God's Plan?

[POI]

For Debate: Why didn't God directly author the Bible himself? Why instead give his instruction(s) to fallible and sinful humans to write down his wishes to paper, which then makes it quite easy for skeptics to conclude that such writings were not from any higher power at all?

[Mae von H]

Mae No, that’s about the opposite. Since you claim other religions also have believers are martyred rather than recant, you need to provide examples. The christian’s suffered horrible painful deaths rather than deny Jesus. Blowing yourself up (totally painless and essentially committing suicide) isn’t even close. So where are these martyrs in Hinduism you claim are there? And it has to be such that they escape death by recanting, not some bigoted group hating their group.

POI Allow me to tell you why this argument carries no weight, and Christian apologists should stop using it...

1) If I were to give you examples of such Hindus, would you then seriously consider becoming a Hindu? I doubt it.

There are no Hindu or Muslim martyrs since you cannot name any and you ought to stop making those things up. No Hindu or Muslim dies horribly rather than convert. That’s because their faith is unfounded. They won’t die for what they aren’t convinced is true. Christians will because they know they’ve found the truth. You don’t like that fact but it’s still true.

2) (yes or no). Has anyone ever been tortured and died for a belief which is false in reality? I'm sure we agree here the answer is (yes), without having to "google" it.

Google it. There are no people besides Christians who refuse to recant to avoid a torturing death. Face it! Terroristic suicidal
evil men aren’t martyrs.

3) How do you know these folks never actually recanted? Dictators/emperors/etc are known to not be very forgiving. By the time they were in the middle of being tortured, they may have very well recanted, but it is already too late. They are going to die as a traitor regardless.

The record of history tells us they died refusing to recant. There were thousands. It was this unshakable faith that caused the cause of Christ spread rapidly. It’s undeniable.

4) In the search for the truth of a claim, do you ever ask yourself if anyone has ever martyred themselves for the veracity of the claim? I reckon you instead follow the evidence. Martyrdom does not really qualify.

You’d be surprised to learn that I know that some Christians in the first century arranged for themselves to be martyrs so that the church had to restrict the title. They nevertheless didn’t kill themselves.

5) The claims to martyrdom come from the same collection of sources which also make the truth claim. But even if we have external sources, would it really matter? Not really....

Problem is that there still are martyrs. But if you refuse to believe any of it, well, you don’t want inconvenient truth so not even God can penetrate that armor you’ve built.

6) People recant, to save their skin, when they know they are right about things.

They avoid suffering at times, it’s true. Not all but some.

Mae No, Paul wasn’t an atheist.

POI Being a believer does not mean he believed in a postmortem Jesus. Did Jesus bother to prove his postmortem existence to Saul, or not?

Jesus didn’t appear to Paul to merely
prove Himself. He called Paul to
a difficult course from day 1.

Mae Pardon if I ask, but what did you do?

POI What didn't I do? Likely all the same things you did and do. So why did/does he skip me?

From observation, you are demanding, the judge, not the student. You dare Him or else. This must change. I did not have that attitude.

Mae He proved his character for sure

POI Then you just demonstrated my point. Character follows existence. You cannot have a character without having the existence.

Thats rather silly. It’s like saying a person has to be alive to be alive.

[TRANSPONDER]

Even if one credited (1) the Christian stories about Martyrs being tortured, that condition does not define martyrdom.Simply dying for the faith is martyrdom, and Hindus and Muslims have done that, from the Siege of Rhodes to the Iran-Iraq wars I fact Kig Sigurd did a Viking -style crusade, and slaughtered Muslims unless they changed religion, and don't suppose that those who died like John Huss in the 30 years war between Catholics and protestants aren't martyrs as much as Wycliffe or Thomas More. Of course,science has their \Martyrs at the hands of Christianity like Giordano Bruno.

(1)The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom is a 2013 book by Candida Moss, a professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. In her book, Moss advances a thesis that:

The traditional idea of the "Age of Martyrdom", when Christians suffered persecution from the Roman authorities and lived in fear of being thrown to the lions, is largely fictional.[1] Here she follows the work of G. E. M. de Ste. Croix.
There was never sustained, targeted persecution of Christians by Imperial Roman authorities. Official persecution of Christians by order of the Roman Emperor lasted for at most twelve years of the first three hundred of the Church's history.[2][3] Moss writes: "This does not mean, however, that there were no martyrs at all or that Christians never died. It is clear that some people were cruelly tortured and brutally executed for reasons that strike us as profoundly unjust."[Wiki]

As has been discussed here before, there is no valid reason to credit the Early church stories of martyrdoms, including the stoning of Stephen, or the killing of James in Acts.

