Why does the Bible endorse slavery?

• the Talmud allowed masters to free slaves voluntarily by a number of mechanisms. Such manumission was to be formally executed by a written deed (the shetar shihrur ), which must sever the dependency and servitude completely; if any of the master's rights were reserved, or the deed was written in the future tense, it would be invalid and ineffectual. These deeds would become effective as soon as it was transferred to a 3rd party, or delivered to the slave; however, if the master had sent the deed to the slave, it would become void if the master died before the slave received it. Possession of the deed was counted as prima facie proof of manumission , but the former slave was not allowed to work on land gifted to him by his former master, unless witnesses were able to verify it. Despite the general disregard for non-Jewish laws, writs of manumission written by non-Jewish magistrates were acknowledged to retain their validity under Jewish law. [from Mishneh Torah, and from Gittin 1:4 ( Tosefta )]
• Although, in their view, slave masters had previously had the right to revoke voluntary manumission , the classical rabbis instructed that it should no longer be permitted - Gittin 1:6
• Indeed, if the master merely says that he has freed his slave, the rabbis would not even allow him to repudiate his statement, instead compelling such a master to create a writ of manumission - Gittin 40b
• even if the slave denies that he has been given this writ, he is still considered freed - "Gittin 40b"
• Other symbolic acts were also regarded as freeing the slave: namely, if the master put phylacteries on the slave, gave him a free woman for a wife, or made him publicly read three or more verses from the Torah; if these acts were committed, it was compulsory for the master to give the former slave a writ of manumission .

Source: sources

[ DISCLAIMER: I have not verified the information on this link, personally. I encourage others to check it out for verification purposes.]

It is interesting to me, how overlooked @1 is by the critics, and supporters who wish to 'do away' with the Bible. This one bares more investigation and discussion. If true, it is a picture of grace in some cases.

At the risk of possibly upsetting some people's applecarts, whether the

Bible endorsed slav

ery or not is probably irrelevant in historical terms. At that period in world history, according to the cultural norms throughout much of the known world at the time, people were not as enlightened as we are today and slavery was considered a natural state of affairs.

At that period in world history, according to the cultural norms throughout much of the known world at the time, people were not as enlightened as we are today and slavery was considered a natural state of affairs.

Absolutely correct.   The ancient people saw nothing wrong with slavery.  They were a product of their times.   I think we all agree on that.

The real question deals with God.   Was God also a product of the ancient times?    As such, did God not realize that owning a human being as property is immoral?   Or did God think it was moral?   Is it still moral or did God change His mind?

The topical question is actually about the divinity of the Bible.

The real question deals with God.

One which certain individuals either avoid or make excusers for.

Was God also a product of the ancient times?

If so, that contradicts any claim the god is "never changing." 

As such, did God not realize that owning a human being as property is immoral? Or did God think it was moral? Is it still moral or did God change His mind?

More logical contradictions that certain individuals will try to twist around in an attempt to rationalize and/or excuse.

The topical question is actually about the divinity of the Bible.

It's not divine, as I bet you're well aware. It's simply the product of ancient man's desires and imaginations in lieu of the times they lived in.

It's not divine, as I bet you're well aware. It's simply the product of ancient man's desires and imaginations in lieu of the times they lived in.

Now there you go answering up for Tig's awareness.  Tig, well now, Gordy is making a declaration and invoking you as a gamble. I've said it once and again:

Sometimes people just 'complete' one another. STARS IN YOUR EYES!

Your comment had nothing whatsoever to do with Gordy's point.   Instead you (yet again) talk about the people instead of the content.

Hi Ed-NavDoc! Thank you for sharing this.

Now there you go answering up for Tig's awareness.  Tig, well now, Gordy is making a declaration and invoking you as a gamble. I've said it once and again:

No, I'm simply responding to TiG. If I'm wrong, I'm sure TiG will correct me.

The economic circumstances were very different then than they are now. There was no such thing as state welfare payments for the very poor, and people who were dispossessed from land from war or natural disasters often starved to death as they had no means of income. Selling oneself into slavery in exchange for sustenance was thought to be better than being free without sustenance.

— Article above.

Working for wages was apparently not yet heard of and therefore not an option /s

Gasp! Sarcasm this early? Well, there was no "western world" to dream about, back then. Should this be what you mean, dear Sandy!

Well, there was no "western world" to dream about, back then.

Relevance?

Should this be what you mean, dear Sandy!

No, I was pointing out that, for those who lose their land (perhaps via conquest by, oh, say the Israelites.  Just an example, you see.), there actually is an option between starvation and being owned by another person.  It's paid work.  This was not an unknown concept at the time - people did work for wages.  This kept them from starving without requiring that they be owned by another person.

I've heard this same defense for slavery in the US - "Well, what would happen to a slave who was freed?  They had no property.  They would starve."  Well, the obvious answer is that one could pay them a fair wage for their labors, rather than forcing them to labor on pain of death or severe beating.

Now I will venture to speak a bit out of term just to throw out an idea. So with this caveat. Here goes conjecture. There did not exist an infrastructure in Ancient Israel to cast (treat) non-native people as kinsfolk. The established system for non-natives in the land pervasive at the times were varying degrees of slavery.

The institution of slavery most certainly was harsh, but it also worked. (That is, until it phased itself out in the ancient world and later in the modern world.)

Again, conjecture on my part, and I am willing to listen to differing points of view on this question of 'fair wage labor' vs. slavery in Ancient Israel.

Your conjecture is incorrect.

jewishvirtuallibrary

The  Torah  is solicitous of the wage earner. An employer must pay his day laborer "on the same day, before the sun sets, for he is needy and urgently depends on it; else he will cry to the Lord against you and you will incur guilt" (Deut. 24:15; cf. Lev. 19:13; on the length of the workday, from sunrise to sunset, cf. Ps. 104:23). This ruling applies equally to Israelite and foreign laborers (Deut. 24:14). 

The question would be did this labor instruction apply to the slaves in the land? Much like our U.S. constitution at its inception, tracked one way for white males, and created a separate track for everyone else.

You may ask me why not make rules the same universally in the land? That is a separate larger question (than wages), however.

Thanks for taking time to bring this up! STELLAR!

The question would be did this labor instruction apply to the slaves in the land?

Oh, good grief.

First, you try to make it a choice - slavery or starvation.

When I bring up the possibility of working for wages, you conjecture about the lack of "infrastructure" for paying "foreigners".

When I show that the laws regarding paid labor were to apply equally to Hebrews or non-Hebrews, you ignore that there were paid non-Hebrew laborers.

No, cal, of course laws regarding paid laborers wouldn't apply to slaves.  Paid laborers would be able to turn down a job if they didn't like the terms.  Slaves couldn't.  Slave women couldn't turn down other conditions, either.

That doesn't mean that there was no choice for the poor except to starve or be a slave.

Tone? I am asking questions to get clarity, to facilitate communication, 'spark' discussion, and get answers (for myself). When that happens its a good thing, Sandy.

On a personal note, I do not personally "faith-fail" if slavery wins or loses "status" in discussion. Slavery in the Ancient World happened: God ordained or not god ordained.

More to the point, slavery is limited and still happening in today's world, and it is not beyond possibility that it can happen to enlightened people and their lands in the far-flung future. The true "constant" in life is change.

In my defense, I read your comment in its entirely. I even thanked you for the sharing. Sorry, if this mode of communication did not capture my 'spirit' inputted into the world "STELLAR!" It is in there!

However, there was still an OUTSTANDING concern regarding slavery in Ancient Israel. And, since the subject matter is slavery. . . .

(That is, until it phased itself out in the ancient world and later in the modern world.)

What is your definition of the 'ancient world' ? 

What is your definition of the 'modern world' ?

In the world of the Bible era, thereabouts. Thank you.

Tone?

Irony.

Your questions disregard my response to your false dichotomy.

Must we prod each other everywhere we meet? Sometimes it is simply good to meet, talk, agree, disagree, and feel good about ourselves afterwards.

What 'false dichotomy' did I disregard your answer to, Sandy?

In the modern "western world" and the world we presently dwell in right now, thereabouts. Thank you.

As opposed to the rest of the "non western" modern world where slavery is still practiced every day, right?

As opposed to the two largest continents, Asia and Africa which still practice slavery in the 'biblical' sense?

How convenient for you.

We must when you attempt to justify slavery.

people who were dispossessed from land from war or natural disasters often starved to death as they had no means of income. Selling oneself into slavery in exchange for sustenance was thought to be better than being free without sustenance.

There's the false dichotomy.  Starvation vs. slavery.

There was another option.  Paid labor.  Yes, it existed at the time.  Yes, there was "infrastructure", as you put it, for Hebrews to pay non-Hebrews for their labor.  They could and presumably did choose to do so.  They also chose to own slaves, with the approval of their god, they thought.

Of course, some people would have preferred to own slaves rather than pay for labor.  Those slaves could be treated in a manner that paid laborers would not tolerate, because they had little choice in the matter.  In ancient Israel and the antebellum south, there were, of course, people who were willing to exploit and abuse other people.  We should not attempt to justify exploitation and abuse.

I address slavery in the sense that we, "westerns," would understand that term and its typical usage. For example, "western philosophy" or "western relgions."

It never crossed my mind that I should address these practices in "other lands" where I and many others, make be 'out of touch' with laws, intents, and nuances in the laws.

As to your remark, "how convenient for you," I am sure I do not know what you mean by it. Care to share?

OKAY. Well, the Israelites, and a host of other nations, did not pay those groups and individuals brought under forced labor. So, there is that. The agreement/contract goes something like this, if we let you live you remain our spoils; if you stay in our lands, you remain our servants. It happened, Sandy.

As to your perception that I should not attempt to justify what happened in the past (and could again in the future), your opinion is noted. Simply noted.

God approved of slavery. And, althought slavery is harsh. However, it is no harsher than war, disease, violence, pestilence, blight, and any of many other 'systems' of this world.

That I can get into later (getting ready to 'bolt').

We should not attempt to justify exploitation and abuse.

Okay, let just test that theory with a couple of modern examples of 'abuse' and possible exploitation:

1. Nuclear weapons use and maintenance.
2. Abortion on demand.

In modern times, we utilize both of these features of a modern world. But what of the moral question today?

• Should the United States unilaterally dismantle every single one of its nuclear weapons, as an example to history of this nation's strong moral character?
• Should the United States end women's privacy rights to an abortion(s), as a example to history of this nation's high regard for life in the womb and its 'charge' to exist perfectly outside the womb?

What could be the 'right' thing to do in these situations to end abuse and exploitation, Sandy?

It happened, Sandy.

As I have not disputed that, I have no idea why you feel the need to make this declaration.

And, althought slavery is harsh. However, it is no harsher than war, disease, violence, pestilence, blight, and any of many other 'systems' of this world.

War and slavery are the only two mentioned which exclusively involve humans acting against other humans.  And wars of defense can be justified.

Slavery cannot.

That God supposedly approved of slavery speaks very ill of God.

Off topic, but the possession of nuclear weapons used for a country's defense is not in and of itself either abusive or exploitative.  Abortion is also neither abusive nor exploitative.  Forcing women to serve as involuntary incubators is the very essence of exploitative.

God approved of slavery. And, althought slavery is harsh. However, it is no harsher than war, disease, violence, pestilence, blight, and any of many other 'systems' of this world.

Clearly.   So given that, does it make sense to go to the Bible to understand God's objective morality?   If so, one would find that owning human beings as property is okay, murdering homosexuals is good, raping virgins who are the spoils of war is 'a suitable reward for the soldiers', etc.

The Bible is a terrible source for morality.   Especially the OT.  Too bad it has not been retired (or at least corrected to focus on 'love thy neighbor').

I address slavery in the sense that we, "westerns," would understand that term and its typical usage. For example, "western philosophy" or "western religions."

And that statement is exactly what I mean by "how convenient for you".

Understand? There is NO typical usage, unless we all, planet wide, mean the same thing, typically.

.

Like you address slavery for ancient Hebrews?

You're a guesser.

A guesser about ancient Israel and modern America.  A charlatan with no proof other than interpretations of a pair of books that are 3,000 years old, passed down by oral tradition and crudely interpreted into hundreds of different languages in some cases a thousand years after the original language  died out.....

Rumor has it...

.

I can only imagine some internet chat room in India where sub continent Indians of various castes

chat 'amicably' about how 'dasi' was replaced by 'varnas' which in turn was replaced by 'shudras',

all in all a masterful game of semantics by a flawed upright walking mammal that envisions itself the highest form of intelligence on a single planet,

while granting unlimited contrarian logic to Gods in the ether.

In the truest form of capitalism on the planet, true Hindu's inherit their parent's debt, thus slavery is their caste and existence, and is generational.

Arguing God, Bible and slavery on the internet is a masterful waste of time.  Sublimation for something else, no doubt.

Just a huge whirlpool with nothing but decay at the bottom.

In my humble opinion...

Have a nice weekend.

Can't wait for the decadent justification for why-does-the-bible-endorse-slavery version 3 & 4 & 5..............

And wars of defense can be justified.

Are you tying wars of defense into slavery? Or simply giving wars of defense a pass? Please elaborate.

Don't arbitrarily declare it so, make a case. Otherwise, I might not see the tie-in; then, make a case for why slavery was not a type of defense where by one 'keeps the enemy closer.' 

Slavery cannot.

In modern times in our country, America, we call the process: constitutionally legalized prison slavery.

That God supposedly approved of slavery speaks very ill of God.

Because a created being can not be superior to its creator, that claim falls flat and without substance. But, I do understand why it is being uttered: You do not recognize God as having any value whatsoever. Thus, it naturally flows to criticize something you class as a character in a book only.

It is not off-topic, because it comes into the topic under current morality concerns. We have extraordinary defense deterrence capabilities due to possession of weapons and a doctrine called Mutually Assured Destruction. Indeed, the doctrine is so powerful that it formed the rationale for sharing the technology with other countries (as a deterrence). It has effectively helped this nation and by extrapolation nuclear nations to live 'unmolested' on their lands.

Ancient Israel did not have a 'deterrence' weapon of mass destruction to ward off its enemies. Thus, it defeated many of its enemies, killed them, and took some captive slaves.

It is unarguably a form of defensive action to diffuse an enemy's ability to fight back.

Well Tig, it certainly does not make sense if you are a lack of believer in God or gods. How could it. Hmm?

I mean one would first have to believe in God as possible and probable and understanding these things can follow after. But, other than that—one could simply choose to get on with life apart from God and discussions about the topic of God.

How about that? Huh?

... it certainly does not make sense if you are a lack of believer in God or gods.

