**Official Religious Debate Thread**

[knapplc]

I'd like to pose a question on the slavery issue, if that's all right.

 

For those of you who are defending the bible's position on slavery, let me ask you this. Would you vote to go back to that system if we had a choice in the matter? Would you consciously vote for a system that allows one human being to own another human being?

 

If not, are you saying that our morality in the 21st century is superior to Christ's or God himself?

Again, define slavery first before having this conversation. The nature of slavery has changed over the course of thousands of years.

 

I don't know why this very important point is being ignored.

[knapplc]

First part, I think when I said 'extremely rare' in my experience, I need to qualify that. What I meant to say was, take a hundred Christian that I've met. I've met or been around a few thousand, all told, in different circumstances I'd guess. Maybe five of them that I ever met could intelligently contribute to the thread we're having now. Maybe two or three of them had ever actually read seriously the arguments presented by an atheist or from another religion. The quest for truth and seriously challenging your beliefs are not necessarily synonymous. However, I know nearly all Christians who ever gave themselves any thought have doubts, some of them even to the most basic question. But from what I've seen personally, the rarest breed of question the faithful ask themselves (and look for an answer with an open mind) is whether or not their faith is true to begin with.

Again, your anecdotal experience does not a trend make. It is by its very nature an unsupportably narrow view.

 

 

But on your second paragraph, I think that's a fallacy of equivocation. In two cases. First, the word faith has now lost its meaning. I don't believe Bo is a good coach in the same way I believe in God. With Bo I have mountains of evidence, game tapes, stats, historical trends. With God I have no physical evidence at all. The second equivocation is between evidence and proof. There really is no such thing as rock-solid proof in science. But evidence for God––take the Christian God––is theoretically possible and some would argue necessary, since he's said to have intervened in the universe many times. Yet double blind studies on prayer prove ineffective, natural sciences contradict the Genesis myth, and we have not a single demonstrated case of the miraculous under any kind of test conditions in the modern world. All of which would provide sure evidence for a creator, and even a personal God.

 

Whose definition of evidence are you using? Yours? Mine? Because there are plenty of people for whom there is ample evidence of God.

[Husker_x]

I'd like to pose a question on the slavery issue, if that's all right.

 

For those of you who are defending the bible's position on slavery, let me ask you this. Would you vote to go back to that system if we had a choice in the matter? Would you consciously vote for a system that allows one human being to own another human being?

 

If not, are you saying that our morality in the 21st century is superior to Christ's or God himself?

Again, define slavery first before having this conversation. The nature of slavery has changed over the course of thousands of years.

 

I don't know why this very important point is being ignored.

 

Slavery (noun): bondage: the state of being under the control or the property of another person.

 

The treatment or social practices involved with Hebrew/Greek/Roman forms of slavery compared to the United States doesn't alter the fundamental principle. Slavery is the idea that a human being can under certain circumstances become the property of another person.

 

Now, proceed.

[knapplc]

I'd like to pose a question on the slavery issue, if that's all right.

 

For those of you who are defending the bible's position on slavery, let me ask you this. Would you vote to go back to that system if we had a choice in the matter? Would you consciously vote for a system that allows one human being to own another human being?

 

If not, are you saying that our morality in the 21st century is superior to Christ's or God himself?

Again, define slavery first before having this conversation. The nature of slavery has changed over the course of thousands of years.

 

I don't know why this very important point is being ignored.

 

Slavery (noun): bondage: the state of being under the control or the property of another person.

 

The treatment or social practices involved with Hebrew/Greek/Roman forms of slavery compared to the United States doesn't alter the fundamental principal. Slavery is the idea that a human being can under certain circumstances become the property of another person.

 

Now, proceed.

 

It absolutely alters the fundamental principle of the debate. Failing to understand the differences between a modern definition of slavery and its practice throughout history while having a debate about its historic importance is farcical.

 

I'm more than willing to take you seriously in a debate as long as you don't approach it with such a cavalier attitude. This is unbecoming.

[Husker_x]

First part, I think when I said 'extremely rare' in my experience, I need to qualify that. What I meant to say was, take a hundred Christian that I've met. I've met or been around a few thousand, all told, in different circumstances I'd guess. Maybe five of them that I ever met could intelligently contribute to the thread we're having now. Maybe two or three of them had ever actually read seriously the arguments presented by an atheist or from another religion. The quest for truth and seriously challenging your beliefs are not necessarily synonymous. However, I know nearly all Christians who ever gave themselves any thought have doubts, some of them even to the most basic question. But from what I've seen personally, the rarest breed of question the faithful ask themselves (and look for an answer with an open mind) is whether or not their faith is true to begin with.