[Mae von H]

Even if one credited (1) the Christian stories about Martyrs being tortured, that condition does not define martyrdom.Simply dying for the faith is martyrdom, and Hindus and Muslims have done that, from the Siege of Rhodes to the Iran-Iraq wars I fact Kig Sigurd did a Viking -style crusade, and slaughtered Muslims unless they changed religion, and don't suppose that those who died like John Huss in the 30 years war between Catholics and protestants aren't martyrs as much as Wycliffe or Thomas More. Of course,science has their \Martyrs at the hands of Christianity like Giordano Bruno.

(1)The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom is a 2013 book by Candida Moss, a professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. In her book, Moss advances a thesis that:

The traditional idea of the "Age of Martyrdom", when Christians suffered persecution from the Roman authorities and lived in fear of being thrown to the lions, is largely fictional.[1] Here she follows the work of G. E. M. de Ste. Croix.
There was never sustained, targeted persecution of Christians by Imperial Roman authorities. Official persecution of Christians by order of the Roman Emperor lasted for at most twelve years of the first three hundred of the Church's history.[2][3] Moss writes: "This does not mean, however, that there were no martyrs at all or that Christians never died. It is clear that some people were cruelly tortured and brutally executed for reasons that strike us as profoundly unjust."[Wiki]

As has been discussed here before, there is no valid reason to credit the Early church stories of martyrdoms, including the stoning of Stephen, or the killing of James in Acts.

I looked up the definition. Martyrdom is BEING KILLED for one’s faith, not dying or suicide. That’s the definition. You can deny it because you don’t like it, but that’s what you’re doing. Muslim terrorists don’t count.

(It’s hard to believe I even have to say this. But the examples of denying undisputed history as well as making up stuff increases with increasing tears of being an atheist, it seems. Denying uncomfortable truth grows branches and roots)

[TRANSPONDER]

Even if one credited (1) the Christian stories about Martyrs being tortured, that condition does not define martyrdom.Simply dying for the faith is martyrdom, and Hindus and Muslims have done that, from the Siege of Rhodes to the Iran-Iraq wars I fact Kig Sigurd did a Viking -style crusade, and slaughtered Muslims unless they changed religion, and don't suppose that those who died like John Huss in the 30 years war between Catholics and protestants aren't martyrs as much as Wycliffe or Thomas More. Of course,science has their \Martyrs at the hands of Christianity like Giordano Bruno.

(1)The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom is a 2013 book by Candida Moss, a professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. In her book, Moss advances a thesis that:

The traditional idea of the "Age of Martyrdom", when Christians suffered persecution from the Roman authorities and lived in fear of being thrown to the lions, is largely fictional.[1] Here she follows the work of G. E. M. de Ste. Croix.
There was never sustained, targeted persecution of Christians by Imperial Roman authorities. Official persecution of Christians by order of the Roman Emperor lasted for at most twelve years of the first three hundred of the Church's history.[2][3] Moss writes: "This does not mean, however, that there were no martyrs at all or that Christians never died. It is clear that some people were cruelly tortured and brutally executed for reasons that strike us as profoundly unjust."[Wiki]

As has been discussed here before, there is no valid reason to credit the Early church stories of martyrdoms, including the stoning of Stephen, or the killing of James in Acts.

I looked up the definition. Martyrdom is BEING KILLED for one’s faith, not dying or suicide. That’s the definition. You can deny it because you don’t like it, but that’s what you’re doing. Muslim terrorists don’t count.

(It’s hard to believe I even have to say this. But the examples of denying undisputed history as well as making up stuff increases with increasing tears of being an atheist, it seems. Denying uncomfortable truth grows branches and roots)

But which definition are you using? Websters? The Christian? The Muslim?

This was online. What is the definition of the term martyrdom '?
noun. mar·​tyr·​dom ˈmär-tər-dəm. Synonyms of martyrdom. 1. : the suffering of death on account of adherence to a cause and especially to one's religious faith

That covers more than just Christian martyrs..
I looked up Hindu martyrdom. Their end is not dying professing their faith but they are called martyrs, despite what you say.

