A Christian response to atheism

[Whitney]

1. You cannot see a Biblical flood without a Biblical definition of death: death is simply a transition point to eternity. Personally, I don’t think there is a reason to believe that the animals have been treated nicely by the humans.

Do animals go to heaven? If not, then death is not a transition point for them.  Humans weren't near as mobile then as they are today....there would probably have been more animals living apart from human civilization than in it.  Care to rethink your response?

2. Is working for a boss considered slavery? I don’t think so. When you mean slavery, I suppose you don’t mean “work for”, but treating with disrespect.  

Of course slavery isn't just working for someone...slavery is holding an individual against their will for the purpose of gain to the owner (this gain would commonly be finincial or sexual).  Slavery is far worse than disrespect...I never even said slavery is equateable directly to disrespect...you assumed that's what I meant.  Next time ask for a definition...I don't care much for words being placed in my mouth.

3. On women

I've heard the biblical arguments for the separate yet equal view of men and women.  Do you think a minority would accept those same arguments are reasons for them having to go to, for instance, a seprate school from the white kids?  

You see...in order to intelligently read a text which claims to provide knowledge you must also be willing to see if the arguments and truth claims of that text fit in with what is known about the world...if it doesn't you then have to ask which is  right, current understandings or what you are reading.  

5. Evil: if you think about it, disaster and disease is simply nature carrying out its laws, and therefore if we could not be harmed â€" these things won’t be considered “evil”. Now, the problem turns into “did God create flawed/weak bodies?” The answer, according to the Bible is no. Taking into account that Eden was a drastically different environment (so different that people actually think there are two creation accounts), human beings must have deteriorated when they could no longer live in God’s presence. Not to mention human beings have polluted this environment greatly. The fitness of an organism has a direct relationship with the environment that it was raised in â€" that is not debatable. For things like the tsunami, it was a lack of ability for human beings to detect an evade that made it disastrous (and according to some, authorities did know of such a disaster but chose not to have panicking tourists.)

I don't know about you...but if just wild animals were harmed by those natural events then I'd still consider it evil if a God designed such destructive forces knowing that living things would be harmed or killed.  Is your God not omnipotent?  If so, claiming the fall the culprit for this evil is just side stepping who would have to put the means for it to occur in the first place.  As for your view of the shape of humans in Eden...eden would have been a very easy environment to live in, thus requiring little to no survival skills...we'd be more likely to see an increase in the strength and intelligence of organisms living outside of an Eden than those inside....there is simply no reason for the body to waste energy on such things when they aren't needed for survival.

[Whitney]

And lastly, regarding your snide comment about my post mysteriously disappearing. I personally don't give a shit if you believe me or not. I was letting laetuseatheos know that something happened twice when I posted, as a matter of courtesy to her and her forum, and of frustration for taking a long time to put together a message only to have it launch into oblivion.

Right...it's a fairly common glitch on forums...I just don't know how to track down the cause or fix it.  I would have to learn how to do so if the problem appeared permanent, but usually the issue works itself out in less than a day.  Computers are finicky creatures...great when they work a migraine when they don't.

[saukhasi]

lae:

humans were extremely intelligent and mobile according to the Bible.
on slavery: you've made your argument weaker - when does it imply that God says they can treat them badly?
on women: when did I ever suggest they should go to separate schools?
on Eden: they were to take care of the world, not just survive.

[donkeyhoty]

Oh...My.....God, saukhasi's right,

Oh Lord, allow me to repent for my evil ways.  All these years I've been wrong.  I wanna be saved.
Also, Leviticus 15:16 "And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even."
Is this retroactive if I convert, because I'll be taking lots o' showers?
I mean seriously, who has the energy to take a shower everytime you nut?

[Whitney]

Sauk, I  had a response written and my computer ran out of power (laptop) just before sending it.  It may be this weekend before I re-write it because I'm not feeling well and have a very important final.

[saukhasi]

that is totally fine- I thank you for putting time into your response and I look forward to it!

[MikeyV]

lae:

humans were extremely intelligent and mobile according to the Bible.
on slavery: you've made your argument weaker - when does it imply that God says they can treat them badly?
on women: when did I ever suggest they should go to separate schools?
on Eden: they were to take care of the world, not just survive.

Of all the apologetic lines I find contemptable in christianity, the slavery = happy volunteer butler line is the most vile. The simple fact that a christian can compartmentalize to that degree just defies belief.

You can't honestly compare a bronze age slave to a modern day office worker. I am free to quit my job at ANY time. I get PAID for my labor. If my boss tried to hit me with a rod, or tried to give my children away in his will, we'd come to some serious violence.

