The Problem with Christians

[God of Mr. Hanky]

The bible makes many claims, each as dubious as the next.  It's strange, for example, that the bible doesn't accurately describe the formation of earth, or the emergence of animals, of our origins -even-.  Strange in that, purportedly, it's getting it's info from the guy who claims to have done all that.  I'd expect a creator god to know what happened, I'd expect a creator gods story to line up with reality.

This leaves us with a few possible explanations...none particularly flattering.  Either god (or the author purporting to write gods story) is misleading us about being the creator, or is misleading us in regards to the method, manner, and timeline of creation.  Or......the story has nothing to do with either any god, any creation, the author was simply mistaken.

Thoughts?

The Bible doesn't give much detail on how God made the earth but why is that a problem? In terms of reality, an all powerful God could spit a universe out of his mouth if he wanted, so why should we limit him in terms of his methodology? Does God have to make his ways fit our limited capacity of understanding?

Is that your opinion as a "scientist"?

[The Grand Nudger]

The Bible doesn't give much detail on how God made the earth but why is that a problem? In terms of reality, an all powerful God could spit a universe out of his mouth if he wanted, so why should we limit him in terms of his methodology? Does God have to make his ways fit our limited capacity of understanding?

It gives enough to know that it's account is wholly, irreconcilably, and demonstrably wrong.  A god -could- spit the universe out of it's mouth, one might suppose....who knows, it's a god..they can do things and stuff™... but that's not what happened anymore than the account in genesis....so, whats the relevance? Is it enough to have things to say, do you feel no requirement to fact check those things against reality? In any case, I'm not the one limiting your god...your magic book is. Take it up with magic book. Get back to me when magic book provides some clarification.

[AJW333]

When the earth was formed, it would have consisted simply of dirt, rocks and water. What else was there to create life with?

---

[hide]

There was no dirt when the Earth was formed.  Do you even know what dirt is?

Allow me to be more precise. According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica,

"The oldest known rocks—the faux amphibolites of the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt in Quebec, Canada—however, have an isotopic age of 4.28 billion years."

According to the Smithsonian,

"The oldest evidence for life may be 3.5-billion-year-old sedimentary structures from Australia that resemble stromatolites."

So by the time life emerged there would have been a billion years for dirt to form.

[The Grand Nudger]

Did dirt form in a billion years?  Is that what magic book says? Last time you responded...you said dirt -included- all the things magic book left out. Which one are we, and by we I mean you...going to stick with?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

There was no dirt when the Earth was formed.  Do you even know what dirt is?

Allow me to be more precise. According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica,

"The oldest known rocks—the faux amphibolites of the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt in Quebec, Canada—however, have an isotopic age of 4.28 billion years."

According to the Smithsonian,

"The oldest evidence for life may be 3.5-billion-year-old sedimentary structures from Australia that resemble stromatolites."

So by the time life emerged there would have been a billion years for dirt to form.

Oh, and I thought life was created from the dust (dirt) inside of a few days after the earth had formed. Isn't that what your bible said? You said yourself that your god could have done that, so then why didn't he?

[AJW333]

Accidently reposted

---

Allow me to be more precise. According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica,

"The oldest known rocks—the faux amphibolites of the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt in Quebec, Canada—however, have an isotopic age of 4.28 billion years."

According to the Smithsonian,

"The oldest evidence for life may be 3.5-billion-year-old sedimentary structures from Australia that resemble stromatolites."

So by the time life emerged there would have been a billion years for dirt to form.

Oh, and I thought life was created from the dust (dirt) inside of a few days after the earth had formed. Isn't that what your bible said? You said yourself that your god could have done that, so then why didn't he?

I'm not one of those who insists on a literal 6 day creation.

[abaris]

I'm not one of those who insists on a literal 6 day creation.

What a great concession, given that you bend every other obscure gobbledigok to suit your needs.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Accidently reposted

---

Oh, and I thought life was created from the dust (dirt) inside of a few days after the earth had formed. Isn't that what your bible said? You said yourself that your god could have done that, so then why didn't he?

I'm not one of those who insists on a literal 6 day creation.

But you believe your god could have done it that way - you said he could have just spit it out in one big gob, to paraphrase what you said.

You have certainly made it clear you believe there's nothing he could not have done. So then why did he make this awful, violent, not at all designed with any top-down engineering nor evidence of planning, and barely habitable mess the way it is, and then take so fucking long at it? Why do you believe a god would do it that way?

