sky.


Are you reading the same Genesis as the rest of us?

Genesis 7:11-12 (NET) (emphasis mine):

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month--on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And the rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights."

Edit: Genesis 1 also makes reference to the sky being a solid dome ("the firmament") that separates "the waters above" from "the waters below".

"Fountains of the great deep" and "rain" seem to indicate subterranean geysers exploding into the atmosphere causing tremendous rain.

The Gen 1 passage could be referring to primordial creation and other things and not a troposphere/Earth separation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Genesis 7:11.

"Fountains of the deep" becoming "rain" seems to describe massive subterranean geysers exploding out into the sky, with subsequent rain.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There has been a misunderstanding. The Bible even predicted that many would become born again while few of the elite/political/military leaders would.

Which Bible are you referring to? The one I know uses the phrase "born again" exactly once and doesn't mention political leaders at all in the passage.

Again, a socioeconomic pattern predicted by the scriptures.

You're begging the question. I'm still waiting for you to defend your absurd claim that the many, many Christians - and even churches themselves - who enslaved human beings were somehow not Christian. First establish that the pattern exists at all, THEN make your case for why you think the Bible predicts the pattern.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Fountains of the great deep" and "rain" seem to indicate subterranean geysers exploding into the atmosphere causing tremendous rain.

The passage specifically refers to "floodgates of Heaven".

The Gen 1 passage could be referring to primordial creation and other things and not a troposphere/Earth separation.

I'm not interested in what revisionist interpretations you can shoehorn the passage into; I'm interested in what the authors intended... and all the evidence we have suggests that they were referring to a solid dome that was stretched out and beaten into shape like a piece of malleable metal.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Christians bitterly fought against abolition. You seem to want to call them non-Christians (or not saved) for that reason. I have no reason to do that. Of course they are Christians, and I have no reason to believe that anybody needs to be saved or that that phrase has any meaning.

Okay, so what about me, in your experience of me, makes me different than other Christians who don't argue on forums? Examples:

*Fundamentalism and literalism

*Evangelism

*Conversion experience

*Adult baptism

People who took the Bible literally (God judges masters more harshly than any people group, Christ died to free men) were abolitionists while others who played fast and loose (the Bible says blacks are inferior when it says NO such thing) were slavers.

I know you know what a hypocrite is. Isn't a man who rapes and beats his slaves then tells the whites on Sundays "he does to others as he would be treated" a Christian hypocrite? Does that help? Resolved:

"Sincere Christians were abolitionists, Christian hypocrites promoted slavery."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Okay, so what about me, in your experience of me, makes me different than other Christians who don't argue on forums? Examples:

*Fundamentalism and literalism

*Evangelism

*Conversion experience

*Adult baptism

People who took the Bible literally (God judges masters more harshly than any people group, Christ died to free men) were abolitionists while others who played fast and loose (the Bible says blacks are inferior when it says NO such thing) were slavers.

You ignored my comment.

I know you know what a hypocrite is. Isn't a man who rapes and beats his slaves then tells the whites on Sundays "he does to others as he would be treated" a Christian hypocrite? Does that help?

So what if a Christian is a hypocrite? Is he then no longer a Christian? Is that your contention?

Resolved:

"Sincere Christians were abolitionists, Christian hypocrites promoted slavery."

And I'll argue that sincere Christians promoted slavery. Who's more sincere than a man with a bullwhip cracking on the back of another as he rapes that man's wife and sells his children between Sunday sermons?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, so what about me, in your experience of me, makes me different than other Christians who don't argue on forums? Examples:

*Fundamentalism and literalism

*Evangelism

*Conversion experience

*Adult baptism

People who took the Bible literally (God judges masters more harshly than any people group, Christ died to free men) were abolitionists while others who played fast and loose (the Bible says blacks are inferior when it says NO such thing) were slavers.

I know you know what a hypocrite is. Isn't a man who rapes and beats his slaves then tells the whites on Sundays "he does to others as he would be treated" a Christian hypocrite? Does that help? Resolved:

"Sincere Christians were abolitionists, Christian hypocrites promoted slavery."

There's more to Christianity than just the Golden Rule. Maybe you should read some of the justifications that Christian slavers gave for their conduct: everything from the "curse of Ham" to "slaves, obey your masters with fear and trembling", and being very careful to note that the Bible speaks in praise of slavery many times, gives instructions to slave owners and overseers many times on the finer points of how to enslave people in a "God-approved" way, and never, ever says that people shouldn't be owned as property.

There's Christian hypocrisy and cherry-picking on both sides of the slavery issue.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Which Bible are you referring to? The one I know uses the phrase "born again" exactly once and doesn't mention political leaders at all in the passage.