God doesn't "imply" that you can treat slaves poorly, he flat out says it, no implication necessary.

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. - Exodus 21:20-21

This passage is not in any way out of context. It is a free standing passage. The passages surrounding it have nothing to do with it, so it is a straight forward interpretation. The implcations are, a slave is your property. You own another human being. If you beat that human being with a rod and he dies, you will be punished. If you beat your slave to the point that they can't move for a few days, but don't kill them, it's no big deal, they are your property after all.

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever. - Leviticus 25:44-46

This passage is also stand alone. Any straight forward reading of the passage should make it abundantly clear that you can buy any heathen, and said heathen is now your property. If that heathen has children, those children become your property. If you die, your children inherit them. They are just property, after all.

Now, the common christian counter argument is that this was common practice in those times, so we have to frame them in that context. I'll agree to that. Slavery was common. Heck, slavery exists in modern times. But the question we have to ask is, is it moral or right to take someone as your property. Any human with an inkling of compassion would have to answer "no". It also puts lie to the common christian claim the the bible is relevant to all generations, as the passages about slavery are not relevant to the 20th and 21st centuries. If these concepts aren't relevant, which other parts of the bible are safe to ignore?

The fact that you can't aknowledge this practice as reprehensible speaks directly to your humanity.

The second question we have to ask ourselves is, if we fallible humans can see the act of slavery as vile and contemptible, why can't god? God could have just said in Leviticus "You will not take any person as bondservent, except to pay debt voluntarily, or for reparation of criminal acts, but you will not abuse them" easily. He is god, nu?

I would also ask that you drop the whole "Atheists believe god is evil" line of argumentation. Atheists don't believe in god, so his goodness and evilness are irrelevant. However, for the sake of discussion, I will say that the god as depicted by the Jewish/christian writ appears to be evil, as evil as any other evil fictional character.

To the other regulars...I'm back :-) Did you miss me?

[Whitney]

Wb MikeyV, I had wondered what happened to you.

Sauk, Mikey responded with what I was intending on getting around to write about slavery (actually more than what I was going to say, which is good)...so consider his response mine as far as that topic goes for now.

on the mobility of humans...unless you think all the little creatures on the earth were only located within the same general area of humans and not overseas somewhere in remote locations, then no amount of the mobility available to them at that time would have allowed them to be able to potentially abuse most animals.  Basically, it's a very weak explanation for why it would be ethical for God to kill all the innocent animals in a flood.

on women...I never said you suggested they should go to separate schools.  I said that the way you were arguing for "separate but equal" rules for the treatment of men and women is no different from those used by white people on black people during the time of segregation.

on Eden:  I don't think you got what I was saying there.  The main point was that it was easier for humans to survive in an Utopian environment like Eden was claimed to be than it would be to survive outside of that environment.  Humans living in peaceful environments would not need as much strength, skill, or intelligence as those having to battle the elements to survive in harsh environments.  Because of this, it makes little sense to argue that humans were made stronger in Eden but yet their bodies decreased in survival capacity after being exposed to harsher environments (thrown out of Eden)...if that was the case we'd be extinct a long time ago.

[saukhasi]

Very well-argued, now allow me to make a few points.

Property - it is true that these people are their master’s “property” - it is an agreement. When you became a slave back then you knew that you were saying that “you need to provide for me (and my family) as if I belonged to you.” So the verse does not actually suggest that these people were to be treated as if they weren’t human - it was just stating a fact - that those people “belonged” to their masters.

Secondly on beating - there is a tendency to assume a bunch of things when we are given a law, which I suppose originates from our insecurity. But the thing is that this verse can simply be read as - if the master intended to kill the slave, he/she will be punished, but if not, then no, because the intention was not to kill a person. Why the Bible does not put it in that way is not hard to guess - a master would simply say “I didn’t intend” and given the law, no one could say a thing. But given some outwardly signs then it would be much safer (same with the rape thing). But as we all know some people say this means the Bible says it’s okay for a master to slowly torture or rape a person who is too weak to make a sound, but even if it were true that those people were not punished by their peers, God will be the one to do it and He has way more power.

Also, it does NOT suggest that beating for no reason was okay - again, the summation of law is love. So even if these verses were not complete, the law “fear God” would probably make up for the rest. Indeed, the list of laws is long enough for the OT and I don’t think adding all the annotations would be necessary, as long as we understand the idea. So what I’m saying is - if a person obeyed the law “fear God”, when they are beating for an irrational reason they would see that they owe their life to God as well and refrain.

Finally, there are verses talking about how a slave becomes part of family - so for people to single out one part of the Bible to support slavery is dangerous and same with taking out one verse to suggest that God is evil.

