”Could you enumerate all of them or maybe just five?”
I already did. But I’ll repeat them below:
”Please name five of them”
I’ll give you six.
1. Genesis says the Earth existed before the sun. As planets accrete from debris gravitationally retained by stars as they form, the Earth could not have existed before the sun.
2. Genesis says the sun was created before all other stars in the heavens. We know based on stellar spectography and observation of other stars at different stages of their ‘life cycle’ that our star is not the oldest.
3. Genesis says birds came before land animals. As birds evolved from land animals, that order is necessarily wrong.
4. Genesis says the Earth was created in six literal days. There is some disagreement over whether the Hebrew “yom” means literal days or indeterminate work periods. However scripture specifies literal days are meant when light is separated from darkness, and the light is called day, whereas the darkness is called night. (Gen. 1:4–5)
5. Scripture also describes a flat Earth cosmology similar to the cosmologies of neighboring Egypt and Babylon at that time. The single verse in Isaiah describing Earth as a circle does not change this, it’s just the closest that apologists can find to a verse saying Earth is “round”.
There was a Hebrew word for ball which might’ve been used instead, but wasn’t. Numerous other verses ignored by apologists describe the various other elements of a flat Earth cosmology such as the sky being a solid dome called the firmament, snow and hail being kept in storehouses within it pending use, Earth being supported by pillars, and there being waters both above and below the Earth which were separated by the firmament at the time of creation.
6. The Genesis creation story is not compatible with evolution. The arrival of different families of animalia described in Genesis happens in the wrong order, and in too short of a timeframe. Romans 1:20 makes it abundantly clear that the authors of scripture believed the Earth and life on it to be so obviously evolved that nobody has any excuse for concluding otherwise.
“verses endorsing” — are these endorsements or pronouncements from God and his prophets such as Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. or just the mention of the vial behavior of a barbaric tribe?”
It specifically says it is allowed in Leviticus 25:44–55:
“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.“
You may = permission. This is explicit, detailed permission to keep slaves provided they’re foreigners.
”Could you be more specific -chapter,verse. Again, was it a command from God or an observation of what was happening?”
It isn’t an observation, but it came out of Moses’ mouth rather than Yahweh’s. The situation is a little bit complicated though.
Yahweh at various points in the books of Joshua and Numbers commands the Israelites to fully exterminate the tribes indigenous to the promised land. In some cases for crimes they committed against the Israelites, as in the case of the Midianites. In other cases simply because Israelite men were becoming involved with the women of neighboring tribes, and being enticed to worship their gods (Moabites, Cananites, Amalekites etl al.)
They also accuse their victims of a laundry list of horrible offenses, such as burning child offerings. But the winners write history, and the Nazis had similarly exhaustive lists of crimes, conspiracies and depravity that they attributed to Jews. Had they won the war, future generations might persist in belief that the Jewish people were monstrous and deserving of annihilation.
Anyways Yahweh on one occasion punishes Joshua for failing to kill the livestock as part and parcel of destroying every trace of an enemy tribe. His men regarded it as needless bloodshed and throwing the baby out with the bath water. Why Yahweh was insistent that even the livestock be killed is just another Biblical mystery I suppose.
When a similar event happened to Moses, who discovered his men neglected to kill the women and children as commanded, he told them to instead kill every woman who wasn’t a virgin, but to keep the virginal girls as wives and trophies of war. (Numbers 31:15–18)
This represents a relaxation of the prior requirement to kill absolutely everything within enemy borders. However Moses was a prophet, a devout servant of Yahweh and canonically his representative and mouthpiece on Earth at that time. Moses would not have commanded this if Yahweh did not will it, and had Yahweh not willed it there would be some mention of this after the fact along with a punishment of some kind against Moses. Indeed, Yahweh next speaks to Moses in verse 25, and makes no mention of Moses’ decision to spare the girls for his men’s enjoyment.
”Here I owe you an apology, Alex. “Lilith” is mentioned in the Bible. 14 out of 53 different English translations and it is not mentioned as a “story” — just a word.”
That word is the name of a woman said to have been Adam’s first wife in a rabbinical attempt to reconcile the two different creation stories in Genesis, one of which has Adam and Eve created at the same time, and the other of which has Eve created later. Christians, barring those who observe Sola Scriptura, also incorporate a great many ancilliary beliefs into their worldview which aren’t found in scripture.
This is a meaningless distraction though, given that the Bible is replete with misogyny. Subtract the story of Lilith from that and you’ve not so much as made a dent in the problem.
”And as you have said, it is not found in the Torah.”
Jews do not have a concept of Sola Scriptura. See above.
”The other translations use screech owl (most used) night-monster, night-birds, creatures of the night, nocturnal animals, lamia (I am surprised you didn’t lay this one on me.), night animals, night-demon, night creature, night hag, demoness of the night.”
If I was going to bring up Lamia I’d have to also bring up the mention of unicorns, or that Yahweh is apparently weak to iron and that’s a tangent which would only distract from the core argument.
”Wow, where did you get that definition? Please be specify.”
