Slavery in the bible discussion thread

[Sparhafoc]

Oh I forgot your Sparhafoc, the mysterious non-atheist! Congratulations. Let me know when you have the balls to tell us about the mysterious God you think exists.

What kind of a pussy are you?

It's very telling that the three supposed Christians here are such fucking asshats when it comes to doling out their knee-jerk prejudice whenever they get their panties in a twist.

Unlike you, chap, I don't need the validation of thrusting my beliefs down other people's throats.

But as you feel like being a cunt, I'll return the favour by ignoring the rest of your post there and instead spend this post just mocking your vapid viciousness.

I'm not your pigeon, TNTD - just because you've got a pre-made pigeon-hole you're looking to fill.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well, sure Sparhafoc. The Bible does make many unvalidated claims. Some of which are extraordinary. I don't have evidence to give you for every thing in the Bible.

Well, then surely you should reject (or at least withhold belief in) the things that are "unvalidated".

Or even more importantly: not lend blind faith to

 

[thenexttodie]

Or even more importantly: not lend blind faith to

Well as a pointed out earlier in this thread ; As most wealth then would have been held by leaders of small kingdoms or tribes or by people who had a lot of cattle, there would have little opportunity for private business ventures or industry. God did free some slaves but he also did miracles to provide them with basic needs and many of the slaves he did free complained that they were better off being slaves.

 

[leroy]

Well, sure Sparhafoc. The Bible does make many unvalidated claims. Some of which are extraordinary. I don't have evidence to give you for every thing in the Bible.

Well, then surely you should reject (or at least withhold belief in) the things that are "unvalidated".

If your wife (or girlfriend ) tells you that she went to the doctor and then to work, would you simply trust her and assume that she is being honest, or would you reject (or at least withhold belief in) until you verify (with cameras and and eye witnesses for example) that she is being honest?


The point that I am making is that “faith” and “trust” are the same thing, we all trust in people all the time even if we don’t always verify the assertions and claims, I don’t understand why atheist view “faith” as something intrinsically wrong or dishonest.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Trust and faith are not the same thing: we trust people we know - faith is putting trust in someone/something we don't know.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

Trust and faith are not the same thing: we trust people we know - faith is putting trust in someone/something we don't know.

Kindest regards,

James

To have faith simply means to trust, you may or may not have good reasons to have faith/trust in something.


The point that I am making is that to have faith is not intrinsically bad, dishonest or fallacious, you may (or may not) have good reasons to justify your faith.

 

[Steelmage99]

Well, then surely you should reject (or at least withhold belief in) the things that are "unvalidated".

If your wife (or girlfriend ) tells you that she went to the doctor and then to work, would you simply trust her and assume that she is being honest, or would you reject (or at least withhold belief in) until you verify (with cameras and and eye witnesses for example) that she is being honest?


The point that I am making is that “faith” and “trust” are the same thing, we all trust in people all the time even if we don’t always verify the assertions and claims, I don’t understand why atheist view “faith” as something intrinsically wrong or dishonest.

"Faith" and "trust" are not the same thing. That's why we have two different words - to convey different meanings.
Trust in a person that have earned my trust is simply reasonable expectations.
I also have a reasonable expectation ("trust") that my chair will hold me up while I sit.

Will I occasionally sit in a chair that will collapse beneath me?
Sure.....
Should I model my life around all (or even most) chairs collapsing beneath me?
No......

Faith in an entity whose existence is still very much in question is something entirely different than trust in a girlfriend.

Take the following statements;

A. "I have a pet gerbil"

B. "I have a pet dog"

C. "I have a pet rhinoceros"

D. "I have a pet dragon"

Leroy, you do acknowledge that they are qualitatively different statements, with corresponding different standards of evidence, right?


...

 

[leroy]

"Faith" and "trust" are not the same thing. That's why we have two different words - to convey different meanings.
Trust in a person that have earned my trust is simply reasonable expectations.
I also have a reasonable expectation ("trust") that my chair will hold me up while I sit.

Will I occasionally sit in a chair that will collapse beneath me?
Sure.....
Should I model my life around all (or even most) chairs collapsing beneath me?
No......

Faith in an entity whose existence is still very much in question is something entirely different than trust in a girlfriend.

Take the following statements;

A. "I have a pet gerbil"

B. "I have a pet dog"

C. "I have a pet rhinoceros"

D. "I have a pet dragon"

Leroy, you do acknowledge that they are qualitatively different statements, with corresponding different standards of evidence, right?


