Tough Questions!

[Lisa0315]

Calling all Pastors, Prophets, Teachers, and Bible Students! This thread will be used to ask tough Bible questions and see if we can study Scripture to find answers. Ask questions here that perhaps atheists or others have stumped you with.

I will start. I studied this out and the answer was wonderful, but initially it really stumped me.

Why did God condone slavery in the Bible?

Lisa

[MrJim]

It's a useful tool of subjugation...

[Hentenza]

Great thread, Lisa.:thumbsup:

The slavery in Biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.

On the other hand, the slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their nationality and many slave owners truly believed black people to be “inferior human beings” to white people. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrew were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, God does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, God does seem to allow for other forms of slavery. The key issue is that the slavery that God allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

God Bless

[Criada]

Also, the slaves were well treated under the law. And it was only for a fixed term, snce all slaves were freed in the year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25).
So this was a very different system to what we think of as slavery today, or in recent history.
The system also forshadows salvation - we were all slaves to sin, but the cross proclaims our Jubilee!

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

If you think about it...given the definition Hentenza just outlined...if you are in debt, you are a slave. :eek:

I am owned by Washington Mutual Bank. :doh:

[Hentenza]

If you think about it...given the definition Hentenza just outlined...if you are in debt, you are a slave. :eek:

I am owned by Washington Mutual Bank. :doh:

LOL!!!! I am glad that none of todays banks where open back then or just about everyone would have been a slave.^_^^_^^_^

[Nicki4Christ]

1. Why all the wars in the Old Testament. Why does God condone killing?

Been asked this before, would like to read some responses. Thanks

[Debi1967]

I have the ultimate question asked by atheists

Why do you believe that God exists when it cannot be proven?

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I have the ultimate question asked by atheists

Why do you believe that God exists when it cannot be proven?
My answer is why do you believe in evolution when it cannot be proven? ^_^

[Debi1967]

My answer is why do you believe in evolution when it cannot be proven? ^_^
Actually neither can be scientifically proven but then their next question would be why believe in something that you cannot see for your eyes? See at least with science there is some proof with God all we have is our Faith and o them that is not proof. So how do you prove Faith exists?:P

[Lisa0315]

1. Why all the wars in the Old Testament. Why does God condone killing?

Been asked this before, would like to read some responses. Thanks

I have the answer to that one, but you will have to wait until I get home. I did a study on that one.

Lisa

[WalksWithChrist]

What happens to those isolated Amazonian tribes that have never seen a Bible?

[Hentenza]

I have the ultimate question asked by atheists

Why do you believe that God exists when it cannot be proven?

Hi Debi,

There are several argument formats that can be used here, however, the existence of God can not be proven NOR dis-proven. And to me, that is the crux. The proof that most atheist demand, that God knock at their door and say "Hi, I am God", is unrealistic and a logical fallacy. If God was to appear to them then why would they need to have faith?

I take it kind of like a court case. What does the preponderance of the evidence show? When you consider the totality of the different arguments, the conclusion is inescapable. The atheists like to concentrate on logical fallacies to attempt to win their arguments. But I tell you what, over 90% of the worlds population believes that there is some kind of God so they are in a minority.

In addition to the biblical argument there are several logical argument formats to use.

1. The ontological argument begins with the definition of God as “that than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, but that would contradict God's very definition.

2. The teleological argument argues that, since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a Divine designer. There are countless examples to use, like the complexities of DNA, etc.

3. The cosmological argument argues that every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” something is God

4. The moral argument argues that every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from God?

Each one of these arguments taken by itself is just one piece of the puzzle but, when taken together, they put up a very strong case for the existence of God.