I will “be specify” as best I can. I don’t know what definition you’re referring to. I used the word “moral”, not “definition”. Your meaning in this reply is unclear.
”I don’t know, but is because of some experience you have had and why do you wear sunglasses?. Just curious.”
”Again, where does it ”read very plainly”
You are confused. I did not claim scripture itself says “read very plainly” anywhere. Rather I was saying that it is very clear to any impartial reader that much of what Yahweh commands concerning gender roles is slanted very heavily in favor of men.
This is implausible for a cosmic being. Even if Moses did speak to a burning bush, it does not stretch the limits of imagination to suggest he might’ve editorialized on it a bit so that the lives of men would be easier at the expense of women. A prayer Jewish men are instructed to repeat every morning is “Thank you God for making me male”.
”Here I am confused. Are you saying “the scriptures … read very plainly as self-serving inventions of ancient men, not the moral opinions of a cosmic being. Or does “it contain … troubling verses endorsing slavery, including the sex slavery of young girls abducted during conquest.” Which is it: Does the Bible contain self-serving inventions of ancient men or verses endorsing slavery/sex slaves as from the moral opinions of God?”
To say “look at the terrible things held up as virtuous by this book” does not require one believe the events of the book to be fully accurate. When critics do that, they are not finding fault with Yahweh, but the people who would worship Yahweh, despite believing sincerely that he commanded multiple genocides and permitted slavery.
”I don’t care about Islam, I am not a Muslim.”
Irrelevant. It is not necessary for you to be a Muslim or to have any interest in Islam for my arguments hinging on a comparison of the psychology underpinning Muslim and Christian faith to be valid.
”Not my problem. Inadmissible.”
Irrelevant. In that passage I was illustrating a universal principle which does not require you to be a Muslim or to have any interest in Islam to remain valid. Many ideologies deliberately present their best face to the world by selectively omitting troubling teachings. The simplified “core beliefs” version of their faith that they promote as their desired public understanding of their ideology is rarely an accurate picture of the whole.
”Are you referring to the one-page synopsis I gave you of the whole Bible”
Yes. It deliberately leaves out everything from scripture that’s cruel, sexist and contrary to scientific findings.
”If you think it is deceptive, I welcome you to go through it and tell me where it is deceptive”
Do you know what a “lie of omission” is?
”A very bad analogy which I reject. You are trying to highlight the unflattering ones, but not so well.”
I am only highlighting the unflattering ones because you intentionally left them out. There is no need for me to include the flattering parts in my own posts as you already included them in yours.
”There is hope for you. Reread the Prodigal Son.”
If I ever relapsed, it would more likely be due to a head injury, or drinking water with lead in it. There isn’t hope for you. You are too old. By your age most people are irreversibly solidified in their opinions. Most likely you will go to your grave still deceived. That will be your big reward for a lifetime of faith.
”I am amazed! How did you get on the outside?”
Heuristic analysis, which is of great utility in identifying fraud.
”Please be assured othing you say to me Alex, is irritating.”
Is that because you know you’ll be dead soon? I would imagine that diminishes one’s investment in internet arguments.
”Again, I don’t care about any of the above.”
Irrelevant. The validity of an argument does not hinge upon whether you, in particular, care about it. It is difficult not to notice that you seem to selectively “not care” about whatever lines of argument pose a threat to your beliefs.
”I had a professor — I have 144 misc college units — who told us not to worry about all of the other religions, just know what you believe.”
Gee, I wonder why he did that.
”I think I will write a paper and post it on Medium entitled, “My Proof for Christianity”. I think you have missed a lot.”
There is certainly more to it than the bare bones diagram I have presented. If that weren’t the case, it would be easy for anybody to see it for what it really is, and what it is actually trying to accomplish. So it’s padded out with basic self help advice, entertaining stories, history, genealogy, etc.
However if I were to ask you fundamental questions like “Why should I convert?”, “What happens if I don’t convert?”, “What happens if I convert now but apostatize later?”, “What should I think about people saying this is untrue?”, “What’s the hurry?” etc. then a pattern emerges.
Every answer to these questions is designed to incentivize conversion, deter apostasy, villainize nonbelievers, motivate evangelism and otherwise facilitate the propagation of Christianity to as many people as possible while also making them as resistant as possible to extrication. This is not by coincidence.
”Is the following a personal experience you have had?”
I’m pretty sure everybody’s run into the crazy old man on the street corner with the sign that says “the end is nigh”. A cult is what happens when one of those guys attracts a following. A religion is what happens when a cult is very successful and grows so large that it becomes the mainstream view.
”I think I would drop a big fart on them and then go to Baskin Robbins.”
You’re doing it again. My question made you have some uncomfortable thoughts. Rather than confront and process those thoughts, you’ve pushed them away. As you did with my questions about Islam and Mormonism, when you decided to “not care”.
Think hard about what causes this reflex in you. Do not be afraid to scrutinize your own thinking. Even if you are inextricable, fence sitters spectating this exchange may still benefit.