...

All I am saying is that it is reasonable to trust (or have faith) in something if you have good reasons to trust it. In this particular case there are good resons to assume that you dont have a dragon, therefore there are good reasons not to trust you.

For example we cannot verify outside the gospels, that there was a criminal named “Barrabas” but given that the gospels do mention many different historical figures, whose existence has been verified, it makes sense to “trust” the authors of the gospels and trust that Barrabas was a real person.

Sure the burden proof is not the Christian, he is the one who has to show that there are good reasons to trust (have faith) in God, the bible etc.

 

[Steelmage99]

For example we cannot verify outside the gospels, that there was a criminal named “Barrabas” but given that the gospels do mention many different historical figures, whose existence has been verified, it makes sense to “trust” the authors of the gospels and trust that Barrabas was a real person.

And since the Spiderman comics repeatedly mentiones many different historical figures and locations , whose existence has been verified, it makes sense to "trust" the authors of those comics and trust that Spiderman is a real person.

 

[leroy]

For example we cannot verify outside the gospels, that there was a criminal named “Barrabas” but given that the gospels do mention many different historical figures, whose existence has been verified, it makes sense to “trust” the authors of the gospels and trust that Barrabas was a real person.

And since the Spiderman comics repeatedly mentiones many different historical figures and locations , whose existence has been verified, it makes sense to "trust" the authors of those comics and trust that Spiderman is a real person.

But it is obvious that Spiderman was not intended to be a real person.

All I am saying is that if a historical document is correct in most of the verifiable claims that it makes, it makes sense to “trust” the whole document Including the statements that are nor verifiable, unless you have good reasons not to trust them.

 

[Bango Skank]

All I am saying is that if a historical document is correct in most of the verifiable claims that it makes, it makes sense to “trust” the whole document Including the statements that are nor verifiable, unless you have good reasons not to trust them.

Historical method is about probabilities. Supernatural claims are the least probable explanation what happened in the past (due rarity and physical impossibility), so it is very good reason not to trust the supernatural claims of a text which has some non extraorinary claims included as well.

Gospels are also heavily biased, they are propaganda. That needs to be taken account when examining them from historical perspective.

 

[Steelmage99]

And since the Spiderman comics repeatedly mentiones many different historical figures and locations , whose existence has been verified, it makes sense to "trust" the authors of those comics and trust that Spiderman is a real person.

But it is obvious that Spiderman was not intended to be a real person.

But it is obvious that Jesus was not intended to be a real person.

Like I said earlier, there is a difference in claims.
Each claim stands on its own - especially as claims become more outlandish.

If I make 100 (or however many you would like) rather mundane, but totally verifiable, claims about myself, would you then believe my 101st outlandish extreme claim about me?

 

[leroy]

All I am saying is that if a historical document is correct in most of the verifiable claims that it makes, it makes sense to “trust” the whole document Including the statements that are nor verifiable, unless you have good reasons not to trust them.

Historical method is about probabilities. Supernatural claims are the least probable explanation what happened in the past (due rarity and physical impossibility), so it is very good reason not to trust the supernatural claims of a text which has some non extraorinary claims included as well.

Gospels are also heavily biased, they are propaganda. That needs to be taken account when examining them from historical perspective.

I´ll say that it could be taken as historical certain (or nearly certain) that Jesus did what others interpreted as miracles.

Whether if they where actual miracles, illusions or frauds is beyond the scope of the historical method........agree?

Supernatural claims are the least probable explanatio

I would like to see a justification for that assertion.

If the existence of God is at least “probable” as 99% of the world’s population would grant, then supernatural events don’t seem to be so improbable.

Only if you show that the existence of God is impossible or extremely unlikely you would be justified in affirming that supernatural events are the least probable explanation.




in this context with probable, I simply mean that there is a realistic possibility.

 

[leroy]

If I make 100 (or however many you would like) rather mundane, but totally verifiable, claims about myself, would you then believe my 101st outlandish extreme claim about me?

Only if I have good reasons to reject that claim.

but to say that Barabbas was the name of a criminal does not sound to outlandish to me

 

[Bango Skank]

I´ll say that it could be taken as historical certain (or nearly certain) that Jesus did what others interpreted as miracles.

Whether if they where actual miracles, illusions or frauds is beyond the scope of the historical method........agree?