Again, your anecdotal experience does not a trend make. It is by its very nature an unsupportably narrow view.

 

 

But on your second paragraph, I think that's a fallacy of equivocation. In two cases. First, the word faith has now lost its meaning. I don't believe Bo is a good coach in the same way I believe in God. With Bo I have mountains of evidence, game tapes, stats, historical trends. With God I have no physical evidence at all. The second equivocation is between evidence and proof. There really is no such thing as rock-solid proof in science. But evidence for God––take the Christian God––is theoretically possible and some would argue necessary, since he's said to have intervened in the universe many times. Yet double blind studies on prayer prove ineffective, natural sciences contradict the Genesis myth, and we have not a single demonstrated case of the miraculous under any kind of test conditions in the modern world. All of which would provide sure evidence for a creator, and even a personal God.

 

Whose definition of evidence are you using? Yours? Mine? Because there are plenty of people for whom there is ample evidence of God.

 

I'll admit I stared at the first part of the bolded sentence for about a minute trying to make sure I'd read it right. Whose definition of evidence? Are you serious? First of all, let's make sure we understand something. I don't have to present any evidence of any kind in favor of a theistic worldview. Not a scrap. I'm not making a positive claim about the existence or nonexistence of a god. As for whose evidence, I gave you three examples of claims theists––specifically Christians––make about God all the time. That he answers prayer, created the natural world, and does miracles today. No evidence, none, not a single shred, has ever appeared for any of these claims. I'm sure someone's cousin's best friend got healed at a Benny Hinn revival, but since you're not a fan of anecdotal evidence, I'm assuming you'd torpedo that one.

 

If there are 'plenty of people for whom there is ample evidence,' then by all means let's have them present it. So far what I've seen is a lot of teleological arguments, arguments from emotional comfort, the need for morality, and whispers of personal experience. Since the religious stand on the mountaintops and claim the burden of proof, let's have it.

[Husker_x]

I'd like to pose a question on the slavery issue, if that's all right.

 

For those of you who are defending the bible's position on slavery, let me ask you this. Would you vote to go back to that system if we had a choice in the matter? Would you consciously vote for a system that allows one human being to own another human being?

 

If not, are you saying that our morality in the 21st century is superior to Christ's or God himself?

Again, define slavery first before having this conversation. The nature of slavery has changed over the course of thousands of years.

 

I don't know why this very important point is being ignored.

 

Slavery (noun): bondage: the state of being under the control or the property of another person.

 

The treatment or social practices involved with Hebrew/Greek/Roman forms of slavery compared to the United States doesn't alter the fundamental principal. Slavery is the idea that a human being can under certain circumstances become the property of another person.

 

Now, proceed.

 

It absolutely alters the fundamental principle of the debate. Failing to understand the differences between a modern definition of slavery and its practice throughout history while having a debate about its historic importance is farcical.

 

I'm more than willing to take you seriously in a debate as long as you don't approach it with such a cavalier attitude. This is unbecoming.

 

I've offered my definition. Either you have an answer to my question or you don't.

[knapplc]

I'll admit I stared at the first part of the bolded sentence for about a minute trying to make sure I'd read it right. Whose definition of evidence? Are you serious? First of all, let's make sure we understand something. I don't have to present any evidence of any kind in favor of a theistic worldview. Not a scrap. I'm not making a positive claim about the existence or nonexistence of a god. As for whose evidence, I gave you three examples of claims theists––specifically Christians––make about God all the time. That he answers prayer, created the natural world, and does miracles today. No evidence, none, not a single shred, has ever appeared for any of these claims. I'm sure someone's cousin's best friend got healed at a Benny Hinn revival, but since you're not a fan of anecdotal evidence, I'm assuming you'd torpedo that one.

 

If there are 'plenty of people for whom there is ample evidence,' then by all means let's have them present it. So far what I've seen is a lot of teleological arguments, arguments from emotional comfort, the need for morality, and whispers of personal experience. Since the religious stand on the mountaintops and claim the burden of proof, let's have it.

 

I'm very serious about whose definition of evidence we're using. For Christians the Bible is ample evidence of God's existence. For you, it is not evidence. Since the Bible gives evidence of God answering prayers, creating the world and accomplishing miracles, I'm guessing you don't define that as evidence, while others here do. Hence the need to define what is acceptable evidence.

[knapplc]

I've offered my definition. Either you have an answer to my question or you don't.

 

You're asking me to prove there are no unicorns.

 

In the same way that we cannot define societal mores of the past by today's definitions, we cannot define slavery of various cultures and millennia with today's definitions. They are as different and similar as we are to the ancient Greeks. It is an inaccurate question from the beginning because it fails to take into account the various cultural mores of the times.