It should not matter if one believes in a god or not.    Considering a book that condones slavery, calls for the death sentence for homosexual acts (among other sexual acts), has God commanding taking virgin girls as spoils for the soldiers and killing non-virgin women (and everyone else by the way), etc. is not a book I would offer as the source for objective morality.

Make an objective judgment call on the content of the book.   If I handed you a book that said: 'owning another person as property is morally right' and deemed it the source of objective morality, I would expect you (and everyone else) to ask me what I am smoking.

Too often I hear that one must believe to understand that which believers cannot seem to explain.   I find that to be a feeble excuse.   If one holds a belief, one should be able to explain same with facts and logic.   Deferring to 'you cannot understand unless you believe' or 'there is no way to get you to understand the supernatural' looks, smells and feels like a cop-out.   (And I am being kind here.)

Vengeful spirit, lately? I won't dignify that with the rancor it deserves. You are a moderator here after all. So with all due respect. . . I pass.

Too often I hear that one must believe to understand that which believers cannot seem to explain.   I find that to be a feeble excuse.   If one holds a belief, one should be able to explain same with facts and logic.   Deferring to 'you cannot understand unless you believe' or 'there is no way to get you to understand the supernatural' looks, smells and feels like a cop-out. (And I am being kind here.)

That's your problem. When I was an unbeliever (well, internet comment rooms were in their infancy then too) I did not make attempts to have 'encounters' with believers on street corners or in 'internet cafes.'  It was not of interest to me. Which begs the question here on NT.

Of course, you have no true interest in a God you do not and can not accept. That's sound content appropriate. So you read the pages of the Books and they "upset" you - in the past they may have upset me too. I don't rightly remember it, because what did in those days was to put it down and walk away. 

I did not choose a position that I should 'commission' myself to go and tear down the faith of other free and grown religious people.

Plenty country and city out there for all, I say.

Now then, clearly the Bible offends you. Put it down as a discussion. Find a new logic 'project.' I'd suggest. (I am being kind here, too.)

Incidentally, I took a moment to look up at the identification path; yeah, this is the Religion and Ethics category. Yeah, right.

So you read the pages of the Books and they "upset" you - in the past they may have upset me too.

You should not presume.

Now then, clearly the Bible offends you.

Again presuming.

My position is that the Bible is demonstrably errant, contradictory and ipso facto not divine.   The God character it defines is self-refuting.   Ergo, when someone treats the Bible as the divine word of God (especially if one defers to the Bible for addressing moral questions) then that is a dangerous lack of critical thinking.

My motivation is to encourage people to always think critically and, accordingly, to challenge accepting as truth that which other human beings merely claim is true.

The above ↑ applies to the Qur'an, et. al. as well.

So what? I'm sorry. But not every aspect in life accepts a back seat to logic. Try to think critically about war and why people keep interacting in a way which will get them and their offspring killed. Try to think critically about love and why someone is attracted to another someone better left alone. Try thinking critically about torture and why people enjoy sadomasochism.Try to explain why materialist ignore discussions about the immaterial properties of this life, even as they use them every day.

Logic is superb! But, it can not answer all questions put forward by humans.

As to me being presumptuous to think that the bible offends you, what else should I conclude after reading rough estimate of a thousand of your comments on this subject over a span of years? Does the Bible not bother you with all its 'human tragedies'? Sometimes, it bothers me! Sometimes it disturbs me. Sometimes it make me laugh at the ironies of all those past lives.  But always, those biblical people make me resilient.

I explained to you that the Bible does not offend me.   Actually I find it a fascinating work of literature.   

Nowhere do I claim that all human beings think critically (indeed I noted that is not the case).   So offering examples of emotion-based reasoning is not a rebuttal; it supports my comment.

Does it not bother you with all its 'human tragedies'?

It is a book written by ancient men for their purposes.   I do not need a book to provide me examples of bad things.   Life teaches plenty.   

I did not state or imply that you claimed all human beings think critically. For one thing, one of your chief 'utterances' is about believers choosing faith instead of critical thinking. (Not so, but we need not stir that area for now.)

Ah! But the Bible is more than the sum of its pages. It is a set of books that changed and continues to change the courses of world history. Not every lesson in the Bible is painful or depressing, Tig. There is exceptional light within "the meditative good parts."

Are you tying wars of defense into slavery? Or simply giving wars of defense a pass? Please elaborate.

I'm simply stating that a country that has been attacked has the right to go to war to defend itself.  War can be defensive, which is excusable.  Slavery is exploitative, and therefore inexcusable.  Attempt to parlay slavery as defensive and therefore excusable are repugnant.

that claim falls flat and without substance.

And you accuse others of making arbitrary statements.

It is a set of books that changed and continues to change the courses of world history.

The continued impact this ancient work of historical fiction has on the contemporary world is indeed the key reason why one must challenge those who declare the Bible divine.   Going to the Bible for moral guidance is a horrible idea.   

Much better to cherry-pick and sanitize (as the Catholics do) biblical lessons and leave the Bible itself as classical literature.   At least then one does not walk around thinking that 'God hates fags' (Westboro Baptist Church famous line) or that owning a human being as property is moral.

Attempt to parlay slavery as defensive and therefore excusable are repugnant.

You are entitled to your repugnance, and that is all it is. Keeping the analogy alive, what the United States did twice to Japan in exploding two atomic weapons was not a defensive step; it was a set of offensive activities designed to end WWII with "broad strokes." It worked. The casualty report and its fall-out both literally and figuratively was catastrophic. More importantly, President Truman had resolved to continue the practice had it not created an "early" positive outcome.

The outcome was declared right for its times. Also, abortion "on demand," to use the opponents of the activities phrasing, is declared right for the times.

However, you look back over your shoulder at Ancient Israel, a new burgeoning nation in the thralls of becoming, and you label the people and its God immoral for deciding to make use of a social convention which most if not all "the known world" agreed was a proper course of action against hostile nations. No one living today knows the pressure dynamics of living day to day in the ancient world.

You see this country's course of action in the 20th century as necessary and sufficient as discussed in this comment.

Moreover, you do not see a need to end this nation's part in future wars by its unilateral disarmament of nuclear tipped weapons. You fear annihilation, if done so. Your concerns are reasonable. For this country has made long-lasting global enemies, because of its centuries long political and military campaigns.

So were Ancient Israel's concerns reasonable, living in a Canaanite area of the world. Slavery was an acceptable outcome in ancient times. God judged those nations and brought them down.

yours is all it is.

No, I'm confident that the vast majority of people in civilized cultures agree that defense of slavery is repugnant.

Just as I'm confident that the vast majority of people in civilized cultures would agree that we should not be executing homosexuals.  Would you find it repugnant to defend the death penalty for homosexuals?  Or is that a case in which you might decide that the Bible is a poor moral guide?

You see this country's course of action in the past as necessary and sufficient.

You're presuming again.  The US has committed many atrocities and acts of oppression, and continues to do so to some degree.  Many of those atrocities, BTW, were justified with religion.  "Manifest destiny", for example.  Slavery - how you can think that our nation's actions always meet with my approval when I'm on the "slavery is a bad thing" side of the argument is beyond me.  Oppression of women.  Oppression of LGBTQ people.  All defended on religious grounds.

Going to the Bible for moral guidance is a horrible idea. 

One man's opinion. Another man's not.

At least then one does not walk around thinking that 'God hates fags' (Westboro Baptist Church famous line) or that owning a human being as property is moral.

What God hates is God's prerogative. Some people by their actions display hate real and imagined, God, and gods,

Sandy, the point is not your opinion made in the present about modern times and issues you have experience and are closer to in time. The point is you are attempting to pass judgement on the Ancient Jewish practice of slavery of pagan nations from the present. Extend your mind forward (eight thousand AD theeabouts) comparable to  the length of where you are sending it backwards and simply imagine the discussion taking place on whatever "channel" of assembled minds sharing can say about the manner of ending WWII in Japan; the holding of the largest stockpiles of nuclear tipped weapons by our country (and Trump wanting "the greatest nukes ever").

What would a future 8,000 AD world say about our lack of leadership example in not disarming first so that our enemies could follow us?

you are attempting to pass judgement on the Ancient Jewish practice of slavery of pagan nations from the present

No.

I'm pointing out the dangers of using the Bible or its god as a moral guide.  It's lousy morality.  It got a pass then, but it doesn't in more modern times, although some people try to give it a pass. 

A moral guide provided by the greatest possible entity, if that entity were actually moral, need not have capitulated to the customs of the time.  After all, god felt perfectly comfortable commanding grown men to cut off their foreskins, which I'm sure they were quite reluctant to do.  How easy would it have been to say "Don't own people"?

It didn't, because it was created by a people who owned people and had no reason to stop owning people.  We should be more evolved now, but that doesn't stop some people from using the Bible to justify atrocities.  

There is really nothing new in this comment to reply to. Maybe foreskins! Which are now cut off in babies for convenience sake! (Smile.)

Again, you assume God is after the same 'goals' as humanity in this sphere. More impactfully, you are assuming God wants what you want for humanity. That is not practical or probable.

God will have looked at the expanse of God's plan for humanity and charted the course (approved of) with all the steps and stages to arrive at a final destination. Humanity can not hold God's blueprint or know what 'in-roads' need to be plowed through experiences to achieve the final results.

I'm confident that the vast majority of people in civilized cultures agree that defense of slavery is repugnant.

Agreed.   In fact it is fascinating that a modern human being would not find owning a person as property to be a repugnant notion.

One man's opinion. Another man's not.

What God hates is God's prerogative. 

Water is wet.

You think the Bible is a good source for moral guidance?    Even after discussing the content therein?

The point is you are attempting to pass judgement on the Ancient Jewish practice of slavery of pagan nations from the present.

Actually the problem is that you seem to pretend to not understand the point several of us consistently have made.   The point is that the God of the Bible was, unlike the ancients, not a product of their times.   God is defined as perfect, omniscient, etc. and clearly would know that slavery is immoral.  Yet God behaves and instructs as if He was indeed simply a product of the times.   The god-like wisdom is no greater than the wisdom of the ancient authors.   (Not a surprise; behaves as the product of human beings in leadership positions using a God to control the masses.)

As a character of fiction, that is exactly what one would expect.   As a real entity (perfect, omniscient, etc.) God certainly would know that owning a person as property was immoral.    One of many clues that the God of the Bible is simply a character of fiction — a product of ancient minds.

Nobody is passing judgment on ancient human beings who were true to their mores and values.   Anyone of us would, had we lived in those times, thought slavery was perfectly normal.   The ancients were moral per their relative morality.    Some of us in the present operate under a relative morality that holds slavery to be repugnant.   It is good that some of us have evolved.

The point never has been about the ancients (except by your incessant strawman) but rather the veracity of the Bible and the God character it defines.

Even though this has been stated probably dozens of times now, we will again, no doubt, watch you make the same claim of judging ancients as if to illustrate to all that you will ignore everything you wish to not hear.

Yes. "Fascinating" that myriads of modern human beings can give their trusts and ways of life over to a prophetic set of ancient writings.

Books you have determined and call for trashing, because these books do not meet your standards and plans for humanity. Fascinating and disturbing-in its own right.

I write this.  ↴   You quoted it.

TiG @2.1.40 - In fact it is fascinating that a modern human being would not find owning a person as property to be a repugnant notion.

You respond with this:  ↴

CB @2.1.43 - "Fascinating" that myriads of modern human beings can give their trusts and ways of life over to a prophetic set of ancient writings.

As if to emphasize my point.   I agree, it is fascinating that modern human beings would 'give their trusts and ways of life'  even to the point of denying that slavery is repugnant.

We, believer and lack of believers in a God, gods, some not all, have not had a proper discussion on the Bible. It seems to have been a one-sided plan all along to simply browbeat the 'other' side into submission. Epic fail.

It has not now and may be shall not be a fair-minded discussion of both sides points of view, seeing that lack of believers insist on keeping logic upfront and supernaturalism utterly out of 'debate.' Because as we all have been 'bombarded' with it: logic rules supreme.

However, the bible by its own rationales and use of spiritual language points out its supernaturalism. Lack of believers steer wide of that, nevertheless.

Taking a different tack here. I stopped reading this comment at this point:

Actually the problem is that you seem to pretend to not understand. . . .

Tig, I will not ever know what the rest of this comment states, because I refuse to read it beyond the words above. You have no cause to tell me I "pretend" anything. That's all.

On to the next comment.

I will not ever know what the rest of this comment states ...

That explains a lot.

( Okay by me if you do not read or even pretend to not read.   Others read my rebuttal and that really is what matters anyway.    Indeed, if you would prefer to pretend to ignore all of my comments and never respond that would work nicely too.   I will simply continue, as always, to rebut written nonsense.  )

Nothing to see here, moving on down the list.

It does, indeed.

Slavery existed, exists, and may always exist in the domain of humanity.

Slavery existed, exists, and may always exist in the domain of humanity.

Certainly.   The key is if one holds slavery to be repugnant or condones it by blindly following the lead of an ancient book.

Retorts can not make the case for getting rid of the Bible. Moreover, using modern standards of humanity in an attempt to depose an eternal God is illogical. Modern standards change with time.

There is no discussion here at all, never has been, just a long everlasting game of Atari's Pong.

May as well be discussing love with a nuclear physicist

or oil painting with an AI computer.

Well, t'is the Religion and Ethics category. I checked! God, Bible, Gospel, Ancient Israel, slaves, love, . . . yeah, they're 'situated' properly in the right location.

It would be more accurately called, "Fiction, Religion and Ethics"

Well, a moderator, may be can make that happen. I don't know. Check on it, if feeling that strongly about it. Otherwise, why take out discontentment on this thread?

If its all the same, some of us take our divergent and convergent faiths seriously. Even in critical and open spaces.

What continues to shock me is this arbitrary calling of people who are historical figures as fictitious.  It is true that a lack of believer in Gods, gods some not all, will admit that science does not know if God exist or does not exist. Therefore, having no proof one way or the other, here you are making a blanket statement that the whole of the biblical experience is of no value, because, you imply, we should go to 'next steps' and let man make his on case for life on this planet, whether God can be proven to exist or not.

This 'treatment' of the issue looks over the fact that believers do have faith in God and in doing will not declare God "dead" and move on to appropriating man/humanity in God's stead.

In other words, we deal with the occurrences in our Bible, we 'update' them to our own times in many cases, for the Bible allows for this under Christian liberty. We are not 'stuck' as some would have it believed to following "old-timey" scriptural lessons and rules of governance for Ancient Israel.

this arbitrary calling of people who are historical figures as fictitious.

TiG didn't say that, although there is little evidence for their existence outside of scriptures copied one from another, which were themselves based on oral histories - not exactly reliable sources.

He said it was historical fiction, and it is.  We know that Earth was not created as told in Genesis.  We know there was no global flood.  Those are myths.  Fiction, in an historical setting.  Same as Gone With the Wind, The Iliad, and The Aeneid.