You're begging the question. I'm still waiting for you to defend your absurd claim that the many, many Christians - and even churches themselves - who enslaved human beings were somehow not Christian. First establish that the pattern exists at all, THEN make your case for why you think the Bible predicts the pattern.

You are correct. We can problem solve with a rephrase. I would say "Sincere Christians were abolitionists, people who took God at His Word regarding inalienable rights; hypocritical Christians twisted the scriptures and other things to justify slavery."

 

[BilliardsBall]

The passage specifically refers to "floodgates of Heaven".

I'm not interested in what revisionist interpretations you can shoehorn the passage into; I'm interested in what the authors intended... and all the evidence we have suggests that they were referring to a solid dome that was stretched out and beaten into shape like a piece of malleable metal.

If that is true, why do Jews, Christians and skeptics alike when discussing the Hebrew mostly disagree with you?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You ignored my comment.



So what if a Christian is a hypocrite? Is he then no longer a Christian? Is that your contention?




And I'll argue that sincere Christians promoted slavery. Who's more sincere than a man with a bullwhip cracking on the back of another as he rapes that man's wife and sells his children between Sunday sermons?

Please repeat your comment or question and I'll address it.

I didn't see he's no longer a Christian. But a biblicist would define a born again as a Christian and a hypocrite as an unsaved person labeled as a Christian by others.

Do you have examples of pastors who beat and raped slaves Monday through Saturday?

 

[BilliardsBall]

There's more to Christianity than just the Golden Rule. Maybe you should read some of the justifications that Christian slavers gave for their conduct: everything from the "curse of Ham" to "slaves, obey your masters with fear and trembling", and being very careful to note that the Bible speaks in praise of slavery many times, gives instructions to slave owners and overseers many times on the finer points of how to enslave people in a "God-approved" way, and never, ever says that people shouldn't be owned as property.

There's Christian hypocrisy and cherry-picking on both sides of the slavery issue.

You know I've read the Bible before, right? This includes the curse of Ham, who was not a black man, and admonitions for slaves and masters alike to be Christian in outlook and practice. The passages of the NT you are referring to discuss salvation and eternal life but not protesting--indeed, the NT never advocates protesting abortion, homosexuality, drug abuse, slavery or crucifixion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are correct. We can problem solve with a rephrase. I would say "Sincere Christians were abolitionists, people who took God at His Word regarding inalienable rights; hypocritical Christians twisted the scriptures and other things to justify slavery."

Things look very different to an outsider looking in.

don't recall the Bible referring to any inalienable rights. The Bible is about commandments, submission,and obedience. It's authoritarian in nature. Man is to submit to god, subjects to kings, slaves to their masters, and wives to their husbands. Those that are disobedient are called sinners and said to be cast conscious into a lake of fire without hope of parole.

Also, I would not make a distinction about who is a sincere Christian based on whether they fought for slavery or against it. I'm sure that the slavers were just as sincere and observant in their Christianity as the abolitionists.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If that is true, why do Jews, Christians and skeptics alike when discussing the Hebrew mostly disagree with you?

How does the Hebrew (רָקִיעַ raquiya = firmament, vault of heaven supporting waters above, considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above) matter? Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

What changes whether the words are in Hebrew or English?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If that is true, why do Jews, Christians and skeptics alike when discussing the Hebrew mostly disagree with you?

I'm not sure they do. The believers who don't accept that the floodwaters came from "floodgates of Heaven" generally do so by accepting the story as non-literal.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Things look very different to an outsider looking in.

don't recall the Bible referring to any inalienable rights. The Bible is about commandments, submission,and obedience. It's authoritarian in nature. Man is to submit to god, subjects to kings, slaves to their masters, and wives to their husbands. Those that are disobedient are called sinners and said to be cast conscious into a lake of fire without hope of parole.

Also, I would not make a distinction about who is a sincere Christian based on whether they fought for slavery or against it. I'm sure that the slavers were just as sincere and observant in their Christianity as the abolitionists.

It does look different from the outside, which I why I get weary of people telling me what Jews and Christians "really" believe, sure.

Many of the commandments in the Bible refer to rights. For example, you shall not be unkind to the Egyptian, for you were once a resident in his land. Note the perceived difference between that and "Kill some Egyptians, the dirty Jewish slave owners that they were!"

I don't distinct who is a sincere question based on the slavery issue, I already gave my reasoning--the people who love and adhere to God's Word. "I love the Bible where it says, "treat one's neighbor like oneself" so come over here for your whuppin'" makes NO sense at all. NONE. Please don't tell me both interpretations of loving one's fellow man/neighbor as for slavery and against slavery are valid. That would be like me saying the Flat and Elliptical Earth camps are equally interpreting the data well!