Why should there be an explanation at all? Evolution may be the best one according to you, but if it isn't sufficient it shouldn't be used at all until something better IS found.
Is this a serious question? If you are comfortable sticking your head in the sand and pretending that we can't learn anything about our universe, be my guest. But please don't chastise the brilliant people over the past millenniums who have devoted their lives to the advancement of human knowledge. Evolution is not the best explanation "according to me," it is the best one according to millions of scientists who throughout their daily lives rely on the tenets of evolutionary biology to improve our world. The hypocrisy in denying evolution and then going to get a flu vaccine (which needs to be remade at least every year to account for new species of virus) is somewhat staggering.
The same idea goes for the Bible. Simply because one part doesn't make sense to you, you don't just throw the whole thing out. you gather evidence and fix the holes.
Things written by a perfect being do not have holes, especially not logical or moral ones. So no, that argument doesn't quite work with the Bible if you're going to pretend it's written by a god. If you want to acknowledge, as I do, that the Bible is a collection of stories written years after events took place by various people who may only have secondhand knowledge of those events, then we can begin to make some progress in addressing what those holes may be. If you want to continue to claim that the Bible is god's word, however, you either take it all or you don't.
The problem with both of your arguements is that you are both making an assumption based on your view of how the slaves in question were treated. Faz, I'm pretty sure there is a big difference between abortion and selling a child into slavery. Aborted babies don't get a chance to decide what they think about it. I would even go so far as to say that it is a lot closer to adoption, in the the child gets food clothes and shelter part. You are reading a historical passage and thinking about it as if it were something taking place in modern times.
Who told you he was making assumptions. You are assuming that he is making assumptions. Who is FaZ- and why are his assumptions any more valid than mine on the issue of the condition of slaces 2000 years ago? (Hint: it's written above.)
That's ... exactly the point I was making. Both Jack and I are as good as guessing, as is "John Thomas."
Someone with no credentials who does not cite sources is considered to be making assumptions. That is how debate works, as does our legal system. If you can find someone who professionally studies slavery who has made inquiries into the condition of Israelite slaves, that would be a worthwhile person to quote. Not someone on a Bible forum, nor myself, since you seem to think I'm elevating myself to a level above his assumptions, which I'm not.
Weren't you just complaining about how women were treated worse? And now you are doing the opposite make up your mind.
They're both treated poorly in different ways. Women slaves aren't allowed to go free after 6 years, but have protection from foreigners, because as Jack was saying: "She would, in most cases, be extremely badly treated in another nation." ... Male slaves, however, are allowed to be sold to foreigners, so it's evidently okay for males to be treated badly. Or, he needed some way to divert that this is clearly an issue of racial purity. I'm pointing out the inconsistencies inherent in the Bible's moral rules, it's kind of the point that I'm having it "both ways."
Noone here said polygamy wasn'y a common practice in those days. Obviously this was taking place before Jesus reformed the "religion". Judeism and Christianity are two different things. If you have a problem with this you should take it up with some Jews who also don't follow these ancient laws.
So God's ideas of morality change over time? Either the Bible is divinely inspired or it is not. If polygamy was okay then, why aren't you all living in Utah?
I'm pretty sure Jesus never crucified anyone. By the way Jesus did set standards.
Luke 10:26-27 (New International Version, ©2011)
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
You're right, I've said as much. I should have clarified that he did not set new standards for morality [b]in that area.
And what atheist is going to make a claim that supports something that opposes his beliefs? You are obviously going to assume the absolute worst because you are convinced that that is the only possible translation of the Bible.
[quote]I can make
I made and will make again in the following sentence
the opposite assumptions and we're no where closer to the truth: I haven't even seen any evidence that those rules were followed at all and frankly given the condition of slaves throughout the history of the world I think it's vastly more unlikely that Israel was some city upon a hill: kind masters would avoid punishment except when necessary to force work, cruel masters would punish as much as they could.
Honestly, I couldn't care less if I changed your mind, you've obviously been indoctrinated into believing that the Bible is false.
This is not a translation of the Bible issue. This is a "did people actually follow the Bible's rules" issue. Since over the course of history people obeying any silly laws strictly is somewhat scarce, I think I'm justified in making that claim, but readily admit that it's no more evidenced than any other.
If you must know, I attended Church every Sunday until I was about 13, plus religious classes every other Wednesday. Since asking intelligent questions and challenging the reasoning of authority figures are both discouraged in those arenas, I obviously have a lot of resentment for the organized ravaging of youthful curiosity. I flatly refused to be Confirmed, and that was the end of it. I'm about as far from indoctrinated as you can get: I was put into the system and still came out thoroughly rejecting its shackles. Not all of us are so lucky; it's absolutely disgusting to force beliefs on children unable to reason for themselves.
You keep talking about how science is better evidence than the Bible; perhaps you've heard of
This.
I'm sure many stories in the Bible are based on fact. Maybe it rained for 40 days, causing flooding of crops and many deaths, and that somehow became "everyone but Noah died for their wickedness." But the more you concede to these as scientific phenomenon, the more you deny god's direct influence. That's progress, at least.
None.