Little evidence for whom, Sandy? The Ancient Israelites?

The Israelites as a people?  No, there is evidence for them.  But Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph - there is little evidence for the existence of those individuals who are so important to the Abrahamic religions.  Except for Muhammed, of course.

There is also little evidence for the Exodus as told in the OT.

Historical fiction.

To illustrate your less-than-admirable tactics at play, this is the full comment to which you replied:

TiG @2.1.33 - The continued impact this ancient work of historical fiction has on the contemporary world is indeed the key reason why one must challenge those who declare the Bible divine.   Going to the Bible for moral guidance is a horrible idea.    Much better to cherry-pick and sanitize (as the Catholics do) biblical lessons and leave the Bible itself as classical literature.   At least then one does not walk around thinking that 'God hates fags' (Westboro Baptist Church famous line) or that owning a human being as property is moral.

In this comment I speak of the Bible as an ancient work of historical fiction that is clearly not divine.   I note that the Bible is horrible as a moral guide.   Then I note the Bible is best treated as classical literature and not taken as the divine source of morality.

You ostensibly read my comment and then wrote this product of your imagination:

What continues to shock me is this arbitrary calling of people who are historical figures as fictitious.

Which people do I call fictitious?   My comment is about a book; I did not even name any people.  Yes there are fictional characters (most notably God) but my comment said absolutely nothing about any character in the Bible; which were fictitious, which were real.   You are 'shocked' by your own imagination.   An intellectually dishonest comment.

Therefore, having no proof one way or the other, here you are making a blanket statement that the whole of the biblical experience is of no value, because, you imply, we should go to 'next steps' and let man make his on case for life on this planet, whether God can be proven to exist or not.

Where do I claim or imply the Bible is of no value?   In direct contrast, do you find the phrases:  Historical fiction or Classical literature.   Again, you create a straw-man by inserting your own words 'no value' while ignoring what I actually wrote.  Another intellectually dishonest comment.

This 'treatment' of the issue looks over the fact that believers do have faith in God and in doing will not declare God "dead" and move on to appropriating man/humanity in God's stead.

Ya think?   What was your first clue ... thousands of years of continuing to point to this book as the word of a perfect God?

In other words, we deal with the occurrences in our Bible, we 'update' them to our own times in many cases, for the Bible allows for this under Christian liberty.

The Bible is static; God is not updating it.   Part of the problem is that people take this static perspective of thousands of years ago and 'update' it themselves to meet their own needs.   No surprise that there are so many disagreements on what the Bible actually means.   Even here on NT the vocal theists disagree left and right.   Extrapolate this small microcosm of the religious and imagine the plethora of interpretations of the Bible.  (Talk with a few about the concept of a gay Christian; consider fellow Christians deeming a gay Christian to be a fake Christian.  Are they right?  Are you right?  Somebody is wrong.)  Nobody could possibly know that they have the right interpretation (assuming there is one) but most likely believe they do.   You certainly come across as though your interpretations are truth.   I see no hints in your words that you think you might be wrong about the existence of the God of the Bible or even how He is defined in the Bible.   The hints that you realize you might be wrong about matters are your evasive tactics, straw-man arguments, equivocation on the meaning of words, etc.   In my opinion, one who has his story straight would not use bad tactics — he would instead honestly provide facts and logic.

We are not 'stuck' as some would have it believed to following "old-timey" scriptural lessons and rules of governance for Ancient Israel.

Accordingly, per my actual point, you are not really using the Bible as a divine source of morality.   You 'add value', you 'interpret' and you flat out ignore that which you cannot stomach and invent that which you wish were actually written.   You will not admit it, but in effect the Bible has already been relegated to historical fiction, classical literature since it clearly is not being used as the divine source of objective morality even by those who claim they are doing just that.   

Define, "little evidence," for the people in question, please. In other words, what do you have as evidence, and what do you lack as evidence?

As for the Exodus, which part is "little evidenced," I'm curious.

To illustrate your less-than-admirable tactics at play

Hardball, eh? This is not going personal as someone LOVES to ding others? Again, casting shade on me unnecessarily. This is not an argument; indeed, it is a display of emotional frustration.

In this comment I speak of the Bible as an ancient work of historical fiction that is clearly not divine.   I note that the Bible is horrible as a moral guide.   Then I note the Bible is best treated as classical literature and not taken as the divine source of morality.

On whose authority do you make such declarations? Tig's? By itself that is reducible to laughter.

Moreover, according to past discussions we've shared, you have already, "green-lighted" APPROVED of Ancient Israel's approach to slavery as right for theri era. ("Society says morality.")

Which people do I call fictitious?   My comment is about a book; I did not even name any people.  Yes there are fictional characters (most notably God) but my comment said absolutely nothing about any character in the Bible; which were fictitious, which were real.   You are 'shocked' by your own imagination.

The statement here self-refutes itself. 'Nuff said.  Now then, this goes to 'intent.'

In addition, I take a holistic approach to comments written addressing a subject. It is an acceptable practice.

On whose authority do you make such declarations? Tig's? By itself that is reducible to laughter.

I did not make a statement of authority.  I gave you my conclusion.   I see no rebuttal.

Moreover, according to past discussions we've shared, you have already, "green-lighted" APPROVED of Ancient Israel's approach to slavery as right for theri era. ("Society says morality.")

And yet again you present your wishes as my words.   I stated, repeatedly, that ancient people did not consider slavery immoral in their relative morality.   According to them, it was right.   That is not even remotely close to my approval of practices such as slavery or sacrifices.   Another intellectually dishonest comment.

The statement here self-refutes itself. 'Nuff said.  Now then, this goes to 'intent.'

A declaration with no supporting argument.

In addition, I take a holistic approach to comments written addressing a subject. It is an acceptable practice.

Translation:  I like smoke screens.

If you write something - especially a reply to me - that contains intellectual dishonesty I will most often call it out.     If that is a problem then do not invent words and attribute them to me.   Honestly read what I (and others write) and give an honest response (hopefully based on facts and logic).

I see no rebuttal to my comment.   Just more games.   That should be a clue.   Ask yourself why you ignored everything I wrote and went full meta instead of addressing the content.

In my judgment it is because you have no rebuttal of value to offer.

Where do I claim or imply the Bible is of no value ?   In direct contrast, do you find the phrases:  Historical fiction or   Classical literature . 

@ 14.2.100 Tig

So if we discover a place that matches a biblical description what does that mean other than the Bible contains a fact?   There are facts in the Bible Cal.  Along with poetry, parables, etc.    What is lacking is evidence for the claims of divinity.  Given thousands of years of believers desperately trying to shore up the Bible (and some resorting to laughable tactics) it is likely that there never will be evidence of divinity.   Couple that with the flat out contradictions in the main character and it is easy to dismiss the Bible as a work of ancient history, philosophy, poetry and fiction that is no more divine than the Iliad and the Odyssey.

@ 2.1.28 Tig

My position is that the Bible is demonstrably errant, contradictory and ipso facto not divine.   The God character it defines is self-refuting.   Ergo, when someone treats the Bible as the divine word of God ( especially if one defers to the Bible for addressing moral questions ) then that is a dangerous lack of critical thinking.

The Bible is not putting itself forward as a book of fiction, as proven by as you put it, "the thousand of years of believers" living their lives out of it: Scientists, doctors, lawyers, world leaders et ceteras.

Play word games all you wish: 'Decorate'  your words all you wish, but the meaning is clear and across the threads you have stated so much about letting the Bible go; drop its present status in the nations, and allow something else ( humanism ) take its place.

Now you call yourself intellectually honest to hide behind logic (logic does not concern itself with the Bible, per se), and critical thinking (critical thinking has no interest in faith), while you consistently show up to deride God and supernaturalism ( as a philosophical naturalist who only accepts the existence of matter and energy) . But, no, your ofttimes comments characterize your point of view regarding the Bible. No value.

You won't admit it and that is a lack of fair-mindedness! For a fair-minded person is required to consider both sides of an issue and not simply their own.

The Bible is static; God is not updating it.   Part of the problem is that people take this static perspective of thousands of years ago and 'update' it themselves to meet their own needs.   No surprise that there are so many disagreements on what the Bible actually means.   Even here on NT the vocal theists disagree left and right.   Extrapolate this small microcosm of the religious and imagine the plethora of interpretations of the Bible.  (Talk with a few about the concept of a gay Christian; consider fellow Christians deeming a gay Christian to be a fake Christian.  Are they right?  Are you right?  Somebody is wrong.)  Nobody could possibly know that they have the right interpretation (assuming there is one) but most likely believe they do.   You certainly come across as though your interpretations are truth.   I see no hints in your words that you think you might be wrong about the existence of the God of the Bible or even how He is defined in the Bible.  

1. Define "static" as it relates to the Bible? Moreover, who told you this? Or, did logic conclude this for you? Or is it that you HAVE A NEED that the Bible be static to suit your arguments?

The canon of scripture is closed. Revelation is revealed according the times. One clear example, believers have liberties to have different 'paths' due to the translation from language x to language y with translators trying to understand how words internally shift in a language. Of course, the atheists see this "struggle" to be consistent in message as a opportunity to scoff and mock. Of course.

2. Well, we can certainly point to the lack of believers in God, gods, some not all, on NT who HIDE in plain sight refusing to acknowledge their worldview and free-plowing with all sorts of logical renderings even when the inconsistency is shown. They simply disappear and resurface at a 'later' entry point.

Christian liberty, Tig. Moreover, even modern Israel does not 'stone' homosexuals. Jewish liberties. Times change, rituals, ceremonies lessen, and hearts and minds (spirits) grow and mature. Which belies your wishing to plant the Bible [in time] and leave it potted there. Anybody with a mind can see behind the curtain to the purpose of your persistence to discuss nature apart from any spiritual meaning - which you avoid like a cat steering clear of a hot tin roof!

3. I can speak to a spiritual life and a life as a homosexual, because I exist as both (for life) now! You can only 'speculate' what being homosexual and a person of faith can be, for surely living life is never a simple exercise in a long-running series of logic expressions. Is it?

Accordingly, per my actual point, you are not really using the Bible as a divine source of morality.   You 'add value', you 'interpret' and you flat out ignore that which you cannot stomach and invent that which you wish were actually written.   You will not admit it, but in effect the Bible has already been relegated to historical fiction, classical literature since it clearly is not being used as the divine source of objective morality even by those who claim they are doing just that.   

Just as I stated, (@2.1.69) you HAVE A NEED that the Bible be static to suit your arguments.

A natural man who can not understand spiritual matters (which are a part of life) because logic is wholly separate and apart from it! Thus, the spiritual-minded person has liberty to add value and interpret so that in all things s/he can be good person to all, not one stuck behind 'lawyerly shades of gray' which can confound and stupefy those living solely in a 'black and white' dimension of knowledge. It is called, acquiring wisdom over the course of life, Tig.

The Bible is not putting itself forward as a book of fiction, as proven by as you put it, "the thousand of years of believers" living their lives out of it: Scientists, doctors, lawyers, world leaders et ceteras.

Another dishonest comment - pretending I wrote that the Bible is EXCLUSIVELY fiction and ignoring that I had just wrote historical fiction.  

If you cannot engage in debate, build a straw-man, eh?

Play word games all you wish: 'Decorate'  your words all you wish, but the meaning is clear and across the threads you have stated so much about letting the Bible go; drop its present status in the nations, and allow something else (humanism) take its place.

I am confident my meaning is quite clear.   Projection.   Presumption.   Stereotyping.

Now you call yourself intellectually honest to hide behind logic ...

What is that supposed to mean?   LOL   

... while you consistently show up to deride God and supernaturalism (as a philosophical naturalist who only accepts the existence of matter and energy). But, no, your ofttimes comments characterize your point of view regarding the Bible. No value.

Make wrong (or stupid) claims and I will challenge you.   

I did not make a statement of authority.  I gave you my conclusion.   I see no rebuttal.

Your arbitrary opinion, then.

I stated, repeatedly, that ancient people did not consider slavery immoral in their relative morality.   According to them, it was right. 

I wrote:

Moreover, according to past discussions we've shared, you have already, "green-lighted" APPROVED of Ancient Israel's approach to slavery as right for their era. ("Society says morality.")

Our statements are equivalent, Tig. You are caught being personal again. But, I won't complain. I am better than simply complaining.

You like smoke screens? Okay!

Your opinion, again. Well, you got started too quick on this retort: Read on! >>>>

Ditto! Let others judge what you and I may mean, accordingly. 

Now can we get back to the topic and not a belittling of others?

Define "static" as it relates to the Bible?

Look up the word and work it out.   

Moreover, who told you this?

Some of us do not rely on others to tell us what to think.   

Or is it that you HAVE A NEED that the Bible be static to suit your arguments?

Interesting that you would presume such a dishonest tactic.   Not everyone resorts to dishonesty.  Some of us use facts and logic.

The canon of scripture is closed.

Correct.   See?   You do not need me to explain basic English words like 'static' after all.   You recognize then that no new books are coming and God is probably not going to manifest an 11^th commandment to update His position on slavery.

HIDE in plain sight refusing to acknowledge their worldview 

People tend to not answer stupid or irrelevant questions.   Especially when a question is simply a foundation for stereotyping.   A perfect ploy ruined by people who saw through it.

... even when the inconsistency is shown ...

I have yet to see you accomplish that.   Declare it, yes.   But simply declaring something does not make it so.   One needs to demonstrate.

Moreover, even modern Israel does not 'stone' homosexuals.

Glad to see you are aware of that.   

Times change, rituals, ceremonies lessen, and hearts and minds (spirits) grow and mature. 

You apparently do not realize that when I stated that the Bible is static that I was talking about the Bible.  'The Bible is static' means 'the Bible is static'.   If I had intended to state that Jewish society or culture is static I probably would have used the phrase 'Jewish society/culture' rather than use the phrase 'the Bible'.

In short:  'the Bible' refers to the book.   The phrase 'the Bible' does not mean 'the Jewish people'.   Clear?

Which belies your wishing to plant the Bible [in time] and leave it potted there. 

Well, see, that is wrong.   Again, the Bible is static but Jewish society, et. al. continues to evolve.   Think about this for a while.   Bible = book.   Jewish society = people.   'Book' not same as 'people'.   Different.

I can speak to a spiritual life and a life as a homosexual, because I exist as both (for life) now!

And many of your fellow Christians do not consider you a true Christian.   How Christian of them, eh?   

Your arbitrary opinion, then.

Let's see.    One can ...

• spew nonsense
• give a gut reaction
• offer a reasoned conclusion
• claim a fact
• profess to be an authority
• claim to know truth

I told you that I stated my conclusion .   Labeling my conclusion an opinion is perfectly okay.