Wiki-
category "Hindu martyrs"
The following 11 pages are in this category, out of 11 total. This list may not reflect recent changes.

A
Abu Syahid Shah of Malacca
B
Bineswar Brahma
D
Tarani Debnath
K
Shanti Kali (Shanti Tripura)
Selliah Parameswaran Kurukkal
M
T. Maheswaran
Syama Prasad Mukherjee
P
Narayan Pokharel
R
Haqiqat Rai
S
Sambhaji
Mourya Sawant.

I believe I mentioned the Muslims who were killed by Sigurd on a Viking Rampage (which was ok since he was Christian) and died rather than change religion.
They weren't the terrorists in that case. Even today Muslims regard the Crusades as the epitome of Christian terrorism against Muslims. Not to mention the Crusades against Livonian Pagan or various herestics. Joan of Arc even threatened the Hussites with some military retribuion, but fortunately she was taken down before she could.

https://archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofa ... _1430.html

[benchwarmer]

If I were to get myself some slaves (let's pretend they comport to YOUR understanding of slavery in the Bible and they voluntarily became my slaves), which type of rod should I use to strike them with so I can be in harmony with both of the following passages of scripture? Should I have the slaves live a certain distance from my home so they are not technically my neighbor or something?

Why would you want to hit your slaves? I don't think you would need any rod, if you would follow the teachings of the Bible. In Biblical point of view, anyone who is near to you, is your neighbor.

I, as a non Bible following atheist, would NOT want to hit anyone unless in self defense.

However, we are talking about Bible believing Christians. If I were to be one again, I can follow the laws in the Bible right? It clearly indicates I would be able to strike my slaves as long as I don't kill them within a couple days.

I get it. You, 1213, are obviously a reasonable person and would neither have slaves nor hit them if you did. That's fantastic. However, we are talking about what's condoned in the Bible here. You can keep denying/ignoring it, but readers are free to read the Bible and see for themselves what's there. You are essentially frantically waving your hands and trying to distract from what's actually written. You are essentially saying "Only focus on the good stuff people, ignore all the bad scripture these atheists keep pointing at."

I don't think righteous people would rape anyone.

I would hope not, that's my entire point. Yet we have your God telling people how to acquire some virgins for themselves. Why is that in the Bible? Something else to be glossed over and ignored?

Adam and Eve had children. Now what?

How does Adam and Eve having children mean God supports incest?

Did you not learn about the birds and the bees in school?

After Adam and Eve had children, where did the rest of the population of humans come from? Magically poofed into existence by God? (Please say yes). The only other alternative if we are to be descendants of Adam is that Adam and Eve's children had sex with each other or their parents. There are no other humans around, so please explain how this worked without incest?

God incites war:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

War against Midian
31 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Avenge the Israelites on the Midianites; afterward you shall be gathered to your people.” 3 So Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm some of your number for the war, so that they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian.

If other nations attack other nation, I think they have right to defend themselves as Jews did. That does not necessary mean person is not against war.

Please read the scripture I quoted more carefully. Does it say "defend yourselves"? No. What does it actually say? That's right, "Avenge". Do you not know the difference between the words "Defend" and "Avenge"?

[TRANSPONDER]

From what I recall of the Bible, it rules on how much you can beat up your slaves without penalty (and it is not sure that applies to foreign slaves anyway). It for sure didn't pose any problems or turn Virginia slaveowners into Nice Guys.

[1213]

... the laws in the Bible right? It clearly indicates I would be able to strike my slaves as long as I don't kill them within a couple days.

By that logic you could say, Bible indicates that you can strike anyone. I think it is wrong to cherry pick lines like you do. If you take the whole Bible, it is not possible to oppress anyone, for example because this:

You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he be of your brothers, or of your foreigners who are in your land within your gates:…
Deut. 24:14-18

Also, I think it would be good to know this:

If a man strikes his servant's eye, or his maid's eye, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. If he strikes out his man-servant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
Exod. 21:26-27

And obviously, it simply is incredibly stupid to hit a servant, because then he probably doesn't work as well as if treated well.

...However, we are talking about what's condoned in the Bible here. You can keep denying/ignoring it, but readers are free to read the Bible and see for themselves what's there. You are essentially frantically waving your hands and trying to distract from what's actually written. You are essentially saying "Only focus on the good stuff people, ignore all the bad scripture these atheists keep pointing at."

I think people should take the whole Bible, not just the scriptures atheists bring up, when they try to preach their godless message.