[Husker_x]

I'll admit I stared at the first part of the bolded sentence for about a minute trying to make sure I'd read it right. Whose definition of evidence? Are you serious? First of all, let's make sure we understand something. I don't have to present any evidence of any kind in favor of a theistic worldview. Not a scrap. I'm not making a positive claim about the existence or nonexistence of a god. As for whose evidence, I gave you three examples of claims theists––specifically Christians––make about God all the time. That he answers prayer, created the natural world, and does miracles today. No evidence, none, not a single shred, has ever appeared for any of these claims. I'm sure someone's cousin's best friend got healed at a Benny Hinn revival, but since you're not a fan of anecdotal evidence, I'm assuming you'd torpedo that one.

 

If there are 'plenty of people for whom there is ample evidence,' then by all means let's have them present it. So far what I've seen is a lot of teleological arguments, arguments from emotional comfort, the need for morality, and whispers of personal experience. Since the religious stand on the mountaintops and claim the burden of proof, let's have it.

 

I'm very serious about whose definition of evidence we're using. For Christians the Bible is ample evidence of God's existence. For you, it is not evidence. Since the Bible gives evidence of God answering prayers, creating the world and accomplishing miracles, I'm guessing you don't define that as evidence, while others here do. Hence the need to define what is acceptable evidence.

 

That's not a probleml. Definitions are important. For instance, if there was a study done that showed fifty people had gone to the ER for heart surgery. Twenty-five of them were prayed for, twenty-five were not. If the twenty-five who were prayed for all had a miraculous recovery, or arrived on the operating table only to find there was no issue at all, that would count as evidence. If other scientists could take this experiment and duplicate it, it would grow even stronger. Note that this isn't something that theists don't claim happens. You hear stories all the time of miraculous healing thanks to prayer, and there's supporting verses in the New Testament that claim God does this kind of thing.

 

As for the Bible itself, I'm assuming you must not count it as evidence either, because it is entirely anecdotal. I also wrote a fairly lengthy (but also very sparse) post up above about the history of the bible's composition. Let's just say, the book we have didn't fall from the sky. If the bible is in your definition 'satisfactory evidence,' then you'll have no issue believing the Koran, either. The mutual claims of exclusivity might get you, but if a mythic book from the Bronze Age up to the Roman Empire is the best evidence for the existence of God, this should demonstrate to anyone paying attention that something is seriously amiss here.

[knapplc]

As for the Bible itself, I'm assuming you must not count it as evidence either, because it is entirely anecdotal. I also wrote a fairly lengthy (but also very sparse) post up above about the history of the bible's composition. Let's just say, the book we have didn't fall from the sky. If the bible is in your definition 'satisfactory evidence,' then you'll have no issue believing the Koran, either. The mutual claims of exclusivity might get you, but if a mythic book from the Bronze Age up to the Roman Empire is the best evidence for the existence of God, this should demonstrate to anyone paying attention that something is seriously amiss here.

 

No more amiss than evidence for the existence of any historic figure. If you discount the Bible then you must discount most of history beyond, say, two hundred years ago, since the methods of reporting historic events were reasonably similar between the Bible and accounts of most any event/person/place.

[Husker_x]

I've offered my definition. Either you have an answer to my question or you don't.

 

You're asking me to prove there are no unicorns.

 

In the same way that we cannot define societal mores of the past by today's definitions, we cannot define slavery of various cultures and millennia with today's definitions. They are as different and similar as we are to the ancient Greeks. It is an inaccurate question from the beginning because it fails to take into account the various cultural mores of the times.

 

I'm asking you to prove the nonexistent by asking if you'd support Roman slavery in the United States today? I don't see the comparison...

 

But what I'm getting from your response is that, depending on when we are in history, it's okay to keep slaves. I'm not trying to get into absolute morality (that's an issue I'm really fuzzy on considering I'm not sure if the concept has any value practically), but what I would argue that society is bettered with freedom for all people. It increases their chances of doing something beneficial for society (inventions, philosophy, art) than if they live in bondage to another person. I'd also like to insert one other thing, and that is while it's true that slaves were not necessarily treated in Rome like they were in America, the paterfamilias had the power of life and death over his slaves, as well as every member of his family. Slaves could be beaten, as well, and they had no legal recourse.

 

It's understandable that non-Christians would look at the bible's non-stance on slavery and wonder why an all benevolent God would not immediately command at least his Christian children to free their slaves.