But then you toss in ' arbitrary '.   Now where did that come from?   

arbitrary = " Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. "

Did I suggest or imply that my conclusion was random or personal whim?   Would you expect me to offer a conclusion that is not based on evidence, facts and logic?   So by what sound reasoning do you conclude 'arbitrary opinion'?   My conclusion is that you are spewing nonsense.  

You apparently do not realize that when I stated that the Bible is static that I was talking about the Bible.  'The Bible is static' means 'the Bible is static'.   If I had intended to state that Jewish society or culture is static I probably would have used the phrase 'Jewish society/culture' rather than use the phrase 'the Bible'.   In short:  'the Bible' refers to the book.   The phrase 'the Bible' does not mean 'the Jewish people'.   Clear?

No! This is not clear. The Bible refers to two 'peoples' the Jewish nation/people and Believing Christians. Tig @ 2.1.41 :

Water is wet .

To write about the Old Testament is to make a claim about the Jewish people directly or indirectly. No faux dichotomies! Where you segregate the people and 'curse' their God, prophets, temple, it is inclusive. The Bible is a ' living ' book meant to affect lives in the past, present, and future..

Hebrews 12 For the word of God is alive and active . Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

That makes it 'living' in the life of Believer, former, present, and future. We, believers know it, because we live it. Some others are simply giving an 'outside' opinion using the authority and under the influence of a 'logic algorithm.' Ahem, no slight to logic, nevertheless.

Our statements are equivalent, Tig

Then you do not comprehend the meaning of the word 'equivalent'.    My recognizing that slavery was considered moral by ancient relative morality is very different from me approving of the actions of the ancients.   Think.

No! This is not clear. The Bible refers to two 'peoples' the Jewish nation/people and the Believing Christian.

1. Bible Book.   
2. People not Book.   
3. Bible not People.

Now hard part:   'Bible is static' mean 'Bible is static'.   Not mean 'People are static'.   Mean 'Bible is static'  

People not Bible and Bible not People.

Maybe in your mind, it is. You approved 'em: According to them, it was right. 

Of course, if you won't stand behind your statements, that is not my fault! I won't call you names either!

To write about the Old Testament is to make a claim about the Jewish people directly or indirectly.

Yes.   And declaring that the Bible is static does not mean that the Jewish people society / culture is static.   Buy a vowel.   I cannot make this any easier.   Ask someone to explain this to you.

That makes it 'living' in the life of the Believer.

Sure, it is living as interpretations.   I made that point earlier.   I also noted that the many, varied interpretations of a static book means the book is ancient literature.   If you are going to go with interpretations of interpretations might as well be honest about it. 

Clearly divinity is in the mind of the believer.    One should be honest about that instead of arrogantly professing to be in communication (spiritually) with the grandest possible entity.

Of course, if you won't stand behind your statements, that is not my fault!

Perfect illustration of you declaring what you wish to be true in spite of written words that demonstrate you are wrong.   And worse still, I just explained this to you.

Why people engage in such practices is beyond me.   You must realize that I am on to your game.   But do you realize that most readers also see through this feigned obtuseness nonsense?   

So what is the point of playing these games?   It just cannot do anything positive for you except run up your comment count.  

"Denial" is not a river in Egypt. You are hard-pressed to inform people about a book you have no to limited contact with by admission. Thus, you argument is weak. Admit it. You simply see figuratively dead words on the pages of a book >>>you wish to logically (even though logic does not care about faith/spirituality) see thrown 'down.' Admit it. Then, we can move back to slavery in the Bible.

You are not making it any easier, simply by 'pushing' an arbitrary statement/s forward.

We know the history and foundation of how we received our bible, Tig. No need for a logic lesson from you on it.

The rest of your comment is, well, irony, coming from a lack of believer in God, gods, some not all. How would you logically have any way of knowing, presently?

That is your personal whim. Or are you going to persuade me that spewing namecalling and condescension 'issues forth' came out of a logic 'algorithm'?

You are hard-pressed to inform people about a book you have no to limited contact with by admission.

Show me where I 'admitted' to anything like that.    

You simply see figuratively dead words on the pages of a book

I see a book that declares itself divine and then proceeds to contradict itself.   The fact that people think that this book is anything more than the work of ancient men with agendas does not change the fact that it is errant and self-refuting.   

That is your personal whim. Or are you going to persuade me that spewing namecalling and condescension 'issues forth' came out of a logic 'algorithm'?

Persuading you is not (and never was) the objective.   I would never expect to persuade anyone who would defend the Bible at all costs - even at the expense of his own veracity.   

I am just countering your nonsense and exposing your tactics.

Really? Another self-refuting statement. It is someone else 'running up my comment count' with continuous and arbitrary statements. I'll 'rest' after someone goes first.

Impasse, while simultaneously delivering a low blow. Logic algorithms are not emotionally reactionary. Wonder where that display of attitude comes from?

Impasse. I was thinking along the same lines for this section. I can write this comment, because I was in the process of replying when you set the Impasse action. (Smile.)

You can not call an impasse when making a point. Please read how to make an impasse properly in the CoC. Thank you. 

Hi Perrie, that is not my IMPASSE call. In fact, I see IMPASSE on Tig's messages. To be honest, I can not impasse the correct way if I wanted to. All I see when clicking on other people's avatar's is a "Friend" option. Did Tig set the IMPASSE? Curious.

Not "Impasse" or "Ignore."

Hi Cal, 

OK sorry about that. It kind of read as yours and I was wondering why you wouldn't just use the impasse. 

If you are seeing impasse on Tig's, you should not be able to respond to him, so something is not right. I will investigate. 

Oh, I can not reply to Tig at this point. (I went out for a quick minute - just got back). I did not set the IMPASSE, nevertheless.

But since I was already in the process of replying to Tig when the impasse established itself, my last comment to Tig registered as a REPLY and I was able to edit and comment on the last comment, too.

Does it appear that Tig was "making a point,"

@2.1.88 >>> Persuading you is not (and never was) the objective.   I would never expect to persuade anyone who would defend the Bible at all costs - even at the expense of his own veracity.    I am just countering your nonsense and exposing your tactics.

when he declared IMPASSE? I could be wrong, but it seems so to me.

No, I forgot. That is how it works. He goes to your last comment and presses the impasse key there. At that point, Tig can no longer engage you and vice versa in that thread and that is what happened. 

Sorry, my bad. 

NP.

The Israelite history begins in Exodus as a population of slaves.  The Hebrews were intimately acquainted with the law of slaves while they were slaves in Egypt.  Did the Hebrews create slavery for themselves or were they following laws and traditions established while they were slaves?

The Bible also provides clues about how Egyptians, Greeks, and Persians treated slaves because the Hebrews were the slaves of those cultures.  The Israelite people were not conquerors in antiquity, they were the slaves of conquerors.  The Bible shows that slaves do not give up their cultural heritage and traditions established while slaves.   The Bible is a story of how an enslaved people retained their identity as slaves; the Hebrews never really became enlightened free people.  Isn't that the lesson that should be scrutinized?

The philosophy (or theology if you prefer) of Jesus of Nazareth was about ending the tradition of slavery and embracing a philosophy of Free Will consistent with the Greek philosophy of enlightenment.  The Hebrews rejected that philosophy.  The question is why?

The Bible only confirms that the Hebrews were intimately familiar with the laws and treatment of slaves because their history began with enslavement.  The Abrahamic religion of the Jews did not spread throughout the world.  It was the Christian philosophy of enlightenment and Free Will that was adopted by other civilizations.  People did not want to be Jews; people wanted to be Christians and replaced their religions with Christianity. 

Slaves are governed by laws.  The law is the only morality for slaves.  Slaves are not allowed to govern themselves; slaves are not concerned with questions of morality.  The law establishes limits for what is acceptable and unacceptable.  Obeying the law is right and disobedience is wrong; it really is that simple.

The Jews retained their identity as slaves.  The Bible reflects the history, culture, and tradition of enslaved people written by slaves.  The Old Testament provides abundant justifications and excuses for slavery because the Old Testament shows how to write laws to govern slaves by people who were intimately familiar with being slaves.  Who better understands how laws govern slaves than do slaves?

Slavery is a culture based upon law.  The Jews of the Old Testament governed themselves as slaves.  The Old Testament did not address the morality of slavery because it did not need to.

The Jews retained their identity as slaves. 

You obviously don't know a thing about the Jewish faith. Passover or The Last Supper is all about NOT accepting slavery as a way of life. That is their identity. From the Haggadah:

'Once We Were Slaves, Now We Are Free'

You obviously don't know a thing about the Jewish faith. Passover or The Last Supper is all about NOT accepting slavery as a way of life. That is their identity. From the Haggadah:

What other Indo-European culture created a religion around slavery?

The Exodus isn't about enslaved Hebrews rejoining free Hebrews; according to the Old Testament there were no free Hebrews.  The Old Testament is a story about a population of only slaves.  People who had not been enslaved in Egypt were not Jews.

Even today conversion to the Jewish faith requires submitting to the law.  And the God that is the source of Jewish law was a god of slaves; there wasn't any free Jews.

the God that is the source of Jewish law was a god of slaves; there wasn't any free Jews.

Friend Nerm_L, the Jewish people were a free people before going into Egypt proper. This people were also a free people upon coming out of Egypt. Even setting up their own system of government in Israel under their own authority (and God's directives). In addition, it is true that the nation kept going in and out of 'captivity' to other nations for various large-scale reasons specific to the prophets and the times. But,

The general accepted agreement is Israel was a free people after having constituted itself as a nation once, despite its struggles. I covet your and other thought on this point!

As to God, well, organized Christian thought is a belief and acceptance all humanity is under God's authority.

Friend Nerm_L, the Jewish people were a free people before going into Egypt proper. This people were also a free people upon coming out of Egypt. Even setting up their own system of government in Israel under their own authority (and God's directives). In addition, it is true that the nation kept going in and out of 'captivity' to other nations for various large-scale reasons specific to the prophets and the times.

The story of the Jews is about one family or tribe, the tribe of Jacob (grandson of Abraham).  Supposedly Jacob was the first Jew, there were no other Jews.  The twelve sons of Jacob became the Twelve Tribes of Israel.  The history both preceding and following Jacob emphasizes obtaining God's favor through obedience and punishment for disobedience.  

Genesis and Exodus present tales of obedience and disobedience.  The original sin of Adam was disobedience to God and that disobedience was punished by being cast out of paradise.  The Noah flood story is about the consequences of disobedience and regaining God's favor through obedience.  Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is a test of obedience.  Joseph (the son of Jacob) was sold into slavery by jealous brothers; (long story short) that's how the tribes of Israel eventually became slaves in Egypt.  The Twelve Tribes of Israel were in Egypt and nowhere else.  Supposedly the Tribe of Levi (in Egypt) avoided slavery by devoting themselves to the study of the Torah (devotion to the law) and not participating in Egyptian politics.   Moses is a story of obedience and the consequences of disobedience; Moses was not allowed into the promised land (and freedom) because of his one act of disobedience.

I contend that the Old Testament is a story about slaves written from the perspective of slaves.  The Twelve Tribes of Israel (the sons of Jacob) did not become Jews until they were enslaved in Egypt.  The Old Testament does not deal with morality because it did not need to.  Obedience to the law was how to gain God's favor.  The Old Testament is not written in the language of free people but rather in the language of good and obedient servants (or slaves).  

The story of the Jews is about one family or tribe, the tribe of Jacob (grandson of Abraham).  Supposedly Jacob was the first Jew, there were no other Jews.  The twelve sons of Jacob became the Twelve Tribes of Israel.  The history both preceding and following Jacob emphasizes obtaining God's favor through obedience and punishment for disobedience.   First of all, none of those people you are calling Jews were Jews but Hebrews or Israelites. The first of them is Abraham since he made the covenant with god. His offspring were Issac and then Jacob. I don't know where you got the idea that anyone was gaining gods favor along the way. In fact, the Torah/ OT is full of people who are questioning or going against gods request. That is the very essence of free will. god tells Jacob what the outcome will be if he goes down into Egypt, but he is not forced to do so. He is told not to be afraid to do so. He was not forced by god. Just like Jesus decided to be sacrificed. Both had free will. Genesis and Exodus present tales of obedience and disobedience.  The original sin of Adam was disobedience to God and that disobedience was punished by being cast out of paradise.

There is no original sin in Judaism. This is a Christian concept. People are born sinless.

Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is a test of obedience.   

First of all, Abraham never sacrificed Issac. Second, there are many interpretations to that story, obedience being just one of them. 

Supposedly the Tribe of Levi (in Egypt) avoided slavery by devoting themselves to the study of the Torah (devotion to the law) and not participating in Egyptian politics. 

That is never explicitly said in the Torah/ OT and is only one explanation of one Rabbi  in the Midrash. Have you read the Midrash? 

Moses is a story of obedience and the consequences of disobedience; Moses was not allowed into the promised land (and freedom) because of his one act of disobedience.

That is correct. God told him not to hit the rock and what the outcome would be and yet he did. That is free will. He was also the old guard of slaves. The ones who entered Israel came in as free men, never knowing slavery.

I contend that the Old Testament is a story about slaves written from the perspective of slaves. 

Read past Exodus. The Israelites never thought of themselves as slaves after leaving Egypt. 

Perrie and Nerm_L,

I am absolutely thrilled with this 'back and forth' exchange of informed information. A+

There is no original sin in Judaism. This is a Christian concept. People are born sinless.

Yes.  Judaism begins with Jacob and not with Adam.  IMO the lack of original sin in Judaism also has to do with the faith of Abraham.

First of all, Abraham never sacrificed Issac. Second, there are many interpretations to that story, obedience being just one of them. 

Correct.  God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.  And Abraham would have sacrificed Isaac if God had not intervened.  Abraham demonstrated obedience to God based on faith.

In Protestant Christianity (at least the Protestant theology that I am more familiar with) the importance of the Old Testament is to trace lineage to show that Jesus was a direct descendant of Isaac.  The crucifixion of Jesus (as God's son) was the sacrifice of Isaac.  The sacrifice of Jesus (as a direct descendant of Isaac) fulfilled God's command for sacrifice and no other sacrifice was commanded.  Abraham's faith became manifest in Christ.   God's grace is not gained by acts and deeds; only by the faith of Abraham who redeemed the original sin of Adam with his faith.  

What I was taught (and I admit I don't know if it is theologically correct) is that's what Christians mean when they say redemption is by faith alone.  My understanding is that's why original sin is an important tenet of the Christian religion; the faith of Abraham redeemed the original sin of disobedience by Adam.

Yes.  Judaism begins with Jacob and not with Adam.  IMO the lack of original sin in Judaism also has to do with the faith of Abraham.