Plus I know for a fact that God exists because I talk to Him every day.;)

Edited to add: A great resource for the scientific arguments is http://www.reasons.org/

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Actually neither can be scientifically proven but then their next question would be why believe in something that you cannot see for your eyes? See at least with science there is some proof with God all we have is our Faith and o them that is not proof. So how do you prove Faith exists?:P
Well...that's true. But I've always thought that athiests have more faith than Christians because it's really hard for me to believe I come from an ape. :eek: ;) That and a bunch of other things that are so intricate they cannot have happened by chance. Our brains for example. They still can't explain how it works the way it does. It's so complex and multifaceted...it seems quite unlikely that it would come together by accident.

[Criada]

Just a useful thought from a science teacher:
In science, one doesn't set out to prove things! One tries to disprove them. A hypothesis is generally accepted until someone comes up with evidence that disproves it, so a new hypothesis is needed....

So - the onus is on these "scientific" atheists to *disprove* the existence of God...
I've a strong feeling that they won't succeed! :)

[LivingLifeHisWay]

I have the ultimate question asked by atheists

Why do you believe that God exists when it cannot be proven?


When you see a painting you know that there must have been a painter. When you see creation there must have been a Creator. :D

[Lisa0315]

What happens to those isolated Amazonian tribes that have never seen a Bible?

I used to think that all Christians believed that they were not accountable. However, coming on this board, I found out otherwise.

I like the Catholic doctrine on this. God gives grace to whom He will. We know that God is good. We know that God is merciful. We know that God is just. We also know that God works in mysterious ways. So, somehow, God WILL be both just and merciful to those who have never heard the gospel or did not have the mental capacity to understand it.

Lisa

[monkeypsycho62]

My answer is why do you believe in evolution when it cannot be proven? ^_^

Wow.

*runs away in fear of lack of education on evolution*

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Wow.

*runs away in fear of lack of education on evolution*
Ok...as your not a member of this forum your not able to debate. :) But, I've gotta say that if you think evolution is a proven fact, you need to go back to school.

[Lisa0315]

Ok...as your not a member of this forum your not able to debate. :) But, I've gotta say that if you think evolution is a proven fact, you need to go back to school.

Hey, What he was saying is that nothing can be "proven".

Lisa

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Hey, What he was saying is that nothing can be "proven".

Lisa
Oh...I took it as him saying he was running away from my lack of education on evolution. How did you get "nothing can be proven" out of that? :scratch:

[Lisa0315]

Oh...I took it as him saying he was running away from my lack of education on evolution. How did you get "nothing can be proven" out of that? :scratch:

^_^ Experience in Debate...

Lisa

[JPPT1974]

Don't have much education myself
But just enough to get by!

[Simon_Templar]

I have the ultimate question asked by atheists

Why do you believe that God exists when it cannot be proven?
My response to atheists is why do you believe that everything must be proven in order to be worth believing, when you can not prove that everything must be proven in order to be worth believing?

[Simon_Templar]

Calling all Pastors, Prophets, Teachers, and Bible Students! This thread will be used to ask tough Bible questions and see if we can study Scripture to find answers. Ask questions here that perhaps atheists or others have stumped you with.

I will start. I studied this out and the answer was wonderful, but initially it really stumped me.

Why did God condone slavery in the Bible?

Lisa
The christian view on slavery is best shown by Paul's Letter to Philemon.

In this letter Paul is writing to a Christian man who owned slaves. One of his slaves had run away and Paul latter encountered the slave who then became a Christian (I believe his name was Onesimus).

Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon.

However, Paul says to Philemon in the letter.. though I have the authority to command you to do what is required(to free Onesiums), I would prefer to appeal to you to do it on your own.

The appeal that Paul gives, in my opinion, is much more profound and touching than a mere diatribe on the evils of slavery. He says that he sends Onesimus back, as though he were sending his own heart, and the reason he is sending him back is because he wants Philemon to have the chance to do what is right, not because he had no choice, but because he was given the choice.

Paul goes on to say that Philemon receives not a slave back, but a beloved brother and that if Onesimus had wronged philemon in any way, or if he owed Philemon anything that Philemon should charge it to Paul, if he can not merely forgive it.