[Husker_x]

As for the Bible itself, I'm assuming you must not count it as evidence either, because it is entirely anecdotal. I also wrote a fairly lengthy (but also very sparse) post up above about the history of the bible's composition. Let's just say, the book we have didn't fall from the sky. If the bible is in your definition 'satisfactory evidence,' then you'll have no issue believing the Koran, either. The mutual claims of exclusivity might get you, but if a mythic book from the Bronze Age up to the Roman Empire is the best evidence for the existence of God, this should demonstrate to anyone paying attention that something is seriously amiss here.

 

No more amiss than evidence for the existence of any historic figure. If you discount the Bible then you must discount most of history beyond, say, two hundred years ago, since the methods of reporting historic events were reasonably similar between the Bible and accounts of most any event/person/place.

 

About fifty issues with that, but I'll try to limit it to a few. First, people don't base their lives around Alexander the Great. A lot of ancient history is blurry but we do the best we can. People today build their lives, their philosophy, their morality, and their common law around what the bible says. And since the claims of the bible are extraordinary, common sense would require us to present extraordinary evidence. My actual point in referencing my larger post up above, though, is that we have to be careful in assuming the bible details historical events at all times. We don't know who wrote the books we have, but we do know they were written long after the events. There's also no contemporary corroborating evidence about Jesus' existence (unless you're counting the Testimonium Flavianum––which is still decades later). And there were historians in the area at the time he's said to have been there.

 

I don't want to go nuts about it, because you definitely have a point about ancient history, but considering the nature of the claims, the nature of how we even have the claims, to rush headlong into life-changing beliefs seems premature if there are no other contributing factors.

[knapplc]

I'm asking you to prove the nonexistent by asking if you'd support Roman slavery in the United States today? I don't see the comparison...

Pretty simple, really. Roman society is so vastly different from ours that it's not enough just to ask if you'd advocate their style of slavery today, because it would necessitate a complete restructuring of our society to accomplish, which isn't realistic.

 

It doesn't seem like we're going to get on the same page in this sidebar, so let's put it aside, though. The bottom line is, no, I would not advocate even Roman style slavery in the US today. Again, that has far more to do with societal mores than it has to do with religion.

 

But what I'm getting from your response is that, depending on when we are in history, it's okay to keep slaves. I'm not trying to get into absolute morality (that's an issue I'm really fuzzy on considering I'm not sure if the concept has any value practically), but what I would argue that society is bettered with freedom for all people. It increases their chances of doing something beneficial for society (inventions, philosophy, art) than if they live in bondage to another person. I'd also like to insert one other thing, and that is while it's true that slaves were not necessarily treated in Rome like they were in America, the paterfamilias had the power of life and death over his slaves, as well as every member of his family. Slaves could be beaten, as well, and they had no legal recourse.

Not only could slaves be beaten, they could be crucified without cause or recourse to the law. So could wives and children, aunts, grandmothers, etc. who fell under the auspices of the paterfamilias. The paterfamilias, as head of the family, had absolute control over the lives of the family, down to dictating who their children married and enforcing those dictates in a manner we would call today a "shotgun wedding." It is this kind of comparison that makes a discussion of some of the kinds of slavery depicted in the Bible as being acceptable today so difficult. The societies both cultures exist in are so different that comparisons are difficult in the extreme.

 

It's understandable that non-Christians would look at the bible's non-stance on slavery and wonder why an all benevolent God would not immediately command at least his Christian children to free their slaves.

It's also understandable that Christians wouldn't advocate it, too. Because slavery existed in Jewish culture 3,000 years ago doesn’t mean that Christians want it today.

[knapplc]

I don't want to go nuts about it, because you definitely have a point about ancient history, but considering the nature of the claims, the nature of how we even have the claims, to rush headlong into life-changing beliefs seems premature if there are no other contributing factors.

How have I rushed headlong into following Christ's teachings? I didn't know I did that. Could you explain that to me?

[Husker_x]

I don't want to go nuts about it, because you definitely have a point about ancient history, but considering the nature of the claims, the nature of how we even have the claims, to rush headlong into life-changing beliefs seems premature if there are no other contributing factors.

How have I rushed headlong into following Christ's teachings? I didn't know I did that. Could you explain that to me?

 

It means that despite the fact that we don't know who wrote the books, that the books were written by non eye-witnesses decades after the event, that we have no autographs of any of these books, that the inspiration of the books themselves is in question, that the books we have at all appear to be anything but the selection of a deity, and contain many inconsistencies between each other––you still would consider it, at least for someone if not yourself, evidence for the existence of God. To me this is a disappointment. I would love to see better evidence than that.

 

Edit: Point of curiosity, what did Christ teach?