No, Judaism starts with "In the beginning", which is what starts the Torah/OT. If you do not know that, then you know nothing about the Jewish faith. And without understanding that, you have no idea who Jesus was.

First of all, Abraham never sacrificed Issac. Second, there are many interpretations to that story, obedience being just one of them.  Correct.  God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.  And Abraham would have sacrificed Isaac if God had not intervened.  Abraham demonstrated obedience to God based on faith.

You kind of missed my point. Not all interpretations of that story is about obedience to gods word. Here is a different interpretation

Another approach to the story of the Akedah is that it’s not about God calling on man to commit murder but rather it’s a cautionary tale about man misinterpreting God.

Rashi points out that God never asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. The term the Bible ascribes to God is veha’aleihu, which means to “offer him up”; the Bible deliberately does not use the term shechateihu,“slaughter him”.

All God ever asked of Abraham is to bind Isaac on the altar and then to release him. Abraham in his eagerness to fulfil the word of God misunderstood the command, believing that, after binding Isaac, he was to sacrifice him. The powerful lesson in this is that God’s messages are not always as clear as we might think.

https://www.thejc.com/judaism/rabbi-i-have-a-problem/what-kind-of-message-does-the-story-of-the-binding-of-isaac-send-1.48460 

In other words, god does not want blind obedience.

There are too many interpretations in Protestant traditions to have a singular interpretation or agree with just one. My only point is that most Christians think they understand Jesus's roots when they don't understand what he came from. 

Hi Perrie,

FYI, your link throws a 'oops' page not there anymore (Smile.)

I am looking at that passage in Genesis and your are correct about the wording, but it does continue : If you hover over the words information will appear!

Source: biblehub

It is around the words, "burnt offering" where the idea of "non-refundable" sacrifice is often illuminated by Christian leaders in the Churches. Much appreciate any light to be shared on this.

Already, this sharing together is bringing forth fruit! (Smile.)

Oops! Seems all my editing in the table caused a loss of some of the Column 1 data. It is on the link, nonetheless. Really sorry, I wanted it to look neat and nice.

There is no original sin in Judaism. This is a Christian concept. People are born sinless.

I think I should step up and share something of a moment I had with Perrie on the boards here, where this information was shared with me.

For it had never crossed my mind after much study in my faith and the connections between the two contracts (OT/NT) that this seeming foundational concept, of "original sin" was not accepted in Judaism.

To be honest, it set me to wondering a long time about the differences, which I reckon I accept can not all be accounted for in the canon of the Christian bible..

Just sharing.

No, Judaism starts with "In the beginning", which is what starts the Torah/OT. If you do not know that, then you know nothing about the Jewish faith. And without understanding that, you have no idea who Jesus was.

Creation is the justification for God.  But creation is not the justification for religion.  Judaism begins with Jacob.  Christianity begins with the birth of Jesus.

You kind of missed my point. Not all interpretations of that story is about obedience to gods word. Here is a different interpretation

I am unfamiliar with that interpretation (of the story of Akedah).  To me the question that interpretation raises is "how can we trust our faith?"  Fallible faith suggests the need for a priesthood to act as intermediary between God and humans to ensure proper understanding of God's meaning. 

Of course, that interpretation also provides hope that God would intercede if we are led astray by misunderstanding God's meaning.  But that also allows someone to claim they are doing what God has commanded since God has not intervened.  The struggle between good and evil goes on.

Regardless, Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac on faith alone.  Abraham was not deterred by temptation or doubt.  

In other words, god does not want blind obedience.

How does that reconcile with God's punishment for disobedience presented in the Old Testament?  Lot's wife might disagree with that idea.  Wasn't the message of many prophets to warn about the consequences of disobedience?

For it had never crossed my mind after much study in my faith and the connections between the two contracts (OT/NT) that this seeming foundational concept, of "original sin" was not accepted in Judaism. To be honest, it set me to wondering a long time about the differences, which I reckon I accept can not all be accounted for in the canon of the Christian bible..

Doesn't Christianity place great emphasis on the redemption of sin through faith?  Doesn't the Old Testament highlight avoiding sin through obedience and forgiveness of sin through action and deeds in compliance with law?    

In other words, god does not want blind obedience. There are too many interpretations in Protestant traditions to have a singular interpretation or agree with just one. My only point is that most Christians think they understand Jesus's roots when they don't understand what he came from. 

Deuteronomy 10: (This is the story of the Ark of the Covenant.  Isn't blind obedience a central requirement of the covenant with God?)

Hi Nerm_L,

Yes, and, yes! However, keep in mind Judaism does not recognize or accept our New Testament canon of books. The Jewish people, generally speaking, have their own holy books and commentaries covering the totality of their belief system.

Hebrews 9. You bring up a SECONDARY outstanding question I would like to inquire of a member of Judaism: I am beginning to wonder what Jewish worshipers really "hear" when New Testament Gospels, apostles, teachers, pastors and preachers, interpret (exegesis) the Old Testament major and minor prophets establishing foreshadows, signs, original sin, and more.

Perrie, did you see this table (above) and does it aid the discussion?

Trying again:

thejc

It is a matter of that words in Hebrew have often have two meanings:

Rashi points out that God never asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. The term the Bible ascribes to God is veha’aleihu, which means to “offer him up”; the Bible deliberately does not use the term shechateihu,“slaughter him”.

The word slaughter is often used in other parts of the Torah and therefore it is curious that it is not used here. You can read the rest at the now working link.

Abraham went along with God’s instructions precisely because he had faith that God would in the end not allow him to sacrifice his son. Faith is not the same as belief.If Abraham believed that God would stop him from sacrificing Isaac, it wouldn’t have been a test. It’s a test because this certain belief is absent. All Abraham has to go on is faith. Too often we confuse belief with faith. While belief is comforting, faith requires a great emotional and mental leap beyond one’s comfort zone.

Faith is not the same as belief. I like that!

Creation is the justification for God.  But creation is not the justification for religion.  Judaism begins with Jacob.

Judaism begins with the Torah, which Moses gave to the Israelites. And since it began at the beginning, that is where the faith starts. It is their only text and one they got fresh off the press. 

How does that reconcile with God's punishment for disobedience presented in the Old Testament?  Lot's wife might disagree with that idea.  Wasn't the message of many prophets to warn about the consequences of disobedience?

First of all, Abraham argues with god for the lives of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah which shows they he is not afraid to speak his mind. And the reason that Lot's wife got turned into a pillar of salt wasn't because she was simply told not to, but rather the reason she was told not to, which is that she was not to gain pleasure out of their pain. But she had an evil streak in her and so she had to look and that was her punishment. Now you can argue that she got punished and there I would agree, but it was not because of disobedience but rather because of intent.

I understand and agree with the wording for "offering him up," this is fair.

However in the next instance, this is used:

"Burnt offering" can only mean one thing: total and utter consumption of the flesh on the altar. So, couldn't both things be true: the Ask and the Redemption ? In this section of the narrative?

Thank you for sharing.

Bad translation and missing the point. 

11 And the Lord said to me, "Arise, go to lead the travels before the people, so that they may come and possess the land I promised their forefathers to give them.

So god is saying that he gave the Israelites, Israel, as he promised:

12 And now, O Israel, what does the Lord, your God, demand of you? Only to fear the Lord, your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, and to worship the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes, which I command you this day, for your good.

And in exchange, he asks to " to walk in all His ways". There is no reference to obedience. He is saying do as I do and to do it for your own good. 

btw.. those would be the same 10 commandments given to Christians, too. 

See this is the issue with the Torah vs the NT. The translations are different and these subtle difference change the whole context.  

Cal,

You would benefit to read this not as singluar lines but in a context of the whole story. 

Here this might help:

The Rabbis of our tradition teach us that a close reading of text can reveal meanings hidden beneath the surface. When they read the Akeidah, they identify an apparent theological issue. At the climax of the tale, the angel commands Abraham, "Do not lay your hand on the lad" (Genesis 22:12). Rashi brings a midrash to highlight the problem:

Abraham said to God, "I shall lay my complaint before you. Yesterday, you said to me, 'In Isaac shall your seed be called to you' (Genesis 21:12). And then you came back and said, 'Take your son' (Genesis 22:2). Now you are telling me, 'Do not lay your hand upon the lad' (Genesis 22:12)." ( B'reishit Rabbah, 56:8)

Abraham's complaint amounts to accusing the Eternal God of changing His mind or even going back on His word. First, God promised to make Abraham into a great nation through Isaac. Then, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice him. Now, the angel tells Abraham to stay his hand. How can it be, the Rabbis have Abraham ask, that the perfect, immutable King of the Universe could flip-flop like this? The midrash continues with God's explanation:

The Holy One, Blessed be God, said to [Abraham], "'I will not violate My covenant, or change what has gone out from my lips' (Psalm 89:35) . . . When I said to you, 'Take [your son],' I was not altering what came forth from My lips. I did not say to you, 'Slay him,' but rather, 'Take him up.' You have taken him up; now take him down!" ( B'reishit Rabbah , 56:8)

reformjudaism

These stories are told in context to other stories. They can not be interpreted line by line 

I understand your point exactly. Two points:

1. I have read, continuously read through, and comprehensively study in the Old Testament. I am a New Testament believer, nevertheless.
2. I know that God does not change. God nature is expansive and eternally suited to God's plans and purposes. That is, God knew already the manner of how to interact with Abraham ahead of doing so. God knew what the results would be—from God's angle; ahead and above it playing out.

Abraham simply had to learn what he was capable of doing on behalf of God. So yes, I can and do "put it all together."

I love the links you share by the way. Truly insightful to learn other perspectives and ponder over them. I want to assure you I do not take this sharing for granted (no matter how I might approach discussion). This is immeasurably satisfying and profound.

Reconciling scriptures is a useful function for the believer, because when we do this we get a fuller orb of what many verses want us to glean.

This story, Akedah, a new word for me, - to me- does not lend itself to a treatment about blind faith. For all along from Abram leaving his native homeland at 75 years old, to Abraham having a son at 100 years of age, and all those in-betweens Abraham had tangible experiences with God. These experiences he relied on.

It may be that God finally 'hit' upon something Abraham found abhorrent.  For the Genesis test is this: Go burn Isaac. That is, dedicate Isaac back to me. It is what the page states. Importantly, the outcome is written there, too. 

Thus, for me,  this 'account' is not about blind faith, murder, but is instead about God's plan and ability to provide a suitable sacrifice. For surely, something was 'burnt,' before coming down from the mountain.

(Smile.) Love this sharing. Really, really, really, do.

I have read, continuously read through, and comprehensively study in the Old Testament. I am a New Testament believer, nevertheless.

My point here is not to make you Jewish, but rather to have you understand how differently Jews veiw bible study from Christians and why there is a miscommunication of a sort. 

It may be that God finally 'hit' upon something Abraham found abhorrent.  For the Genesis test is this: Goburn Isaac. That is, dedicate Isaac back to me. It is what the page states. Importantly, the outcome is written there, too. 

If indeed it was a test, it was a poor one. A promise was made (And I will multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and I will give your seed all these lands, and all the nations of the earth will bless themselves by your seed ) and the only way the promise could have happened is if Isaac is alive, so, therefore, there couldn't be a human sacrifice and two, at the end of this story, Isaac leaves Abraham and never returns. This tells us that Isaac didn't forgive his father for this act as what good father would sacrifice their son? And here is the major reason why Jews can't accept Christianity since it took the sacrifice of a son (who was obedient but not happy about the going through with it i.e.  “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”) to save humanity and why Christians read this story the way they do, as it lends credence to the Jesus story. For Jews, this is parable and fluid in interpretation and for Christians, this is literal and foretelling.  

I know you are not trying to make me Jewish (Tee hee).  However, we are in the Religion and Ethics 'arena' and can interact freely!

If indeed it was a test, it was a poor one. A promise was made (And I will multiply your seed like the stars of the heavens, and I will give your seed all these lands, and all the nations of the earth will bless themselves by your seed ) and the only way the promise could have happened is if Isaac is alive,. . . .

There within is the meaning of faith (in God); Genesis 22:14,

"Abraham called the name of that place The Lord Will Provide, "In the mount of the Lord it will be provided."

Abraham demonstrated extraordinary approval of the 'technique' of God who promised the boy's life to have a future (for Abraham had seen the provision of a son in his and Sarah's old age), that he could (Genesis 22:10) take up the knife to slay his son, his only son.

God could testify to the bond between this man, Abraham and God. Whom Abraham gloried through this action.

Isaac leaves Abraham and never returns.

Dear Perrie, Abraham picked out Isaac's wife (Genesis 24);

Isaac's new wife dwelt in Sarah's (old) dwelling (v. 67);

Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac (Genesis 25:5); and,

Isaac buried his father (v. 9).

I should have been more careful with my wording. 

Read it carefully. Issac and his father never converse again. 

It is all done through someone else. 

And it makes it a point of saying that Isaac moved away to Negab. 

And the story goes forward and backward from that point. None of it implied they ever had a relationship, which earlier passages do. 

And yes Issac does bury Abraham along with his half brother Ishmael. But that was a son's obligation. 

Looking at it carefully, I come across this, Isaac kinda drops out of the narrative, until he is more or less ready to marry:

Genesis 22:19: Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba . And Abraham stayed in Beersheba . ^{Genesis 25: 20} and Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah daughter of Bethuel the Aramean from Paddan Aram ^{[ c ]} and sister of Laban the Aramean.

1. Near as I get it, Beersheba is in the Negeb region. Abraham came down off the mountain and lived there. Was Isaac in this region also?

2. Isaac seems unnecessary to the narrative, until marriage, the death of Abraham, and the fathering of his children

Great sharing!

Cal,

The gap of any meaningful interaction after the binding, between father and son, is what is considered as important from the Torah perspective. It is the holistic view of the story. 

I understand. Moving on . . . .

The philosophy (or theology if you prefer) of Jesus of Nazareth was about ending the tradition of slavery and embracing a philosophy of Free Will consistent with the Greek philosophy of enlightenment.

Can you explain how you arrived at this conclusion or, if it isn't your conclusion, where you got it from? 

Can you explain how you arrived at this conclusion or, if it isn't your conclusion, where you got it from? 

While most histories cite St. Augustine as the theologian that intermixed Neoplatonism with Christianity, the period of Jesus' life was also a transitional period in Greek philosophy that gave rise to Neoplatonism.  The Hellenist influence of Greek philosophy (introduced by Alexander the Great) had been established in that region for three centuries by the time of Jesus.

Jesus' use of parables was consistent with the methods employed by Greek philosophers.  Jesus would ask questions (consistent with the method of Socratic philosophers) and provide a reasoned answer (consistent with the method of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophers).  The point of Jesus' parables was not just to deliver a 'because God' answer to a question.  At times Jesus even included a pantheist description of God.  

