I want to debate you live in real time over the Bible.. now we can pick something specific if you want I suggest you tell your top 5 and I tell you mine and hopefully we pick one that we can agree to debate. I want this to be live so we would have to work out details.
Opening statements
Cross examination
Respond to comments
I believe that we would have to have someone be the judge if we have answered each other's questions during the cross examination or if we just ran away from them.
The reason I want to do it live is I don't want opportunity to look up answers or others arguments. I want us to have to truly think and have our own answer to questions. I think we should do it over skype/FaceTime or some other video chat, we can hide faces if you don't want to be shown and we can record for YouTube. Then we can link the debate on this site.
If you want to do this then let me know and we can discuss how and when over PM's
Sincerely,
Burn your bible
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
No
No comment
I take this back...
why are you on this site? Are you not a Christian? Do you not follow
1 peter 3:15?
I don't do debates. There's nothing honorable or intellectual about them.
I do want to make it clear that my intention is not to scream and yell. I feel as if you tend to tap dance around questions and this would be an opportunity to get a true answer from both sides about a topic of discussion.
I tend to tap dance around the comments I feel are argumentative, since my goal is to dismiss them rather than address them.
Yes but as you have said before you and I have opposing sides to this subject if a direct question is asked of you why run or ignore why not defend. Again I ask you do you not follow 1 peter 3:15?
Side note* I do appreciate you talking with me now
If I don't follow it, then I don't follow it. However, most of the conversations you've seen me have are on my own threads. I start threads for a reason: to discuss a subject because I am interested in it. When people address things to me, that are irrelevant to the thread, I'm going to be dismissive. I'm not trying to be offensive when I say its boring.
Fair enough thank you for your honesty.
What's the goal? and even more, for who? If you really want an honest to goodness conversation about the Bible, I suggest you simple talk. Get a cup of coffee or something. You might even end up being good friends after.
I agree JOC talking or debating an idea is the best way to gain new knowledge. And I am not ignorant to the fact that if we debated and posted on an atheist forum that the views or comments would be bias unless my arguments were god awful( no pun intended ). But with you as well questions that seem hard to answer are either ignored or side tracked. A live debate would not allow the other to run away from the topic at hand
Neither would a live conversation between the two people involved.
Well actually you are wrong on this, I have had plenty of one on one conversations with theists and when a hard question comes up they try to do anything but answer the question honestly. I know this is not all theists I am sure some would answer everyone of my questions. Sadly I haven't found one yet.
You’re talking to the wrong theists.
Again I have to disagree, based on the fact I do not believe and theists has good reasons to believe in their religion or religious doctrines. I believe that faith is a horrible reason to claim something is true. With that being said I feel most theists don't want to talk or answer hard questions because they themselves have never actually read their holy book.
I mean what questions do you have? When it comes to the Bible I feel like most questions have already been answered. It's only a matter of whether the answers are good enough for you or not.
After all isn't that why you wanted it live? To prevent me from looking up the answers?
Actually it was to get an honest viewpoint from you and I both without it being from another source or a link to a video. As for what questions do I have, I have many. When it comes to the Bible I feel like people do not honestly read it, they tend to make excuses for it and when they get asked hard questions they try to divert the conversation in another direction.
For example:
Me; is the Bible moral
Theists; yes
Me: is owning another as property, selling them, beating them as long as they don't die within a day or two moral?
Theists: no slavery is immoral
Me: well the Bible allows this and gives laws about it, so is the Bible really a moral book?
Theist: how do you have morals?
Me: answer my question!
Theists: how do you.... yes the Bible is moral.
Me: so slavery is morally correct?
Theist: no but the Bible doesn't say slaves it says servants...
Me: .......... is it ever ok to own another human being as property, pass them down to your children, and beat them to death as long as they don't die on within 2 days of the beating.
Theist: no
Me: Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
So I would say if this is your logic( not saying it is) and you want to make excuses and tap dance around issue and ignore the contradictions in Christianity's teachings then so be it.