He was probably doing so called "faith healing" yeah. There are videos about those plenty in youtube nowdays. Illusion or fraud is more probable explanation than a miracle.

I would like to see a justification for that assertion.

I need to clarify a bit. I meant miracles. Yes, miracles are also supernatural events, but they also are like the name suggests, extraordinary events, temporary exceptions to the ordinary course of nature, thus making them improbable events for the historians (and others). There are plenty of miracle claims in the NT.

If the existence of God is at least “probable” as 99% of the world’s population would grant, then supernatural events don’t seem to be so improbable.

99% of world's population are not historians and don't understand historical method. Besides many many people claim natural events as supernatural/miraculous, for example God causing earthquakes to punish people for their sins or if some person recovers almost certain death in hospital.

Only if you show that the existence of God is impossible or extremely unlikely you would be justified in affirming that supernatural events are the least probable explanation.

Sure, if you believe in existence of God then absolutely nothing is no longer impossible.

 

[leroy]

I´ll say that it could be taken as historical certain (or nearly certain) that Jesus did what others interpreted as miracles.

Whether if they where actual miracles, illusions or frauds is beyond the scope of the historical method........agree?

He was probably doing so called "faith healing" yeah. There are videos about those plenty in youtube nowdays. Illusion or fraud is more probable explanation than a miracle.

Well, why are illusions or frauds a better explanation than miracles?

I need to clarify a bit. I meant miracles. Yes, miracles are also supernatural events, but they also are like the name suggests, extraordinary events, temporary exceptions to the ordinary course of nature, thus making them improbable events for the historians (and others). There are plenty of miracle claims in the NT.

Sure miracles by definition are uncommon events, so what? If the resurrection was an illusion it would be the only reported case where multiple independent people had the same illusion, If it was a lie it would be the only reported case where people fought and die in the name of a lie that they themselves invented.


So miracle or not, whatever happened was an uncommon event

99% of world's population are not historians and don't understand historical method. Besides many many people claim natural events as supernatural/miraculous, for example God causing earthquakes to punish people for their sins or if some person recovers almost certain death in hospital.

The point that I am trying to make is that even agnostics would grant that the existence of God is possible. Only radical atheist would refuse to grand that the existence of God is at least possible,

So are you a radical atheist that would claim that the existence of God is impossible or extremely unlikely? Or are you just an agnostic who believes that God may or may not exist?

 

[Steelmage99]

If I make 100 (or however many you would like) rather mundane, but totally verifiable, claims about myself, would you then believe my 101st outlandish extreme claim about me?

Only if I have good reasons to reject that claim.

but to say that Barabbas was the name of a criminal does not sound to outlandish to me

Could you give some examples of what type of reasons that would cause you to reject my 101st claim (despite me just have made 100 demonstrably true claims)?



Where is your head at, leroy?

Do you actually believe that I consider postulating the existence of a criminal named Barabbas an outlandish claim?

Let's have a little game, leroy;

I give you two statements and your job is to sort those statements into two possible boxes.
One box is labelled "Mundane Claims" and the other is labelled "Outlandish Claims".

Here we go;

A. There once was a criminal named Barabbas.

B. There exists a time-less space-less (but crucially invisible and undetectable) being that through a magical incantation created all that exists.

Please, assign those two statements to any of the two mentioned boxes.


I predict you will try to invent a third box, thereby not following the rules of the game and therefore admit to being an intellectually dishonest cheater.

 

[Bango Skank]

Well, why are illusions or frauds a better explanation than miracles?

Because they are not rare interruptions inside common events.

Sure miracles by definition are uncommon events, so what? If the resurrection was an illusion it would be the only reported case where multiple independent people had the same illusion, If it was a lie it would be the only reported case where people fought and die in the name of a lie that they themselves invented.

Even if we go by the bible, there were no witnesses to the resurrection event itself. The empty tomb, what does that prove? The body could have been stolen or moved to other grave, or not buried at all. Grave robbing happened and there was apparently even a capital punishment for anyone disturbing the graves (see Nazareth inscription).
What we know about roman practises, the burial part of Jesus is probably later invention. Crucifiction was only part of the punishment, other part was to let the body rot and then after days tossed in a common grave. Also, earliest christians don't seem to posses any knowledge of the location of Jesus tomb, maybe because it didn't exist in reality.