While the real Jesus is actually unknown (just as the real Socrates is unknown), the material in the first books of the New Testament does show the influence of emerging Neoplatonism philosophy.  The New Testament is actually more Greek in philosophic presentation than Persian or Egyptian.  The New Testament gives a personality and character to Plato's conception of God.

What the west considers enlightened thinking is rooted in the philosophy of late antiquity (the time of Jesus) and Neoplatonism.  The New Testament was written during the formative years leading to what we consider the period of enlightenment.

You seem to be quoting something. That is, that is how it reads. In any case, having read the gospels over and over, I have to say that I think your interpretation is wrong. It seems to me your view focuses on the individual attaining some sort of enlightenment for the sake of advancement of that individual. If so, I think that is contrary to what Jesus was intending. Kind of.

Jesus said he was 'the way, the truth and the life'. In that sense, he was about enlightenment. However, it wasn't about, um, emancipation of the individual from something larger than herself. It was about the realization of the proper place of the individual within the context of creation. Jesus, through his own life, demonstrated that the proper understanding of the human existence is dependence on God. That is, God and His plan for us is the goal, not individual freedom according to one's onw desires.

The Bible also provides clues about how Egyptians, Greeks, and Persians treated slaves because the Hebrews were the slaves of those cultures.  The Israelite people were not conquerors in antiquity, they were the slaves of conquerors.  The Bible shows that slaves do not give up their cultural heritage and traditions established while slaves.   The Bible is a story of how an enslaved people retained their identity as slaves; the Hebrews never really became enlightened free people.  Isn't that the lesson that should be scrutinized?

Nerm, the Hebrews were never slaves of the Greeks. In fact, the Greeks tried to conquer them and failed. That is what Hanukkah is all about. There was a brief period of being slaves by the Persians, but then they were accepted into their country and prospered there. And I don't know how you can say that they never became enlightened people when they gave Jesus the basis of what he believed. So there is no lesson there.

The philosophy (or theology if you prefer) of Jesus of Nazareth was about ending the tradition of slavery and embracing a philosophy of Free Will consistent with the Greek philosophy of enlightenment.  The Hebrews rejected that philosophy.  The question is why?

Again wrong. Freewill is the basis of Judaism. It is why in there is no original sin. Why there are choices given time and time again in the Torah/ OT. 

The Bible only confirms that the Hebrews were intimately familiar with the laws and treatment of slavesbecause their history began with enslavement.  The Abrahamic religion of the Jews did not spread throughout the world.  It was the Christian philosophy of enlightenment and Free Will that was adopted by other civilizations.  People did not want to be Jews; people wanted to be Christians and replaced their religions with Christianity. 

The reason that Judaism didn't spread through the world is that proselytizing is forbidden by the faith while it's one of Christianity's fundamental cornerstones. And what do you mean "People did not want to be Jews;". That comment sound very disparaging of Jews. 

Hello Perrie!

Busy as I presume you to be, and good heavens you often do not get back to a thread to reply to a question, that said, I have an important question for you . It hinges on something I have heard you say on another thread and just now above in this comment: "The reason that Judaism didn't spread through the world is that proselytizing is forbidden by the faith while it's one of Christianity's fundamental cornerstones."

Now I think I understand what you mean by that statement. In the sense that the OT says the Jewish people were to be a "priesthood" and a peculiar people, to be clear that particular language comes from I Peter 2:9-10, reaching back to the original intent of the establishment of the nation of Israel. Forgive me any miscues in terminology: I am building this thought in the moment. Let me hasten to my point. The article above states ,

There was a Talmudic command that masters attempt to convert Gentile slaves to Judaism and circumcise the males.

and this:

Matthew 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You traverse land and sea to win a single convert , and . . . .

This Matthew verse has been in the back of my mind since the first time I read the, " proselytizing is forbidden by the faith ." statement. Just now getting back to it, however. Can you take a moment to clear this up for me and others who may need it?

Hi Cal.. not sure how long I can do this today... but I am trying to take a few and comment. 

There was a Talmudic command that masters attempt to convert Gentile slaves to Judaism and circumcise the males.

There is no Talmudic command to convert Gentiles to Judaism. What there was (was being the important point), when Abraham accepted his convenient with god, that all males within the household must be circumcised and that would include those who worked for them. That tradition was not carried forward after going into Egypt. 

As for conversion, Jews make it incredibly hard to convert. In fact, a person who wants to convert of free will, but demonstrates this free will and asks the rabbi involved 3 times before they are even allowed into study. 

Matthew would not have any bearing on Jews, for very obvious reasons. 

btw.. there are no commands that come from the Talmud. The Talmud is legal discussions on what is in the Torah (for lack of a better way of putting it).

... there are no commands that come from the Talmud

Just to emphasize Perrie's closing point.   The Talmud is entirely words of men.   There is no claim that any part of the Talmud is the word of God; it is rabbinic wisdom.   So nothing in it can be claimed to be divine - only interpretations / analysis of what some consider divine (the Torah).

Thank you for sharing this. It is wholly helpful to greater understanding.

To be clear, this specific wording ("Talmudic command") is from the seed author of the above article.  Three times asking? Not so hard. . . . But, larger point made.

Matthew is making a point about Jewish conversion practices, and speaking to a practice pointing back in time. Again, your larger point is acknowledged.

I ask such questions and "press in" because I want understanding in all my getting!

Thank you, I respect your answers and your time.

Nerm, the Hebrews were never slaves of the Greeks. In fact, the Greeks tried to conquer them and failed. That is what Hanukkah is all about. There was a brief period of being slaves by the Persians, but then they were accepted into their country and prospered there. And I don't know how you can say that they never became enlightened people when they gave Jesus the basis of what he believed. So there is no lesson there.

Yes, that's true.  The Hebrews were enslaved by Babylon in the 6th century B.C. and Babylon did not become Greek until the 4th century B.C.  

Again wrong. Freewill is the basis of Judaism. It is why in there is no original sin. Why there are choices given time and time again in the Torah/ OT. 

If the practice of Judaism is based upon birthright and compulsory obedience to God's law, then Free Will is not a central tenet of the religion.  Catholicism is another example of a religion where Free Will is not a central tenet.  A Jew is a Jew by birthright and not by choice.  Orthodox Christianity is also a birthright form of religion.  The gentiles of early Christian history had to choose to be Christian, there wasn't a birthright or a compulsory requirement to be Christian.

The reason that Judaism didn't spread through the world is that proselytizing is forbidden by the faith while it's one of Christianity's fundamental cornerstones. And what do you mean "People did not want to be Jews;". That comment sound very disparaging of Jews. 

But the region was a crossroads of Western and Eastern civilizations.  While Damascus was the major city in the Levant, Jerusalem was not exactly a bypassed backwater city.  The Hebrews did not need to proselytize around the world, the world came to the Hebrews. 

If the practice of Judaism is based upon birthright and compulsory obedience to God's law, then Free Will is not a central tenet of the religion. 

Judaism is not based on that. I just showed you that here

Without free will, there would be no need for Yom Kipper or Day of Atonement. The day is for asking forgiveness for acts against fellow man, and not god. God is all loving to the faithful.

A Jew is a Jew by birthright and not by choice.

That is a ridiculous statement. A Jew can convert to any other faith and not be a Jew anymore. It is no different than any other faith. Jews within their life, make decisions to be Jews through Bar-Mitzvah and Confirmation. Also, there are many different kinds of Judaism, just like in Christianity.

en.wikipedia

 While Damascus was the major city in the Levant, Jerusalem was not exactly a bypassed backwater city.  The Hebrews did not need to proselytize around the world, the world came to the Hebrews. 

While that is true, it is against Jewish law to actively try and convert anyone. That being said, at the start of Christianity, this worked in the young faiths favor, since the first Christians were Jewish Christians and Paul used his connections there to spread the word. 

God ordered liberty to all, the end of slavery within Israel, but they disobeyed 561 BC

“This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people who were at Jerusalem to proclaim liberty to them: that every man should set free his male and female slave—a Hebrew man or woman— that no one should keep a Jewish brother in bondage. Now when all the princes and all the people, who had entered into the covenant, heard that everyone should set free his male and female slaves, that no one should keep them in bondage anymore, they obeyed and let them go. But afterward they changed their minds and made the male and female slaves return, whom they had set free, and brought them into subjection as male and female slaves. Therefore the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: ‘I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, saying, “At the end of seven years let every man set free his Hebrew brother, who has been sold to him; and when he has served you six years, you shall let him go free from you.” But your fathers did not obey Me nor incline their ear. Then you recently turned and did what was right in My sight—every man proclaiming liberty to his neighbor; and you made a covenant before Me in the house which is called by My name. Then you turned around and profaned My name, and every one of you brought back his male and female slaves, whom you had set at liberty, at their pleasure, and brought them back into subjection, to be your male and female slaves.’ “Therefore thus says the Lord: ‘You have not obeyed Me in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother and every one to his neighbor. Behold, I proclaim liberty to you,’ says the Lord — ‘to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine! And I will deliver you to trouble among all the kingdoms of the earth. And I will give the men who have transgressed My covenant, who have not performed the words of the covenant which they made before Me, when they cut the calf in two and passed between the parts of it— the princes of Judah, the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the parts of the calf— I will give them into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their life. Their dead bodies shall be for meat for the birds of the heaven and the beasts of the earth. And I will give Zedekiah king of Judah and his princes into the hand of their enemies, into the hand of those who seek their life, and into the hand of the king of Babylon’s army which has gone back from you. Behold, I will command,’ says the Lord, ‘and cause them to return to this city. They will fight against it and take it and burn it with fire; and I will make the cities of Judah a desolation without inhabitant.’ ”

Jeremiah 34:8-22

Hi LFoD!

(Looking good in white, there!) You are aware that the distinction in this case is freedom for the Hebrews, and not for the non-hebrew (pagan) slaves. Are am I incorrect about this passage?

And yes, I am unfortunately aware of King Jehoiakim, like King David, who used forced labor (slavery) on native Israelites in his day, prompting a warning "Woe!" from Jeremiah 22:13 - 17,

That seems to be limited to commanding an end to owning Hebrew slaves, not slavery in general, nor even an end to enslaving non-Hebrews within Israel.

It is simply a tale told by Jeremiah based on a long established rule that Hebrew slaves (males) are set free after six years.   Here is the old rule from God which I have quoted quite a few times on NT:

Hebrew Servants  (Exodus 21:2-6)

²  “If you buy a Hebrew servant,   he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free ,   without paying anything.   ³  If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.   ⁴  If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master , and only the man shall go free .

⁵  “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’   ⁶  then his master must take him before the judges. ^{[ a ]}   He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce  his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life .

This is a law regarding Hebrews owning other Hebrews.   A Hebrew 'servant' is set free after 6 years.   However, if during his 'servitude' his master provided him with a wife and they had children, the wife and children remain property of the master.   So if the newly freed slave wants to stay with his family the law allows him to.   He just needs to have his ear pierced to show that he is owned by his master now for life .

The vast majority of slaves held by Jews were other Jews who entered into slavery contracts with a household.  Israel held very few non Jewish slaves during the time before Jesus and virtually none after that

But there was no law against owning non-Jewish slaves, so slavery was not ended within Israel.

The vast majority of slaves held by Jews were other Jews who entered into slavery contracts with a household.  Israel held very few non Jewish slaves during the time before Jesus and virtually none after that

That is likely true. After their captivity in Babylon I can't imagine many of the foreign slaves they had taken during the conquering of the promised land would have been kept after Babylon was defeated and they were being freed by the Persians.

However, this doesn't really change the fact that the laws written by Moses, supposedly inspired by the only true God, condoned slavery for hundreds of years covering dozens of generations of foreign slaves changing hands in ancient Jewish society. Just because Christ was supposed to fulfill the old law and do away with Jewish enslavement doesn't change that fact.

It's kind of like if you were kept captive in some old guys basement for decades, but then the old guys son comes down and rescues you and tells you he and his father are one, but that they only wanted what was best for you the whole time and had to imprison you for your own good. And now you should view the son as your savior, rescuing you from the captivity that he knew about and condoned, but was really his fathers fault. His Dad was always getting upset, regretting choices he made, the first batch of slaves in the basement that disappointed him he drowned, so we should all just be thankful...

You didn’t bother to read. There were very few non Jewish slaves in Israel and virtually none at and after the time Jesus.

I read.  Your assertion does not support your earlier comment about God ordering an end to slavery.  Even if true (we have only your assertion here), that doesn't mean there was a God-given law against owning non-Hebrew slaves.

bull

According to whom?

Just because Christ was supposed to fulfill the old law and do away with Jewish enslavement doesn't change that fact.

His Dad was always getting upset, regretting choices he made, the first batch of slaves in the basement that disappointed him he drowned, so we should all just be thankful...

Where do you see a passage/s in scripture that Christ 'did away' with Jewish enslavement? I would love to read it. I mean, I know that Christian liberty 'in whatever state one is in you are Christ's freeman or woman exist,' but I would like to know how Jesus affected Judaism proper.

No offense meant, but one of the misconceptions about God and Jesus Christ is that such entities are humanities' "bosom cousins." While it is stated that God wants a relationship with its creation, no where in scripture are we offered signs that God runs this universe equivalent to what will create "joy" and infinite joy in humanity.

You didn’t bother to read. There were very few non Jewish slaves in Israel and virtually none at and after the time Jesus.

And you didn't bother to read: "there was no law against owning non-Jewish slaves, so slavery was not ended within Israel."

Whether slaves were owned at the time is irrelevant. There was no prohibition against it.

What is the premise of this article? That God "approved" of slavery because it was a part of the economic system of the time and place?

What nonsense.

The Bible is a man made document, which claims to have been directed or inspired by God. It is not the direct word of God whatsoever. People who want to take the Bible literally , pro or con, are just digging themselves a hole they will never get out of.

In other words, I doubt that God has ever made It's feelings about slavery known.

This is all just a way to pass the time.

The Bible is a man made document, which claims to have been directed or inspired by God. It is not the direct word of God whatsoever. People who want to take the Bible literally , pro or con, are just digging themselves a hole they will never get out of.

Well said.   Best to recognize the Bible as simply an ancient book and use our brains the best we can to make a sensible civil world.   The God character as defined in the Bible is an imperfect, unlikable, self-contradictory mess.   If there is a supreme entity, one can only hope this entity is nothing like what the Bible defines.

We can count on this sour treatment and prejudicial bias from a predictable quadrant when God and the Bible are mentioned together.

Going personal right off the bat.   Understand what that means.   Discuss the comment, not the person (or indirectly via the 'quadrant' of the person).