After Adam and Eve had children, where did the rest of the population of humans come from? Magically poofed into existence by God? (Please say yes). The only other alternative if we are to be descendants of Adam is that Adam and Eve's children had sex with each other or their parents. There are no other humans around, so please explain how this worked without incest?

There are two options:
1. God had created more than 2 people. I don't think Bible supports this.
2. Children of A and E had sex. I don't think that necessary means God thinks it is good.

God incites war:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

War against Midian
31 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Avenge the Israelites on the Midianites; afterward you shall be gathered to your people.” 3 So Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm some of your number for the war, so that they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian.

If other nations attack other nation, I think they have right to defend themselves as Jews did. That does not necessary mean person is not against war.

Please read the scripture I quoted more carefully. Does it say "defend yourselves"? No. What does it actually say? That's right, "Avenge". Do you not know the difference between the words "Defend" and "Avenge"?

It says avenge. What do you think they would avenge?

[benchwarmer]

... the laws in the Bible right? It clearly indicates I would be able to strike my slaves as long as I don't kill them within a couple days.

By that logic you could say, Bible indicates that you can strike anyone. I think it is wrong to cherry pick lines like you do. If you take the whole Bible, it is not possible to oppress anyone

No, I'm sorry but you are not making sense. The scripture I quoted specifically deals with slaves. Where do you get the idea this has anything to do with striking anyone else? That would be adding to scripture which is a big no-no.

, for example because this:

You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he be of your brothers, or of your foreigners who are in your land within your gates:…
Deut. 24:14-18

This scripture does NOT apply. A slave is not a hired servant. Try again.

Also, I think it would be good to know this:

If a man strikes his servant's eye, or his maid's eye, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. If he strikes out his man-servant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
Exod. 21:26-27

More scripture about servants not slaves. Readers note the wiggling going on here and redefinition or words when backed into a corner.

And obviously, it simply is incredibly stupid to hit a servant, because then he probably doesn't work as well as if treated well.

Agreed, but we are talking about slaves, not paid servants.

I personally think it'd incredibly stupid to hit anyone other than in self defense of yourself or others. We are shining the light on the Bible here, not what you or I condone.

...However, we are talking about what's condoned in the Bible here. You can keep denying/ignoring it, but readers are free to read the Bible and see for themselves what's there. You are essentially frantically waving your hands and trying to distract from what's actually written. You are essentially saying "Only focus on the good stuff people, ignore all the bad scripture these atheists keep pointing at."

I think people should take the whole Bible, not just the scriptures atheists bring up, when they try to preach their godless message.

I'm not preaching, so that's a strawman. I'm simply pointing out passages in the Bible and showing what the Bible condones. Readers should most certainly read the entire Bible. In fact I encourage it. The fastest way to get people to see all the problems is have them read the whole thing for themselves.

After Adam and Eve had children, where did the rest of the population of humans come from? Magically poofed into existence by God? (Please say yes). The only other alternative if we are to be descendants of Adam is that Adam and Eve's children had sex with each other or their parents. There are no other humans around, so please explain how this worked without incest?

There are two options:
1. God had created more than 2 people. I don't think Bible supports this.
2. Children of A and E had sex. I don't think that necessary means God thinks it is good.

So that's what you are going with then? Option 2? Do you realize what you are admitting here? Readers, should I let our interlocuter ponder on that before I point out the obvious?

Nah, probably not. Ok:

1: God designs humans.
2: The humans have a rough time in the garden and are booted out.
3: Humans start reproducing (using the bodies God has designed for them with this function designed in)
4: God doesn't think sex between the children is necessarily good.

????

So God designed humans to have sex to reproduce, but doesn't think them doing it is good. I sense a design issue....

What we see here readers is that God is not allowed to be held at fault for anything even though there is no other option. When it's clear God is condoning something, nope, it's not true, it's just humans sinning (while doing what they were designed by God to do).

I truly enjoy watching apologists trying to wiggle out of these scenarios. It really shines the light on the lengths some people will go to excuse some poorly thought out literature that supposedly is inspired by a god.

God incites war:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

War against Midian
31 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Avenge the Israelites on the Midianites; afterward you shall be gathered to your people.” 3 So Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm some of your number for the war, so that they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance on Midian.

If other nations attack other nation, I think they have right to defend themselves as Jews did. That does not necessary mean person is not against war.