I don't know if that's necessarily correct. The slavery question is by no means new, and the answer I've heard countless times, particularly in this forum, is that slavery back then was contractual. More similar with itinerant servants, than the enslavement of African Americans. That's the cookie cutter answer most Christians give.
So what is your answer?
I don't have a valid reason to reject that answer. Do you?
Yes, when you are able to own another human, beat them to death (as long as they don't die within a day or two) pass them down to your children, have a loophole to enslave them forever, then this is not indentured servitude this is slavery. Plus one aspect that doesn't get as much light is the fact that woman that the master gives his servant are slaves they have no loophole to get out. If the man decides to leave after 6 years then she and any of her kids are the masters property!! So please explain how this is not slavery?
"Yes, when you are able to own another human, beat them to death (as long as they don't die within a day or two) pass them down to your children, have a loophole to enslave them forever, then this is not indentured servitude this is slavery."
I agree wholeheartedly, and the kind of mendacious verbiage that tries to deny this speaks for itself. Besides indentured servitude is also immoral, a fact that seems to escape people who think a moratorium on eating shell fish and wearing blended fabrics, whilst endorsing buying, owning and beating (to death) other human beings represent objective morality.
The part that really frustrates me is I don't think Christians actually believe the arguments (excuses) they give for Why it's ok or moral.
I believe the Bible builds upon itself. At the most fundamental level, you have the ten commandments, which provide the basic ground rules for behavior. The command to not murder is universal. Period. You seem to be ignoring that small fact when you speak about slavery.
Next consider this verse: "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Exodus 21:16. The slave-trade during the colonial age, and even modern slavery today, hinges almost exclusively on kidnapping and selling people. Specially today with sex trafficking, woman and children are drugged, kidnapped, and sold. The fact that you cannot kidnap and sell anyone, or even buy a person that was kidnaped without receiving the death penalty, makes it rather clear we are talking about a completely different kind of slavery. Notice that “you shall not steal” is also one of the ten commandments. So tell me, how can you buy a slave that wasn't forced into slavery?
Once you have an answer, notice you also cannot harm them: “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.” -Exo 21:26.
It seems rather clear, that you are not supposed to harm the person. Not even your livestock are allowed to harm them: “If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.” -Exodus 21:32. You also obviously cannot kill your slave: “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged” -Exo 21:20. In other words, if you kill the slave, you get killed as well.
Notice that the ten commandments tell you the basics of what cannot be done, and the rules I mentioned after are concerned with the punishment for violation. Now, about your remark about them dying a day or two later. If you don't ignore the fact that you already cannot murder them, and that you cannot harm them, why would you think there is a loophole? Now here's something interesting, what do you make about the fact that about half the translations render that verse thus:
-NIV: but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property
-WEB: Notwithstanding, if he gets up after a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his property
-GWT: But if the slave gets up in a day or two, the owner must not be punished. The slave is his property.
-NHEB: Notwithstanding, if he gets up after a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his property.
-HCSB: However, if the slave can stand up after a day or two, the owner should not be punished because he is his owner's property.
So your saying the Bible is full of contradiction and allows the reader to interpret whatever he/she wants??? And as for the translation, seems nice of them to change it to recover hmmm it's almost like that was done purposely...also what rules are there re guarding the woman and her children? Seems as if you ignore the contradictions.
Ok, take it one step at a time. My intent in the previous comment was to show the distinction between modern slavery, and the slavery mentioned in Scripture. Secondly, if there is ambiguity in a translation, the honest way to interpret it is in relation to the rest of Scripture.
Now, you wrote this: "If the man decides to leave after 6 years then she and any of her kids are the masters property."
Just to be clear, both male and female slaves are to go free after 6 years: "If any of your people—Hebrew men or WOMEN—sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. And when you release THEM, do not send THEM away empty-handed. Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the Lord your God has blessed you. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today. But if your servant says to you, “I do not want to leave you,” because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, then take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your FEMALE servant. " -Deut 15:12.