Ps. I do not argue “atheists think God is evil” - posters here show me that naturally. I don’t even have to find evidence for that and I do not use it to make a point - so it really isn’t my argument.

[saukhasi]

lae :

1. What makes you think they had very low mobility? Secondly, we don’t need to punch every animal to inflict pain - we simply have to ignore the environment. Thirdly - the land was in one piece. Fourthly - why is it not a transition point for animals? If I were an animal I’d rather die any time given that I have to live with humans. God has taken care of them, so I don’t think their non-existence on this material world means anything - which is my main argument.

2. Maybe that what they used, but they’re taking things out of context, which as you know I am just maniacally against.

3. I get what you were saying - the thing is, like I said, they were to take care of the land. Eden was where they were nurtured, but their strength, intelligence, and skill most certainly were required in Eden as well. The only difference before/after Eden is that human beings were no longer in their preferred environment, which ultimately would lead to detrimental changes. Yes, I think we would’ve been extinct a long time ago too, but God has mercy on all living things.

[McQ]

saukhasi:

Click on the word "expand" to view the entire reposting that you failed to respond to earlier.

Ok, we'll try this again, saukhasi. You did answer one question clearly, about English not being your primary language. I appreciate that, because it explains why your posts often don't make clear sense. That gives me the ability to offer some latitude in trying to interpret what you are saying. I was not trying to offend you with the question, just to clarify. I know I wouldn't be able to answer clearly in German or Italian, both of which I can speak. Now, onwards:

mcq:
1. you asked what's the difference, I gave you the difference clearly.

Actually you did not answer it clearly because I think you misread my meaning in the question. All you did was say that there was a difference between two types of people. You didn't say what it was, or answer the second part of my question, which asks you what kind of a christian you are.
What kind of christian says "believe or you're going to hell"? What kind of christian "offers a more comprehensive bible"?
There's really no difference except for the method of delivery of the message. In each case, christianity is still based on salvation through christ alone. In each case the alternative (according to all christians) to not accepting christ is eternal separation from god.

So I ask you again: which are you, and what is the difference? The answer is that there is no difference as I said, but for the method of delivering the message. You have again failed to accept the fact that some others here, including me, have read, studied and accepted the bible and jesus christ in our lives at some point. I know the whole bible. I understand it. I taught it.
 

2. I am not "supporting" the Bible, so I'm not using circular reasoning – I'm simply telling people that they misinterpreted what the Bible says. Whether what the Bible says is right or wrong we haven't even touched.

If you are not supporting the bible, what are you doing? Let's be clear on our definitions here. You have said things like people have misinterpreted what the bible says. Are you the only one who has interpreted it correctly? Who tells you that you interpret it correctly and others don't? How do you know I haven't interpreted it correctly?

And touching on whether the bible is right or wrong is central to the "Christian Response to Atheism", which is of course, the title of this thread. We have touched on it somewhat. You in fact touch on it when you say that people have misinterpreted it. That makes the assumption that there is a right way and a wrong way to interpret the bible, which logically, means that it must be "right" about something. Or you wouldn't bother being here now would you?

3. By more comprehensive, I think it is obvious that I factor in my arguments a lot more verses, Biblical ideas than just the right key words I want, like "young women", "evil", etc.

You may think that it is obvious, but I guarantee no one else here thinks so. I haven't seen you provide proof yet that you "factor in" more verses for any stance you've taken. You've simply asserted that you do it, and expect us to just believe you.

4. I am used to people reading, but people responding to them is not my problem but theirs – like you said, it's a public forum.

What's your point here? Are you upset that someone you didn't address (i.e., me) directly responded to you in a public forum? I've been a member here a little while, and I don't recall laetusatheos ever telling anyone that they couldn't respond to someone posting here. Your words are fair game, like it or not. And that's your problem, not mine. By not responding to direct questions asked of you, or posts made directly to you, you only prove that you are rude and evasive. Not a good start to a newbie on any forum, wouldn't you say?

5. English is not my native language.

Thanks for letting me know. It makes a genuine difference in how I read what you write.
 

6. What have you come up with? Your main argument is simply that some Christians do take verses (of course, I take verses too – we add stuff to it, not single them and interpret them in a way that doesn't fit the rest of the Bible) – which I have shown to be irrelevant. Unless your post mysteriously disappeared again -  please do post again if you demand an answer.