In the Old Testament a form of slavery was allowed because of the foolishness and hardness of man's heart. But also it was allowed to teach the lesson of how we sell ourselves into slavery through sin, and how we are redeemed out of slavery by God.

In the new testament slavery was not overtly condemned because doing so would have been tantamount to declaring an insurrection against the empire and it was deemed better to teach people to suffer themselves so that Christ could be lifted up. Within Christianity slavery was clearly taught against in principle given that all masters were strictly charged to give their laborers fair treatment and wages and Paul clearly teaches in Philemon that the idea of slavery is contrary to Christian brotherhood.

Thus it was deemed better to simply convert people and if they were truly converted, justice would come about naturally. Rather than defaming the gospel in the eyes of the unbelievers by stiring up chaos and revolution.

[Simon_Templar]

What happens to those isolated Amazonian tribes that have never seen a Bible?
They are judged based on the light that they were given. God the Son has been revealed to all people in the very creation, and in their hearts, thus all are without excuse.

[JoeWill]

Your views on the reason why God allows natural suffering?

In a philosophy class I attended, the argument from suffering was presented deductively like this:


1. God is thought to be all-loving

2. An all-loving God would do something about the suffering that occurs in the world

3. However, suffering continues to occur in the world

4. Therefore God cannot be all-loving


Would any answer address why a baby is born with spinobifida?

[Lisa0315]

To Joe and others...Why does God allow suffering and evil to abound in this world?

Suffering and evil are the result of the fall of man. We all understand that, right? We also know that God could end suffering and evil anytime He chooses. However, in order to do that, to right the wrongs, and set the chaos back to Eden, God will have to judge the world. When God judges the world, there will be no more repentance and no more salvation. So, God is merciful and delays His judgement so that more may be saved.

While this world is fallen, Grace is extended, but suffering and evil continue. When there is no more curse, there will be no more suffering, but there will be no more grace either.

Lisa

[Simon_Templar]

In some sense the pain and suffering in the world is all the result of man's wickedness. Some of it directly as in when a tyrant oppresses his people, some indirectly, such as the baby in the example above.


The direct cause things are easy if you believe in free will.
The indirect cause things are tougher. First, no explanation, no matter how true is likely to really satisfy people in the midst of suffering if they don't have faith.

However, the reason that suffering exists is because it is a necessary part of the redemption of the creation. In Romans 8 Paul says that the whole of creation was subjected to corruption, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that one day it would be redeemed.

God was essentially removed, to a certain degree, from his creation. Just as Adam became mortal and prone to suffering, so the entire creation became mortal.
Suffering is an example, however, of how everything works together for good in God's plan. Even when we can't see how, or why.

In the Old Testament we see an example that could shed some understanding. I think it was King Ahab, had an infant son and God essentially killed the infant because he saw good in the child, but knew that if he were raised in the house of Ahab, he would have been corrupted and lost.

In that example, an infant died, to human eyes it would have been unexplainable, and seemingly so unjust. Yet God did it to preserve the eternal destiny of the child, the only way it could be done.

When we see suffering and tragedy, we usually don't know the reasons why.. but yet we are often foolish enough to assume that there is no reason, simply because we don't know it, or see it.
We have no way of knowing what would have or could have happened if things had gone differently.

We see deformation and handicaps both physical and mental as great tragedies... but I've heard from more than one disabled person that they wouldn't change their disability because it served to help make them who they are.
That comes to another aspect, that suffering and trial are the biggest ways we grow. Like physical exercise, it is only stress and suffering that make us grow stronger and healthier.

Finally, and probably most controversially.. I believe that suffering is a necessary part of redemption. In eternal terms we are simply forgiven because of Christ, but I can't escape the imagery in both the bible, and in life that there are temporal consequences of our actions which serve to purify us, and give justice.

One of the question's I'm struck by in this respect is, do you think it is merely coincidence that Paul had to suffer all the very same things he had previously visited upon God's people? Being imprisoned, beaten, and even stoned to death (or at the very least the threshhold of death). In fact, pretty much the first thing God told Paul after he converted was all the things he would suffer for the gospel.