Also notice that the protections given, which I mentioned in the previous post, regarding harm, death, or injury, protect male and female slaves. "When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye.” -Exo 21:26.
Those are all the basic rules. Now the are some specifics and distinctions, but I find they are rules for marriage and matrimony during slavery, not slavery in general. I also feel that the distinction favors the woman over the man: Scripture says: "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money." -Exo 21:7
Male servants are not told to be treated as sons. They are not told they can't be sold to foreigners. They are not told to be given food and clothing, and marital rights. When a female servant marries one of the master sons, she is given all this extra protections that the male servants are not given.
I will write back tomorrow... I didn't want you to think I was running away from this.
Go for it. I'm not the type of person that thinks that.
"I believe the Bible builds upon itself. At the most fundamental level, you have the ten commandments, which provide the basic ground rules for behavior. The command to not murder is universal. Period. You seem to be ignoring that small fact when you speak about slavery."
If a moratorium on murder is universal and basic to humans, and it is, then the it's a contradiction to claim the ten commandments as divinely inspired. Also it's theist who are ignoring the bibles endorsement of slavery here by claiming the bible is a divinely inspired blueprint for morality, then cherry picking the bits they want.
Why would an omniscient deity waste 4 commandments in vainglorious rules about how it demands it is worshipped, but not make a single mention of slavery, and elsewhere endorse the right of humans to buy, own, and even kill other humans as slaves?
The universal parts of the ten commandments show that all humans share some basic ideas on morality, the bizarre and irrelevant commandments show how irrational it is to claim they were inspired by a perfectly moral omniscient being.
I don't agree obviously, but even if Christians were ignoring the Bible, notice that our position is still more honest and correct than yours. In this scenario we'd only be ignoring 1 verse, and accepting everything else. You on the other hand want to ignore everything else, and cling to 1 verse. You decide which is worse.
Why would an omniscient deity waste 4 commandments? The fact that only 4 commandments deal with our relationship to God, while 6 deal with our relationship to each other, reflects the opposite of vainglorious. The God of the Universe is more interested in how we treat each other, than how we treat Him. Every Christian and Jew knows the bivariate structure of the ten commandments is summarized by two great commandments. Love God, and Love your neighbor. God is literally telling us to love each other more than we love Him by assigning 6 to each other, and only 4 to Him.
Now chill, and let me talk to BYB.
"I don't agree obviously,"
You don't agree with what?
"but even if Christians were ignoring the Bible, notice that our position is still more honest and correct than yours. In this scenario we'd only be ignoring 1 verse, and accepting everything else. You on the other hand want to ignore everything else, and cling to 1 verse. You decide which is worse.""
Hilarious "reasoning", but no it is not "more honest" to cherry pick ancient archaic texts whilst pretending only the bits you like are divinely snactioned. I am not claiming any of it has validity independently of the claims made, and that is 100% consistent unlike you. You and other apologists are trying to both claim it is divinely inspired and sanctioned, but that you know which bits are authentic or not, and all without any evidence.
"The fact that only 4 commandments deal with our relationship to God, while 6 deal with our relationship to each other, reflects the opposite of vainglorious. "
No it doesn't, 4 separate commandments on how it expect the adoration of it's pets, even 1 would be beyond vainglorious.
" Every Christian and Jew knows the bivariate structure of the ten commandments is summarized by two great commandments. Love God, and Love your neighbor. "
Yes nothing egotistical about demanding love is there, with some fairly barbaric threats used to coerce and enforce the command.
" God is literally telling us to love each other more than we love Him by assigning 6 to each other, and only 4 to Him."
Is that why he goes into great detail on how this love allows us to enslave other humans, murder them, take women captives from genocidal ethnic cleansing who are virgins and traffic them as sex slaves, or to stone unruly children to death?
"Now chill, and let me talk to BYB."
I am chilled, and this is a public forum so knock yourself out, why would think I either want to or can stop you from talking? That's bizarre.
Pages