I haven't tried to "come up" with anything, but I have tried to respond to your posts and hold you accountable for the assertions you make. My main argument has not even been heard here yet. My point on taking verses out of context came directly from your own accusation that atheists take the bible out of context in order to argue against it. I clarified what "taking out of context" was, and showed you that it is not taking something out of context to quote from it. And I showed that christians do just that when it suits them or furthers their arguments or biblical apologetics. Every bible I own has a full concordance. I own a Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance and I've used it for decades. I do not take verses out of context to suit an agenda.

You have not shown that anything I've said is irrelevant although you apparently think you did. Quoting verses or taking them out of context is not irrelevant. Nice try though.

And lastly, regarding your snide comment about my post mysteriously disappearing. I personally don't give a shit if you believe me or not. I was letting laetuseatheos know that something happened twice when I posted, as a matter of courtesy to her and her forum, and of frustration for taking a long time to put together a message only to have it launch into oblivion.

I don't demand anything from you, saukhasi. But I do wish you'd stop trying to be so disingenuous. It doesn't suit a "christian". Kind of makes you look evasive and untrustworthy.

And at this point, I see no further need to debate with you because of your lack of veracity. Good luck with the others here, as they are not always as forgiving of prevaricators and dodgers.

To saukhasi:
Want to give these a try or not? Here's some more too:

McQ, you are the one who seems to hae troubles with English - I said SOME posters here, you automatically assumed it included you, and accused me of accusing you - then I said go ahead, respond to it if you like, and you start whining about "why can't I respond??????????" Did I not just say you could?

Anyway, I feel the same way - if you don't think it's worth continuing a discussion with me, bu all means leave your accusations to yourself.

When you are "talking to others", you can address them directly, as you did here in this post. But understand that this is a public FORUM and anyone can respond to anything you say. Get used to it.

That is what I said, saukhasi. Show me where I whined and asked why I couldn't respond to you. Your continued lying and evasion only makes you look worse. Straw man arguments don't cut it. Besides, you don't tell me what I can and can't do here.

Thank you for helping me make my point about you. You responded with not one substantial comment. Did I accuse you of something? You bet I did: evasion, prevarication, and disingenuousness. All accusations true and substantiated by your own words. You are a nothing but a "troll for christ" and you have no logical or well-reasoned argument to state whatever it is that your case is.

If, by some amazing chance, you do, then let's see it. I'm sure we'd all be interested in anything substantial coming from you. It would be a welcome change.

To others on the forum: does saukhasi remind you of anyone else? Someone from the past? Ahhh, the good old days....

Or are you not talking to me? I just want to be sure. Let's see if you can stick to the actual topic or not.

[McQ]

Another question for saukhasi:

Are you by any chance a Jehovah's Witness?

[saukhasi]

McQ: no I am not Jehovah's witness; why? I don't think they would bother calling themselves Christian unless they were trying to be tricky. However, that's not the first time i"ve been asked that.

Sorry, but your posts seemed to be just a rant on my writing abilities, so I wouldn't know how to respond. If you remain unconvinced, please let me show you - while any one can see that I was given a set of verses, I added verses to make make a more ocmprehensive interpretation. You go on to say that anyone can see I didn't do that and I just expect people to believe me. Please, I hope I'm not misunderstanding you but have you been looking at the posts?

Finally, you were extremely sensitive and I prefer to leave those emotional counterarguments alone first until you really want to discuss and not just express yourself- I NEVER suspected that you were lying about posts disappearing - in fact every time I log in the forum goes blank and I have to go back to make a post. So if you do wish for a reply please go through and filter those posts again, thanks!!!

[Big Mac]

Wait, I just realized something.

She said this about slavery: "It didn't say to treat them badly!"

Slavery is bad NO MATTER what it is. Sure there were plantation owners who were quite decent to their slaves but they were still slaves. They toiled in fields that were hot in the summer and cold in the winter, they had constant fears of their families being torn apart any day if their masters were in economic need or just in the mood for wanton cruelty to sell them. SLAVERY IS EVIL! I am not a slave, I bow to no man or woman. I am equal to all who that I see. My job sucks, but they can't enslave me. Like another person mentioned before, I too can quit whenever I damn please, I'll have to find another job or get myself a sugar-mommy but I still need money. Slaves earned no wages, merely toiling to fatten their masters and their imperialistic systems. If you think slavery can treat people decently then please, go tell that to a black man or a holocaust survivor. I'm sure you'll get your ass totally kicked and even me (a staunch free-speech advocate) may see it as justified.

And I am BOBA FETT!  BWAHAHAHA!

[Tom62]

That is exactly what I'm thinking. Slavery is evil. There is no agreement between the master and the slave, the master owns the slave and can do everything with the slave whatever he wants. These lame christian excuses that slavery is not necessary slavery makes me feel sick.