Please read the scripture I quoted more carefully. Does it say "defend yourselves"? No. What does it actually say? That's right, "Avenge". Do you not know the difference between the words "Defend" and "Avenge"?

It says avenge. What do you think they would avenge?

Ok great. So you agree it says avenge and not defend. Why do I care what they might want to avenge? Your apologetic was about defense. Nobody should be avenging anyone, but the God of the Bible seems to think it's just dandy and the right thing to do. Just one of the many reasons I reject the character portrayed in the Bible as a loving God.

Readers, if the God of the Bible is all knowing and all powerful (certainly to the degree described within the Bible), why would this God need people to attack others and avenge anyone? Let God do God's dirty work and avenge them Himself. It seems this character in the Bible is quite happy making humans get their hands dirty killing, stealing, and raping other people all in the cause of 'avenging'.

As a final word here, I just want to point out that I think most Christians don't agree with all the bad things that get pointed out in the Bible. That's why they are busy trying to make them seem like what they're not.

God condones slavery? Apologist: Nope, slavery in the Bible is not really humans owning other people (just ignore the scripture that tells you how to buy slaves).

God condones rape? Apologist: Nope, God is about love. Young virgins that are to be captured after wiping out their town and families and taken for yourself will of course be willing participants. Not slaves or rape victims.

God condones war? Apologist: Nope, because the other nation started it. God tells people to kill, enslave, and rape (ooops I mean gently capture young virgins for tea and crumpets) the people in the other nation to avenge past wrongs.

How any apologist can continue to make these arguments with a straight face and content soul baffles me beyond belief.

[POI]

Mae There are no Hindu or Muslim martyrs since you cannot name any and you ought to stop making those things up. No Hindu or Muslim dies horribly rather than convert. That’s because their faith is unfounded. They won’t die for what they aren’t convinced is true. Christians will because they know they’ve found the truth. You don’t like that fact but it’s still true.

POI You did not answer my question. This is very telling. Likely because you know it would make no difference, which is why the martyrdom argument is pointless.

Mae Google it. There are no people besides Christians who refuse to recant to avoid a torturing death. Face it! Terroristic suicidal
evil men aren’t martyrs.

POI See above.

Mae Problem is that there still are martyrs. But if you refuse to believe any of it, well, you don’t want inconvenient truth so not even God can penetrate that armor you’ve built.

POI I tend not to place all my eggs into one proverbial basket. (Restated for good measure) - The claims to martyrdom come from the same collection of sources which also make the truth claim. But even if we have external sources, would it really matter? Not really....

Mae They avoid suffering at times, it’s true. Not all but some.

POI My point being that one's own convictions is not what validates a fact claim. Evidence does. People dying for a cause is not what validates a claim. So please stop using this as 'evidence'. Even if the claims to martyrdom were true, it's not evidence. Case/point, if you were to find out many Hindu's 'martyred' themselves, I don't think you would go right out and get a copy of the Rig Veda

Mae Jesus didn’t appear to Paul to merely prove Himself. He called Paul to a difficult course from day 1.

POI Thank you for completely demonstrating my point, which refutes your prior statement, in bold.

Mae From observation, you are demanding, the judge, not the student. You dare Him or else. This must change. I did not have that attitude.

POI You did not know me a few years ago My new outlook is a result of decades of radio silence. I now realize that a deity, who yearns for a relationship from all of his followers, would have done so. If he DOES exist, he does not want me to know he exists

Mae Thats rather silly. It’s like saying a person has to be alive to be alive.

POI A nonexistence agency possesses an actual character? How so?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to POI in post #49]

Just in case you are wondering where your interlocuter is likely plucking their 'information'.

https://answersingenesis.org/religious- ... er-faiths/

As usual, your interlocutor also fails at google:

https://www.vifindia.org/node/341

There is no tragedy of greater magnitude on the planet than that suffered by the Hindus. Millions of innocent men, women and children were brutally butchered by fanatic marauders on religious arid racial grounds. India passed through worst genocidal phases in human history over a millennium, at the hands of Muslim invaders, followed by the Christian carnage of Hindus at the hands of the Portuguese. Historians, generally, skirt around these spells of mass tragedies for fear of offending the Muslims; those who write objectively are branded as communal. Objective teaching of history in educational institutions is not part of the educational ethos. The martyrdom of millions of innocent Hindus, who died for their faith and the country, remains unrequited and their fate unlamented.