"The god-character" in the Bible is probably uninterested in an antagonist atheist and most assuredly would not wish to be "it" either.

Utterly frustrating to lack of believers in God, gods, some not all, that God can do as God deems, be immaterial at the same time, and get a world of spiritual followers to boot!

Well, back to slavery in the Bible. . . .

We can count on this sour treatment and prejudicial bias from a predictable quadrant when God and the Bible are mentioned together.

The only one showing bias here is you, especially when you reject facts and logic to rationalize your own beliefs.

Actually, I can accept facts and logic in the scientific age and live experiencing the tools of science on a daily basis. Indeed, I seek them out. I 'pant' after them for the good discoveries can bring to the betterment of our human condition.

Also, I have a spiritual condition, which science (with its logic and critical thinking criteria) can not reach at this stage. For it is a positive property of spirituality to be emotional, conscientious, and compassionate.

Bare science, logic, and critical thinking have no spiritual component, respectively.

Thus, in this regards, it is not bias of me to choose the best parts of these. Bias is to prefer to shut out any one or several of these from a life's experience.

Also, I have a spiritual condition,

"Spiritual" is not quite the term I'd use. 

which science (with its logic and critical thinking criteria) can not reach at this stage.

Because science sticks to reality.

For it is a positive property of spirituality to be emotional, conscientious, and compassionate.

One doesn't need spirituality to have those qualities.

Bare science, logic, and critical thinking have no spiritual component, respectively.

And spirituality can't back up any assertions rationally.

Bias is to prefer to shut out any one or several of these from a life's experience.

It's been logically shown that the bible and god (how it's described) are logically self contradictory, as TiG has pointed out many times. Your failure to understand or accept that because you believe you have some special means or "spirit" which makes you magically more comprehending of such things only demonstrates your own bias.

Stop referencing Tig as your authority. I don't reckon he would like that! Besides, you have only your opinion to share and are neglectful to step outside of it. As to being both spiritual and rational, I think I do fine, thank you very much!

Stop referencing Tig as your authority.

He is not referencing me as an authority.  He it simply noting that I have repeatedly made a point to you similar to his.   His words are crystal clear.

I don't reckon he would like that!

What I dislike is the twisting of people's words such as insulting Gordy by suggesting he views me as 'his' authority when clearly his comment had no such meaning.

This essential argument of having ' special knowledge ' (spirituality) coupled with ' you do not understand because you do not have this special knowledge ' might have legs if the claimer of said knowledge could evidence the special knowledge.   

For example, if one is in communication with the supreme entity it seems reasonable (does it not?) that one might gain information that could be used to evidence the existence of this supreme entity.   But nobody who claims this special knowledge is willing to go into any detail on what this knowledge is and none can deliver any evidence whatsoever of the communication.   Yet it is those of us who are asking for evidence prior to believing this extraordinary claim of trans-supernatural communication who are accused of being biased.

Okay, I get it. Sometimes people just 'complete' one another. That's fine. I'll stay out of it.

Stop referencing Tig as your authority.

I'll reference whomever I want! But I didn't say TiG was my authority. Only that he has made the same point as I have many times now. Yet you continuously fail to grasp or accept it.

I don't reckon he would like that!

Then he will simply tell me.

Besides, you have only your opinion to share and are neglectful to step outside of it.

As are you.

As to being both spiritual and rational, I think I do fine, thank you very much!

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Okay, I get it.

Apparently not. 

See @6.1.10.

For example, if one is in communication with the supreme entity it seems reasonable (does it not?) that one might gain information that could be used to evidence the existence of this supreme entity.   But nobody who claims this special knowledge is willing to go into any detail on what this knowledge is and none can deliver any evidence whatsoever of the communication.   Yet it is those of us who are asking for evidence prior to believing this extraordinary claim of trans-supernatural communication who are accused of being biased.

It is not our responsibility to 'locate' God where you, "the spiritless" can find an understanding. Basically, what some spiritless folks are asking for, and apparently hiding in plain sight from discussing, is a demand for God to materialize in the flesh. How doing so would better an investment in the immaterial or spiritual property of God's being for some materialists—well, it simply wouldn't aid it.

After all, well enough did God understand humanity to prophesy God's own fleshly activity and discussion by man, when God 'humbled' himself to be a material man, that is: Jesus.

Jesus accomplished much, and still the spiritless souls of humanity remain here and present.

So ask for physical evidence of God all you wish, and scratch your heads about it as you ask these questions again and again. I have it on good authority that the next time a material response comes from God time available for questions, solving of mysteries, and comments will have come and gone.

See 6.1.11.

It is not our responsibility to 'locate' God where you, "the spiritless" can find an understanding.

Why constantly boast of your spirituality (and demean the 'spiritless' as inferior) if you have no interest in showing skeptics that spirituality is more than simply 'feelings'?

Repeated claims coupled with a complete refusal to provide evidence tacitly argues the claims are imagined rather than real.

Why constantly boast of your spirituality (and demean the 'spiritless' as inferior) if you have no interest in showing skeptics that spirituality is more than simply 'feelings'?

Because the problem involved is not intellectual, it is a lack of interest in spiritual awareness. It is holding to a naturalistic worldview which will not acknowledge anything other than natural effects that blocks an introduction to other real factors in this life. Science, for all its resources, is limited in explaining the human condition and mind.

I certainly believe some spiritless folks would try; but God. God has the unique ability to 'rattle' the conscious mind as no other being can. I can remember my 'conversion moment' when it came it loud (for I shouted out loud) and with a realization of two 'tensions':

1. How expansive and calm God is about "all this," and
2. how small and diminutive I felt as I came partially illuminated of 'my place' in a larger design.

Spiritual awareness allowed to develop: What a blast!

Also, I have observed that a 'true' Christian conversion experience comes with signs: You see an overwhelming humility accompanying the change, invariably. It is definitely a change in life that manifests.

I truly believe that God Himself could appear before some and they would remain unconvinced that He is real.

How would you know if god himself appeared before you?

Because the problem involved is not intellectual, it is a lack of interest in spiritual awareness.

The problem is grand claims with no supporting evidence.

Many Muslims would likely accuse Christians, et. al. of lacking spiritual awareness.  

showing skeptics that spirituality is more than simply 'feelings'?

Spirituality is an individual experience. No one person can define another's Spirituality. Spirituality is in itself a matter of how one feels mentally and emotionally about their own beliefs. 

I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in organized religion of any kind. My own beliefs are Spiritual, and no one can tell me how I should, or should not, feel, think or believe. 

Like man other Native Americans I do believe that there is a Supreme Being, one some of us call The Creator, or Ye-Ho-Waah. But, there are other Spiritual beings that also play a part in our lives. 

True Spirituality goes beyond definition, as each individual experiences their own Spirituality, their oneness with Mother Earth, Father Sky and all the living beings that share the planet it us. There is a Spiritual oneness between us all that none one individual can describe, as each person has their own Spiritual beliefs and interpretations. 

So one person trying to define who is and who isn't a Spiritual person based upon their own Spiritual beliefs is purely arrogance and intolerance of others who do not comply with their own idea of what Spiritually is.

JMOO

I truly believe that God Himself could appear before some and they would remain unconvinced that He is real.

Skeptics typically are not dogmatic.   We just do not believe that which is merely claimed.   

What would convince you that Islam is the true religion and Christianity was wrong?    Would you accept this claim if a Muslim told you so?   What if the Muslim insisted that your problem is just not being open to Allah?   Would that do it for you?

I suspect that Brahma (Hinduism) could appear before some Christians and they would remain unconvinced that Brahma is the true god.

I truly believe that God Himself could appear before some and they would remain unconvinced that He is real.

Given God is defined (by Christianity) as the supreme entity that is perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and the epitome of good (the arbiter of objective morality) it is tough to actually know if one is in the presence of God.   After all, how could anyone distinguish such a grand description from a super advanced alien intelligence?    It does not take much to kick our intellectual butts.

So it is more difficult to recognize God than you think.   If a bearded entity showed up in a white robe and told you he was Jesus would you believe him or would you need evidence?   If so, what kind of evidence would you need?

Some are. Simply look at post 6.1.19.

"How would you know if god himself appeared before you?"

That's certainly not dogmatic. That's a reasonable question in light of the answer believers are attempting to illicit.

You have to have some logical parameters set to confirm the "God" that appears before you is who he/her/it says it is.

"I will not address the rest of your post for obvious reasins."

A sin is bad, but a reasin, well now you're just doing it on porpoise...

But seriously, what are the obvious reasons you can't answer the rest of his question? Is it that you simply won't answer? Or by answering you feel too hypocritical and exposed considering that most Christians dismiss other religions without a second thought, not because the religion has been proved wrong, but because they are too invested in Christianity to bother with any other faith. This of course begs the question, are you a Christian simply because you were indoctrinated as a child and you invested in the same faith your parents did regardless of proof or evidence? Or have you actually tested your faith and others and truly come to a conclusion that from all the faiths available, you honestly believe the one you've chosen is the true faith?

And even if that is the case, would answering his question, specifically "What would convince you that Islam is the true religion and Christianity was wrong?" be too difficult or too blasphemous to verbalize?

I suspect most people presume the reason someone refuses to answer a direct serious question is simply the lack of a good answer.

And you would believe it simply because he says so?

I'm too old and tired for the old "Prove it!" game.

Okay by me, but that game is not in play.   You stated this:

Texan @6.1.17 - I truly believe that God Himself could appear before some and they would remain unconvinced that He is real.

I responded with this:

TiG @6.1.23 -  What would convince you that Islam is the true religion and Christianity was wrong?    Would you accept this claim if a Muslim told you so?   What if the Muslim insisted that your problem is just not being open to Allah?   Would that do it for you? 

There is no 'prove it' at play here.   You expressed a viewpoint that suggests you do not have a good understanding of the skeptic mind.   I gave you questions that put you in the position of the skeptic.   A way for you to evaluate, a bit, how we think.

Later I offered this on the difficulty of identifying God:

TiG @6.1.25 -

Given God is defined (by Christianity) as the supreme entity that is perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent and the epitome of good (the arbiter of objective morality) it is tough to actually know if one is in the presence of God.   After all, how could anyone distinguish such a grand description from a super advanced alien intelligence?    It does not take much to kick our intellectual butts.

So it is more difficult to recognize God than you think.   If a bearded entity showed up in a white robe and told you he was Jesus would you believe him or would you need evidence?   If so, what kind of evidence would you need?

All of this provides plenty upon which you could opine.   None of this requires you to 'prove God exists' (something I never ask people to do) so your excuse is not credible.   Clearly you have the time to answer so why flee the questions?

Define the groups involved in this "et al" of yours. I'm all , because once you get past Muslim, Christians, . . . who ELSE would you consider lacking in spiritual awareness? Present your answer logically . I'm ready now, please proceed. . . . 

My faith isn't on the line here, and isn't even part of any question being discussed.

Fair enough. I agree your personal faith is not on the line or being discussed. However, what is being discussed is the bible and by extension all faiths that derive their claims of a connection to a higher power based upon its teachings. That means both Christianity, Judaism and even to some degree Islam should address their evolving stance on slavery and for what reason their worshiped deity may have condoned and even at times promoted slavery. And part of that discussion is who's got it right, Christians, Muslims or Jews, and how one might make an educated determination to conclude one faith is superior to all others.

The question "What would convince you that Islam is the true religion and Christianity was wrong?" is integral to that discussion. If Christians had some sure fire way to determine that Christianity is true and Islam is fake, that Jesus is real and Allah is imaginary, then shouldn't that be one of the easier defenses to make? Shouldn't it be easy for anyone to understand and thus universal in "educating" the people as to which is the true faith? And if it's not an easy answer and is really just something a person has to feel for themselves, then doesn't that indicate that Islam may very well be the true religion since there's no definitive evidence either way?

"I'm too old and tired for the old "Prove it!" game."

I completely agree with you, I'm tired of that old game as well. I really do hope that someday a believer will be able to introduce an actual, viable piece of evidence to support their God hypothesis to put an end to that old game. As it is, the non-believers keep waiting for evidence while believers keep waiting for non-believers to just give up and believe from the sheer peer pressure believers inflict on everyone around them regardless of their lack of evidence. It's why 90% of the planet professes some belief in a deity but very few can give a clear and concise reason for their belief, and many can't even articulate the tenets of their beliefs, they just claims to be of whatever denomination they were raised in.

My post:

TiG @6.1.20 - The problem is grand claims with no supporting evidence.  Many Muslims would likely accuse Christians, et. al. of lacking spiritual awareness.  

Your response ignores what I wrote and instead asks me to elaborate on my use of et. al.:

Define the groups involved in this "et al" of yours.

Respond to the content of my post.  I am not going to chase tangents.

I am not looking for some long drawn out discussion that ultimately leads to nowhere.

You seem to have no problem penning a bunch of non-answers to DP's questions yet you refuse to answer a question from me and it is directly relevant to the point you made.

My questions were designed to make you think.   I suspect maybe you realized something while trying to formulate an answer.

There is no 'prove it' at play here.   You expressed a viewpoint that suggests you do not have a good understanding of the skeptic mind.   I gave you questions that put you in the position of the skeptic.   A way for you to evaluate, a bit, how we think.

I have been in the position of a skeptic, so I will certainly have experienced both perspectives. Thus, I will opine. What makes some (not all) spirit-less people presuppose that Muslims and Christians do not operate in the same realm of the spirit. That, like with any denominational grouping, we simply come at our profession differently. Same as in Judaism.

Ultimately, God will satisfy our questions and fractured faiths, through a realization. Some of the most amazing people I know are Muslims. Here, let me pull up something which speaks volumes for itself: I think if you can hear the message in this Marine's words you will have a an insight into what believers are:

As a Christian, I am proud as 'punch' for all the obvious reasons and beyond, that this 'brother' is alive and the harm he could have dreamt up never materialized as evidence of his displeasure in people he only understood of by the 'bad actors' attached to the name, Islam.

Bad actors are everywhere. Including the Church, Temple, Mosque, et al.

I have been in the position of a skeptic , so I will certainly have experienced both perspectives.

I am not convinced of that.   Nothing in your comments (other your claims of losing your faith) suggest that you were a skeptic.   Thus I am skeptical about you being a skeptic.    Further, your comment history does not suggest (to me) the thought process of a skeptic.   Your comments suggest one who does not follow the evidence to where it leads and is entirely comfortable accepting as truth that which is merely stated by other human beings.   

What makes some (not all) spirit-less people presuppose that Muslims and Christians do not operate in the same realm of the spirit . 

You will need to define what you mean by ' realm of the spirit '.   Because if you define it as ' hold a religious belief ' (or equivalent) your statement is obvious and offers no new information.   That is, we all know that religious people are religious.