The expectations we must grant just keeps piling up if want to believe that gospels are at least mostly accurate...that is desperate.

About mass illusions/hallucinations (though i have read that mass hysteria is more accurate term). There are other examples like "Miracle of the Sun" and UFO sightings / visits.

About die in the name of a lie. There are other examples, like all those false prophets and cult leaders who got killed / executed.

So miracle or not, whatever happened was an uncommon event

And by definition improbable.

The point that I am trying to make is that even agnostics would grant that the existence of God is possible. Only radical atheist would refuse to grand that the existence of God is at least possible,

So are you a radical atheist that would claim that the existence of God is impossible or extremely unlikely? Or are you just an agnostic who believes that God may or may not exist?

Is it possible that God descripted in OT & NT exists? = No
Is it possible that Jesus as descripted in NT was / is a God? = No
Is it possible that there could be a god or several gods? = I don't know, but unlikely

 

[leroy]

Could you give some examples of what type of reasons that would cause you to reject my 101st claim (despite me just have made 100 demonstrably true claims)?

Sure if there is evidence against your 101 claim I would reject it despite you being correct the other 100 times

Do you actually believe that I consider postulating the existence of a criminal named Barabbas an outlandish claim?

I was simply responding to your original claim.

Steelmage99 wrote:

thenexttodie wrote:

Well, sure Sparhafoc. The Bible does make many unvalidated claims. Some of which are extraordinary. I don't have evidence to give you for every thing in the Bible.

Well, then surely you should reject (or at least withhold belief in) the things that are "unvalidated".

You seemed to be implying that we should verify every single claim in a historical document before affirming that the claim is probably true.

My reply to you was “NO” if a source is proven to be true in most of the verifiable claims it would be reasonable to say the whole source is true. Unless there are good reasons to believe otherwise.

Then I provided the existence of Barabbas as an example, given that the gospels are true with regards to most of the verifiable claims, it is reasonable to simply trust the documents and grand the historicity of Barabbas, even in the absence of additional independent evidence.

So at this point do you accept my point, do you accept that Barabbas was likely to be a real historical person, even in the absence of external evidence?........I can also accept the possibility that you never made the point that I claimed you did

Let's have a little game, leroy;

I give you two statements and your job is to sort those statements into two possible boxes.
One box is labelled "Mundane Claims" and the other is labelled "Outlandish Claims".

Here we go;

A. There once was a criminal named Barabbas.

B. There exists a time-less space-less (but crucially invisible and undetectable) being that through a magical incantation created all that exists.

Please, assign those two statements to any of the two mentioned boxes.


I predict you will try to invent a third box, thereby not following the rules of the game and therefore admit to being an intellectually dishonest cheater.

In fact I would say that 2 is less Outlandish than 1, it is probable and very likely that there was a criminal named Barabbas. But it the existence of a time-less space-less entity that created the natural world by a supernatural intervention is logically necessarily.


But this is beyond the scope of this thread and beyond the point that I was trying to make originally, feel free to open a new thread if you what to add any comments on this

 

[leroy]

Because they are not rare interruptions inside common events.

Again the type of illusion that you have to proclaim in order to explain the multiple appearances of Jesus, in multiple contexts, to multiple people, including enemies, skeptics and crowds. Would be an extraordinary type of illusion, it would be the first illusion of these type ever recorded.

Same thing with the fraud hypothesis, it would be the only recorded case where someone dies as a martyr in the name of a lie that they themselves invented.

So whatever happened 2,000 years ago (miracle or not) was an extraordinary event,

Even if we go by the bible, there were no witnesses to the resurrection event itself

There are witnesses of people who saw Jesus (or what they thought to be Jesus) after his dead, this is a historical fact

About mass illusions/hallucinations (though i have read that mass hysteria is more accurate term). There are other examples like "Miracle of the Sun" and UFO sightings / visits.

there are no paralels to what happened 2000 years ago

We are talking about unambiguous experiences where people touched Jesus, ate with him, talked to him etc.

This is very different form watching a distant and unclear light in the sky, and interpreting it as a UFO

About die in the name of a lie. There are other examples, like all those false prophets and cult leaders who got killed / executed.

can you name 1 example?

Is it possible that there could be a god or several gods? = I don't know, but unlikely

Well the point that I am trying to make is that if you grant that the existence of God is possible, you should be open to the possibility of miracles.


given the context, why is a miracle less likely than an illusion?