Exodus chapter 20, lays out God’s rules for owning slaves. It states that it is acceptable to beat them as long as they don’t die within a couple days etc.
Another interesting one to most Christians is Numbers chapter 5. Within that chapter God instructs for priests to perform abortions in the case of female unfaithfulness.
Lots to unpack and ask here … I hopefully will return to this later once I’ve had more time to digest it
which begs the question, is it really free will if God already knows the outcome? Wouldn’t the point of free will be keeping God guessing? If so, is God omnipotent?
If you say your morals are influenced and guided by the teachings of Jesus, that’s one thing. But if you say you follow the example of God, that’s another.
And if slavery is made illegal by man, because man has decided it’s immoral, and God then no longer approves of slavery, we are saying that God bases his concept of right and wrong on how we think. So what do we need God for?
Yup. Omnipotence amazingly creates far more problems than it solves.
the Exodus from Egypt story backs that up. It specifically says that God hardened pharaoh’s heart.
I think the issue lies between omnipotence and omnipresence. I can see free will being a thing with an omnipresent entity (i.e. that which animates life, governs the laws of the Universe/Nature, etc) but a bit more hazy with one who is omnipotent. I might be misunderstanding the two terms and the differences between them.
An omnipotent entity would allow for a being who favors “good” (virtuous) outcomes for the most part but also for terrible things to happen to people irrespective of their personal choices. i.e. people who make a more vicious choice opposed to a virtuous one consistently, tends to lead a more miserable life/die sooner than one who tends towards virtuous choices consistently. I’d think the power within THAT being is worthy of praise for sure.
Yup. It’s not at all without precedent.
God. The first 4D chess player
If one positions God as the sovereign and creator of both universe and everything in it, how can you then not fear (means hold in highest respect, reverance, and awe)? Likewise, the second is explained by a verse stating that a builder is due more honor than his building.
Sovereign means all power flows from this being, and he has no one he answers to.
You guys are missing the message that humans are created in the image of God, have a free will enabling them to also ‘choose’ God rather than becoming their own god. We were not created to blindly follow instinct like the animals nor as objects for him to thrash for a period and then destroy.
The two are one in the same in the Christian faith. Jesus is both God and Man (Re: Holy Trinity).
Really Exodus 20? you mean this:
Does not mention slavery at all…
Maybe you meant Exodus 21 - all of which must be taken into historical context of what it meant to be a slave in those days
See this for the historical content and the original Hebrew word which was more likened to servant:
Yep Exodus 21 (should have looked it up, instead of going off of memory).
I define someone being another’s property as slavery. Which is clearly laid out in the bible as being okay. Why would God bend to the ways of man, instead of just saying this is wrong, don’t do it.
You can’t legally beat a servant to almost death without punishment. They were slaves.
That reference in Exodus was part of the layout of what’s known as the “Old Covenant”, when Christ came and completed the prophecies it ushered in the era of the “New Covenant” which rendered the old obsolete.
As to why he allowed it as part of the “Old Covenant”, I don’t know.
I have been listening to a lot of debates lately on religion, the existence of god, etc.
One thing that I have found interesting in a lot of debaters defending the “there is a god position” is, that a lot of them are stating that god does not love everyone, that he hates some people.
They have been using this position to mostly defend the god of the old testament.
I also find it odd that the debaters defending “there is a god” seem to pick the christian god, and use the bible. It seems harder to defend a specific god than a general one.
…have you read the Old Testament?
I’d think because they’re looking at it from a Christian lens? (Judeo-Christian anyway). But you’re the one listening to a lot of these debates - this is the only one I’ve seen in quite some time that I’ve been interested in imo … so what do you think?
You are definitely correct here that a specific god is harder than God from the Bible. I think most people (myself included) tend to default to the God they believe in and often cannot abstract.
I believe in the Christian God, but in a more general sense, I cannot see how out of randomness came everything that goes on around us. We know that the universe is constantly increasing in chaos and entropy. If that is the case how come so many perfect, beautiful mathematical relationships exist that describe physical phenomena. If it were random - wouldn’t it lead towards randomness instead of order?
I’m not sure l follow you. I don’t believe that Lucifer (Satan, serpent, etc) is approximately as powerful as God and might ‘win’. He is a created being with the job description of being a accuser.
Who is spoken of in Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14?
The New Covenant does not render the earlier laws obsolete, only the earlier covenant. Jesus did not say the earlier laws were invalid.
This is interesting because I am participating. I have listened to a few on YouTube. I particularly like Matt Dillahunty as an atheist debater.
I do find it interesting that the prominent voices of christian apologetic debate do not describe a god that I am familiar with, or many Christians would agree with. I am not familiar with how Catholics describe god, but I am familiar with most Protestant views of god, and they do not match up with the apologists views.
There is a name for this argument. It is called an argument from incredulity. It is not good reasoning.
The inexplicable is just that, and does not justify speculation as proof.