[Huggy Bear]

Eleazar was from Damascus, he was not a Hebrew, yet he was Abraham's heir

Um, he was also Abraham's (illegitimate) son by one of his servants. So. Yeah.

Could I get the chapter and verse for that?

Also Where did the Hebrews get currency from? they were nomads when they left Egypt with pretty much the clothes on their back.

Just humor me and offer a solution to the scenario I provided.

Well, to start with, they could have continued using some of the coins that they are supposed to have taken from Egypt when they left (Exodus 12:35-36), but that's neither here nor there since Exodus, in chapter 30, also mentions the sheckel as their currency.

So, I'm going to assume this was a test of my knowledge of the Pentateuch. In any case, the Torah also breaks down a specific set of rules regarding poverty levels and what may be offered for sacrifices, such as burning a few measures of gran instead of a small bird, if you can't afford the bird, or the bird if you can't afford the goat/sheep/etc. It's pretty clear they had a full economy.

No, it is not clear that they had a full economy, They didn't even have food to feed themselves with.

Also there is this caveat:

And the Lord spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the Lord. - Leviticus 25: 1-2

I don't suppose I should remind you that it took 40 years to get to the promised land, which shows these rules were for future generations.

*edit*
I should also mention:

just because YOU say so doesn't make it true.

"And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."

There are no exceptions to that law, therefore one could not take another person against their will.

No, you're right, it's not just because I say so. It's what the verses plainly say. You're bending over backward to ignore the numerous verses that talk about captives taken by the Israelites in war, and the plain wording of the passage. 

As I just pointed out to you, the "stealeth a man" list is part of a series of commands that had to do with how to treat fellow Israelites. It does not make it a blanket prohibition, or else the captives taken by Israel and put to servitude (the numerous "take the women who have not yet known a man!" verses we point out to you endlessly, to be endlessly ignored, or worse, "justified"), only a law against kidnapping.

Most of the verses in Leviticus 25 mainly with indentured servitude, the type you're desperately trying to pretend is the only type, but 44-46 deal specifically with a different system, slavery/bondsmen, and it specifically spells out the difference, as in: You may do _(bad things, including heritable ownership, "with rigor")_ to these foreign people, but not to your fellow Israelites.

Seriously, take a fresh pair of eyes and explain to me what they could POSSIBLY have meant by the "but", at the end clause of verse 46. Here's the whole thing, in context:

System #1:

39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: 40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile: 41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. 42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. 43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.

System #2:

44 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. 45 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. 46 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: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Get it now?

[Emphasis in bold, as always, my own.]

I don't know how else to say it, it was expressly forbidden to kidnap and force people into servitude (taking prisoners of war has never been considered "kidnapping"), As you made clear, the Bible has no qualms on specifying whether it is referring to the "brethren" or "stranger"; but in the case of "he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." It makes no exceptions, it simply says "a man".

You have no basis to imply that passage is only in reference to Hebrews, if that was the case, why would any "strangers" sojourn with the Hebrews if they were under constant threat of being kidnapped?

Leviticus 25
47 And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family:
48 After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him:

Wouldn't an easier solution be to just kidnap the stranger and take his money AND get your family member back? If the law against kidnapping only applies to Hebrews as you say; why not?

I should also mention in the passages you quoted, it says plainly that you may BUY servants from the heathen not kidnap.

As a side note "possession" does not imply ownership.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

...the Bible has no qualms on specifying whether it is referring to the "brethren" or "stranger"; but in the case of "he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." It makes no exceptions, it simply says "a man".

Bolded by me.

So, at least they don't tolerate the sexual molestation of adult male slaves?

What about women and children? It says nothing to prohibit the taking of them as slaves.

    You have no basis to imply that passage is only in reference to Hebrews, if that was the case, why would any "strangers" sojourn with the Hebrews if they were under constant threat of being kidnapped?

        Leviticus 25
        47 And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family:
        48 After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him:


    Wouldn't an easier solution be to just kidnap the stranger and take his money AND get your family member back? If the law against kidnapping only applies to Hebrews as you say; why not?

    I should also mention in the passages you quoted, it says plainly that you may BUY servants from the heathen not kidnap.

    As a side note "possession" does not imply ownership.

YAWWWWN!!!

You do know that the bible is completely meaningless here as an account on anything which actually happened, or was legally practiced.