Is it just a coincidence that women were given the 'curse' of suffering in child birth, and Paul says that woman is saved in child birth?

I don't think suffering earns salvation, but I can't deny that it seems God believes in reciprocity.

Suffering shapes us and molds us and purifies us.

[JPPT1974]

1. God loves us as He always does
2. He loves us to send Jesus Christ to die for us and arise again
3. That Jesus died and rise so that we can have a Savior & Lord
4. God is all-sufficient and invincible

[3girls2dogs]

I have a question. This has been weighing on my mind since I found out about that boy at our school being in a coma, but it has always been a question for me. He is on a ventilator and various other machines. His parents have decided that if there is no improvement after a specified number of weeks, they will take him off.

Which is the Biblical way to think about this. Is it better to take him off and leave it in God's hands, or are we supposed to take advantage of the medical advances that God has graced us with and keep him alive, even if it is only in a physical sense.

I wondered about this before. When my mother was sick, she chose very aggresive treatments to stay alive longer for my sake. She was very, very sick in the end, though, and sadly, that is what I remember most. Her being sick, being in all that pain, and not knowing me at all. I have said, if I get sick, I don't know that I would go that same route. Of course, I can't say for sure what I would do, not being in that situation.

It makes me want to know what the Bible says...what God says...about these issues. I want to know how to deal with medical technology and advancement without taking it out of God's hands entirely.

[Lisa0315]

I have a question. This has been weighing on my mind since I found out about that boy at our school being in a coma, but it has always been a question for me. He is on a ventilator and various other machines. His parents have decided that if there is no improvement after a specified number of weeks, they will take him off.

Which is the Biblical way to think about this. Is it better to take him off and leave it in God's hands, or are we supposed to take advantage of the medical advances that God has graced us with and keep him alive, even if it is only in a physical sense.

I wondered about this before. When my mother was sick, she chose very aggresive treatments to stay alive longer for my sake. She was very, very sick in the end, though, and sadly, that is what I remember most. Her being sick, being in all that pain, and not knowing me at all. I have said, if I get sick, I don't know that I would go that same route. Of course, I can't say for sure what I would do, not being in that situation.

It makes me want to know what the Bible says...what God says...about these issues. I want to know how to deal with medical technology and advancement without taking it out of God's hands entirely.

Good question, and I do not know the answer.

Lisa

[Simon_Templar]

In my opinion this is one of the fine lines that you run into in issues of life and death.

It is wrong to kill someone because they are terminal, or because they don't appear to have hope of recovery.

It is, however, not necessary to artificially keep someone alive when they would die naturally.

The difference is in causing death, vs. not preventing death.

I think we have no moral obligation to stave off natural death by means of artificial medical technology such as respirators and the like.

In the case of Terry Schaivo, for example, she did not need respirators to live, all she needed was food. Starvation is not a natural death, withholding food from someone is actively causing their death.

If someone is on a respirator, it means their body can't sustain itself even if it is given food, and all the other necessities, it has to have a machine perform its basic functions for it, in order to live.

I don't think there is an obligation in such a case to prolong life un-naturally.

[Lisa0315]

In my opinion this is one of the fine lines that you run into in issues of life and death.

It is wrong to kill someone because they are terminal, or because they don't appear to have hope of recovery.

It is, however, not necessary to artificially keep someone alive when they would die naturally.

The difference is in causing death, vs. not preventing death.

I think we have no moral obligation to stave off natural death by means of artificial medical technology such as respirators and the like.

In the case of Terry Schaivo, for example, she did not need respirators to live, all she needed was food. Starvation is not a natural death, withholding food from someone is actively causing their death.

If someone is on a respirator, it means their body can't sustain itself even if it is given food, and all the other necessities, it has to have a machine perform its basic functions for it, in order to live.

I don't think there is an obligation in such a case to prolong life un-naturally.

Very wise post.

Lisa