Bad actors are everywhere. Including the Church, Temple, Mosque, et al.

Clearly this has nothing to do with my post.

We have a history, especially on this topic. I am trying to be nice.

Our history is largely what is taking place right now.   You keep responding yet do not say anything.   Most of what you offer is 'it is just a game of prove it' and on that point you are demonstrably wrong since I never ask people to prove God exists.

I get it, you do not have a good answer.   I am not surprised.   I would not have a good answer either if I were in your shoes.   That is one of the reasons why I am a skeptic.   I have considered the question of God my entire life and found that religious answers match what one would expect from ordinary human beings trying to pretend to speak for the grandest possible entity.   

It's why 90% of the planet professes some belief in a deity but very few can give a clear and concise reason for their belief, and many can't even articulate the tenets of their beliefs, they just claims to be of whatever denomination they were raised in.

This is a misstatement. Too many Christians and other Believers have fallen 'down on the job' and remain spiritually immature, or simply 'disarm' before materialism while trying to argue against materialism, to materialists. That is, naturalists 'stack the deck' by insisting on empirical evidences of God, trusting that  given God is Spirit, God is not going to 'stoop low' to oblige those who which to 'probe and prod' such essence!

Thus DP, what you are claiming to seek - you do not seek after; you are not open to start the debate unless all the players are standing on your 'side' of an imaginary field of play.

Well that is a rather "old game" I am tired of, myself. Change is underway. Watch this space. I encourage believers to take up the mantle of defending their faith and reason against those who think they can use science to destroy a realm science can not even 'touch.'

@6.1.37. Try to listen to the message in the video, listen more than once to be sure you hear it, please.

Another non answer.  

Another non answer.  

Are you really surprised? Of course not.

I am not convinced of that.   Nothing in your comments (other your claims of losing your faith) suggest that you were a skeptic.   Thus I am skeptical about you being a skeptic.    Further, your comment history does not suggest (to me) the thought process of a skeptic.   Your comments suggest one who does not follow the evidence to where it leads and is entirely comfortable accepting as truth that which is merely stated by other human beings. 

Oh so you know me because of my comment history?! Thus, because my 'comment history' is (rather exceptionally) Christian, thus I can not have been 'a Tig-level' skeptic, whatever that is exactly? Well, I do share more of myself on any given day than you deliberately do across years, so much for transparency. I digress.

Tell me, do all skeptics have to be naturalists who disregard supernaturalism at all times and points along the path? Even when an encounter is had with myriads of people in and out of time who had and have spiritual experiences. Heavens! They write books (and comments about this).

In the words of atheist writer extraordinaire Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptics Magazine,

Skepticism is itself a positive assertion about knowledge, and thus turned on itself cannot be held. If you are skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism.

On your own you do not know anything about my lose of faith, nor do you know all that I experienced on the road to acquiring renewed faith. So your skepticism about me is fluff.

Skepticism is not a belief system or a dogma you should hold up impenetrably. Thus, if you are waiting on all evidence in this world to square with your scientific outlook on life, you will be undoubtedly a skeptic about a great many real things.

Lastly, God has chosen to have believers exhibit an example of faith in the Earth. Believers are Called to be peculiar in this regard. Peculiar we are. For we spend our whole lives, parts, and endings in professing the unseen God who dwells among us.

We see what you see and are indwelled by what you can not "see." Once a skeptic; but now no more.

I think it is instructive for a theist to attempt to recognize that everyone is a skeptic in some way.   

What, seriously, would cause a Christian to deem an entity God?   If someone walked up to a Christian and claimed to be Jesus, clearly most would not fall on the ground and start praying.   That is skepticism.   What, then, would convince the theist that this is really Jesus?   My guess is that they would claim something like: 'I would just know'.   

By the same token, if Brama (Hinduism) were to materialize, would Christians simply accept that Brama is the true God or would they be skeptical?   Would they seek evidence (or even proof)?

Because of the nature of faith (belief sans evidence) it is likely that most theists would categorically reject anything contrary to their faith.   It would be interesting to see what evidence would convince them that Brama is the true God and to see how many would state that NOTHING could ever convince them that their faith is wrong.

Cal, are you a biblical literalist?  What is your worldview? 

Lastly, God has chosen to have believers exhibit an example of faith in the Earth. Believers are Called to be peculiar in this regard. Peculiar we are. For we spend our whole lives, parts, and endings in professing the unseen God who dwells among us. We see what you see and are indwelled by what you can not "see." Once a skeptic; but now no more.

So, you have a bias ... an admitted bias towards your personal interpretation of the bible and the Christian god ... but your bias is somehow acceptable?  Those whose indwell spirits lead them to worship Zeus are somehow not as wonderful and believable as you, are they?  You talk of the history behind the bible ... well, we've found the ruins of Troy, and we've discovered the site of the Oracle at Delphi.  Does this mean the Iliad should be taken as truth and we should worship Zeus?

Oh so you know me because of my comment history?!

No, I know your comment history.  That is why I focused on your comment history.   But you jumped to your straw-man anyway.

You claimed to be a skeptic at one time so I responded that your comment history does not support the claim.  And in your response you added absolutely no information.   Lots of words but no content.

Tell me, do all skeptics have to be naturalists who disregard supernaturalism at all times and points along the path? 

Not playing your labels (stereotyping) game.

On your own you do not know anything about my lose of faith, ...

Correct.   I know what you have written.  Just as I wrote.   Read what I write.

Skepticism is not a belief system or a dogma you should hold up impenetrably. 

Skepticism is not a belief system.   Always trying to stereotype.   

I made one personal observation based on what was posted

Texan, since you're not a biblical literalist, from what I've seen from your comments .. you might not quite get what we're all debating here.  There is a major difference between a religious person who's a literalist and one who is not.

Does this mean the Iliad should be taken as truth and we should worship Zeus?

Is it justified to believe in Zeus?   Do we have sufficient evidence or should one believe because one has been indoctrinated into the belief?

Funny thing, ancient Greeks were born and raised thinking Zeus, et. al. were real.   They fought wars, engaged in rituals, built temples, etc. all on the belief in their gods.   How are modern beliefs (e.g. Christianity, Islam) any more credible than the ancient beliefs in Greek, Roman and Norse gods?

It seems strange to me that a nonbeliever in God would be at all interested in something they don't believe exists.

Considering nearly all believers effect everyone around them with their beliefs, whether by pushing their faith in the form of blue laws, abortion laws and in public schools and courthouses here in the US and more directly in Middle Eastern nations that are basically Islamic theocracies, non-believers are very interested in that debate. They are the voice of reason injected into archaic traditions and doctrinal squabbles that have raged back and forth for centuries. When you have the unending claim of "My God is the true God!" simply being met by a whining "No it isn't! My God is the true God!" I think it would be refreshing for everyone to hear "You're both wrong so shut up and sit down!" every once in a while.

"Why can't they all be right in so far as man has interpreted what he thinks God, or whatever He may be called, wants?"

Which means they could also be all wrong since they all have exactly the same empirical evidence supporting each of them.

"As stated earlier, I don't care what anyone else believes. None of my business."

If it seemed strange that a non-believer would be interested in a debate between believers, it should seem very strange seeing someone who says they don't care what anyone else believes but is here reading everyone else's opinions and constantly injecting their own in response to others opinions.

"People of faith owe no explanations to anyone for their beliefs."

And yet most are constantly trying to convince others to believe in their God and worship as they do. You are obviously an exception to the rule and are that rare Christian who doesn't proselytize or belittle non-believers for their lack of belief so I salute you. You're one of the good ones.

Is it justified to believe in Zeus?   Do we have sufficient evidence or should one believe because one has been indoctrinated into the belief?

Aren't the ruins of Troy sufficient evidence for you?  Troy exists, therefore you should worship Zeus and accept the Iliad as divine.  That's the reasoning Christian literalists use to try to claim their god is proven, so doesn't it work for other gods?

The fact that we've found the source for the Oracle at Delphi proved what Plato knew - that the gases coming from the vents, not any divine intervention, gave the Oracles their "wisdom",  should be a wakeup call.  Isn't it interesting that there are no more miracles, bloody tears from statues, etc. now that we have ways to document these things if they ever happened?  As Nothing More says .. they've got your Christ on Copyright. 

There is a reason people were murdered as heretics when they challenged the Christian faith - truth challenges the faith of literalists, and the power of religious leaders.

Certain basic truths continue to be ignored.   People certainly realize that we are all products of our environment.   There is a very good reason why most people raised in India are Hindu, why most raised in Saudi Arabia are Muslim, why most raised in Israel are Jewish, why most raised in China are Buddhist and why most raised in the USA are Christian.

Yet in spite of the obvious, many (most) hold certain truth that their religion (indeed their particular sect or denomination) is the truth and everyone else is wrong.  It is surprising that people do not realize this and step back with the (seemingly obvious) position of no religion really can claim truth; that all religions are very likely to be man-made constructs.   

What is common to human beings is our need to explain the inexplicable.   Religion has been the main way this was accomplished in recorded history.   Science is the new kid on the block (in relative terms) and will likely continue to provide vastly superior, evidenced, falsifiable explanations going forward.   Maybe after another century religious indoctrination will fade into oblivion and people will not believe something simply because they have been told it is truth.

Oh welcome back from respite! I asked you, first! Be truthful and I'm still waiting patiently, . . . .   . . . . .  . . . . . .

Oh welcome back from respite! I asked you, first! Be truthful and I'm still waiting patiently, . . . . . . . .

Sounds like you're dodging Katrix's question. Or at the very least, stalling. Either way, it's a  cowardly tactic.

Because of the nature of faith (belief sans evidence) it is likely that most theists would categorically reject anything contrary to their faith.   It would be interesting to see what evidence would convince them that Brama is the true God and to see how many would state that NOTHING could ever convince them that their faith is wrong.

---

It is a bit sad and disappointing to have longtime atheists on NT demand others use mechanically crafted definitions for words like, well, for example: atheist.

Then we  are left to read as the same group of folks on NT persist in carrying their 'pocket-dictionary' definitions for what a believer's faith is. It should go without saying to the so-called, "fair-minded" (another atheist hand-selected word for themselves) critical-thinkers that they should easily allow others, in this case, believers to define the terms used in their area of belief.

Not so.

Some atheists, not all, choose to tell believers in conversation we have 'no evidence' for our faith (as if an atheist could possibly know), when the standard for belief does not 'fit' an atheist population-no way, no how. It begs the question: One can not define what one has established one has no interest in coming to grips with for others.

Next: This should stand as prove why "hypotheticals" don't always work in conversation. The interest in God is not a 'battle' over a name. Any 'fool' standing face to face with God would have no other recourse but to 'bend the knee' to overwhelming power, intellect, and substance. This hypothetical fails.

Katrix, are you 'god-shopping" for a household idol yet again?  Seriously, do you understand what faith, profession, confession, and conviction is? Have you heard nothing over the many months (years even) that would cause you to rethink this weak argument of yours.

Is it you, dear katrix, who was writing oh say about a week ago thereabouts of "dead gods" being revived as some form of 'relic' worship fad. Well, kat'x, a little tip here: our God never faded, has not fallen on hard times, and is not staging a 'comeback' pantheon visit.

Compare nature gods to other elemental gods, all you wish. They make great art decor!

I am not stereotyping anyone. I am communicating transparently and openly my defense of my belief system.

On the other hand, someone is using a "no labels" moniker as a crutch and a shield to hide behind and throw shade at believing Christians who are standing out in the center of the public square. Well, if somebody can criticize big, boldly,and pitch long enough - somebody can certainly handle a label that appears on the 'sleeve' coming out from the shadows.

I know comment histories, too. I do not need a light to see any clearer where the 'voices' are hailing from: comments speak volumes.

Fake news, folks!

my defense of my belief system.

You haven't done that at all.  You can't defend your belief system.  You have provided neither evidence to support it, nor a defense of your god as a moral being worthy of worship.  I'm convinced that you recognize that, and so resort to intentionally mischaracterizing nonbelievers, while simultaneously complaining of the nonexistent mischaracterization of theists by atheists.

It's a dishonest and childish tactic.

Name-calling and accusations are not arguments, Sandy. You can be "convinced" of anything you wish (and you are). BTW, what is your belief system? Is Sandy a materialist?

Come out into the 'sunlight' (its good disinfectant) and come clean. I'm free as a bird in fly, myself!

It is a bit sad and disappointing to have longtime atheists on NT demand others use mechanically crafted definitions for words like, well, for example: atheist .

What does that have to do with my post?   Instead of replying to my content you complain that people use the term 'atheist'?

Then we  are left to read as the same group of folks on NT persist in carrying their 'pocket-dictionary' definitions for what a believer's faith is. It should go without saying to the so-called, "fair-minded" (another atheist hand-selected word for themselves) critical-thinkers that they should easily allow others, in this case, believers to define the terms used in their area of belief .

You are complaining that people use the common definitions for the English words:  atheist and faith.

Faith (Oxford) - Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Atheist (Oxford) - A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Seems to me you are complaining that people will not allow you to assign whatever meaning you wish to words.

I'm convinced that you recognize that, and so resort to intentionally mischaracterizing nonbelievers, while simultaneously complaining of the nonexistent mischaracterization of theists by atheists.

I agree.   The highly repeated refusal to engage in thoughtful debate (to understand a point and directly respond to that point) is evidence that one does not have a good answer or argument.    Rather than acknowledge that (or simply not respond) we see attempts to get around a failed argument using tactics.    Each such use clearly damages the credibility of the user.   

That is the pot calling the kettle black.   Unless one is willing to directly and honestly respond to questions asked in rebuttal, then one is not making an argument.  

I agree with Sandy, I see no argument coming from you.   Just declarations followed by evasive tactics.    My conclusion is that you do not have any good rebuttals.   That I certainly find believable because I would not have a good rebuttal to the questions we have asked you.

Nobody has called you a name.  And your posts indicate that you either do not understand our comments and can't respond, or understand them too well to try, and therefore go on the attack. 

Our God is not a nature god or elemental being? And, the whole spiritual Being aspect, which indwells true Christians.

Our God is not a nature god or elemental being?

The questions I asked:

TiG @6.1.52 - Is it justified to believe in Zeus?   Do we have sufficient evidence or should one believe because one has been indoctrinated into the belief?   

... and in particular ...

TiG @6.1.52 - Funny thing, ancient Greeks were born and raised thinking Zeus, et. al. were real.   They fought wars, engaged in rituals, built temples, etc. all on the belief in their gods.   How are modern beliefs (e.g. Christianity, Islam) any more credible than the ancient beliefs in Greek, Roman and Norse gods?

You're off on some 'otherworldly' tangent. What is it with you, Christians, other gods, and your need to NOT worship any of it?