Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
Great ,you may get help if you wish
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 39%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 70%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: help    nbsp      
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
.
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 41%  
  Learn More About Debra
I actually went to great pains to say the opposite. You had better read my post again, because that is the crux of my argument, that fore-knowledge does not demand a pre-ordained future to be already laid down.
You then say ...
God, didn't create Satan. He created Archangels and Satan was the most powerful of them, but not known as Satan then. He was Lucifer, the bringer of light.. Until he rebelled against God, Satan in his now known identity did not exist at all until he became a fallen Angel by choice. Satan's choices, his free will created the persona we describe as Satan. No-one else. God does not need a Nemesis at all. He simply uses that Nemesis to test us.
As we are all conceived in the sin of Adam and Eve, we are now burdened with the cross of having to prove our worth and Satan is the vehicle which God uses to test us. To come to God of our free will is precisely what is being asked, without any force or compulsion and what better way to demonstrate it? Would you want a wife whom you compelled to marry you, knowing full well she loathed every hair on your head? Heaven is the same. A place of mutual beings, just like a marriage. Jesus called the Church His bride - The Bride of Christ.
.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: absence of Satan    powerful god   free will   knowledge of a person  
  Relevant (Beta): 64%  
  Learn More About Debra
As for your Isaiah dismissal, you've not answered the objection. You instead addressed a verse from Revelation. The verse in Isaiah equates Israel to a woman deserving of sexual punishment with the god of the Bible as the rapist. This language points to rape, at least metaphorically, being morally virtuous rather than morally reprehensible. It takes spectacular mental gymnastics to suggest that the Bible condemns rape when a metaphorical equivalent is meted out by the god of the Bible.
  Considerate: 45%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 35%  
  Learn More About Debra
Jesus warned us repeatedly of false prophets who would come in His name. I think this NLT is precisely such. I urge you ditch it Dee or you will be ditched, big time. Here are the correct verses and with full context ...
What more need I say?
Just in case you don't believe me, here's the link to these verses  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.3  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: God's Word    false prophets   name of God   full respect  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
In short, I don't think your explanations of the Christian deity match all that closely with the theology you seem to hold. You should ask yourself why an all-powerful, omniscient, and benevolent being would create a malevolent entity to tempt those he loves into an eternity of unimaginable suffering. It doesn't make sense.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: powerful god    absence of Satan   free will   knowledge of a person  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
****If you ask me this NLT whatever it is must be a fake text, written by Satan himself. It doesn't resemble the original texts at all. It appears to be designed to weaponze God's Word against God. It is so untruthful and twisted. You posted this passage from it ...
Ah right a billion or so christians are actually following the teachings of Satan.
Ooookay false prophets now , so the majority of Christians are following Satans words and believing ”false prophets “ thanks for the heads up....
Here are the questions you’re still fleeing from ........I anticipate your usual typing up of a novel that fails to address what I’ve asked 17 times now , when are you going to stop running and attempt to answer?
Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?
Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property?
Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?
Jesus talked about how you could beat your slaves do you deny this?
  Considerate: 46%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: false prophets    God's Word   original s   fake   
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
LOL! Still chuckling. You're right people don't and can't resurrect from the dead, but that's the point, isn't it? LOL! However, that is not what I asserted and you know it is not. I specifically made the point of speaking only about historical evidence being in agreement with Biblical historical events. I see you reneged on my challenge to you to produce evidence where it does not. Then you claim ....
Below is the full text and "daughter of Babylon", simply signifies that Babylon itself is not being rebuked, but another city of wickedness, like her or a nation of people like her ...
LOL! Where's the mention of rape? I think you are insufficiently familiar with God's terminology. He speaks regularly of avenging the wicked, no matter the sin and nary a mention of women being naked or the like, necessary. He avenged a whole population with a Great Flood. Did he intend the rape of them all? He avenged five cities and razed them to the ground. Did he mean all should be raped? He avenged Jericho and pulled its walls down with an earthquake for his people to break the siege and do battle with them. Did he intend they rape them all? I don't think so.
There is no innuendo of rape here either. It is the usual language of God, simply meaning God's Judgment will be upon those who persist in sinning continuously in grievous manner against Him. Besides you just admitted that he was speaking of a city, not a woman. So there you are. Solved your own dilemma. As for your then adding a claim that it is a metaphor of rape. Same answer as above. He has consistently condemned all sexual abuse and licentiousness, repeatedly, throughout the Biblical texts and delivered the greatest punishments against those cities.
It would be extraordinarily inconsistent and incredulous if He suddenly said, Hey, Y'all I was just kidding about my avenging all those dens of iniquity. Go your hardest and rape whomsoever with my blessing. !!! Yeah right. The Bible is most clear about sins of depravity and licentiousness, specifically sexual permissiveness. It singles out these as the most grievous of sins, avenged with destruction of whole civilizations and complete cities razed to the ground for such sins. It takes some mental gymnastics to imagine what you are attempting to construe.
  Considerate: 41%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.68  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your epistemology is backward. We dont accept something because there is no evidence to the contrary (that erroneously shifts the burden away from the claimant), rather we accept a claim as true when it has been established by evidence. I'd be interested in exploring your claims related to the historicity of Jesus in a relevant thread.
You've clearly not understood my position on this verse. No where did I say this was a literal rape. From the beginning, I have pointed to the language and how it was rape normative. I'll not waste my time with strawman.
Also, you've not addressed the other challenge related to the difficulty of condemning slavery on Biblical grounds.
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: historicity of Jesus    relevant thread.You   evidence   burden  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 8%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
I have not stated anywhere that we accept unproven claims as factual historical evidence. What we do spiritually in terms of faith I excluded from those remarks. I agree it would be reversing the process of epistemology. Let me state what I did say once more but this time more definitively, to ensure no further misrepresentation or misunderstanding .....
1. I rebutted your claim that there is historical evidence which disagrees with the historical events in the Biblical texts. I went as far as to say all of the material evidence we have to date corroborates the Biblical accounts, the reason the texts are held in high regard by scholars and historians. I then challenged you to produce material evidence which does not corroborate the Biblical account. I said nothing about Christ's divinity and specifically even made a point of setting aside religion and spiritual discussion, because you yourself sought to do so in your response to my post outlining evidence of Christ's divinity.
(Consequently it is you who set the format here and I obligingly followed your suit. You shifted our discussion to an off-topic one, not relevant to the original topic here. Christ's divinity IS relevant, but after I posted the evidence of it you suddenly didn't want to discuss it any more, even though it was you who introduced it, with a challenge to me to provide evidence of Christ's divinity. Now, you claim you would be willing to debate me elsewhere on that, even though you are the one who introduced it here. Now you're running away from it, by limiting this discussion to the Bible's historicity, although that's not really relevant under this topic. There is no need to debate Christ's divinity under another topic. It is very relevant here, being a moral ethos, so why do you run from it here? Debating with you is like wrestling with a column of smoke.)
2. I also said there is much, and pointedly put aside religious and spiritual events, in the Biblical texts for which we have no material evidence, but that this fact cannot be claimed as an argument to prove those yet
uncorroborated events are in any way false. It simply means historians can have no opinion on those events. It does not mean I have the process of epistemology backwards at all. You need to check your dictionary.
Your next claim is just shyacking, moving away from your allegation that God condoned rape. You wrote:
That is just a walkback, introducing a smoke-and-mirrors dance by deploying the descriptor "normative". An attempt to backslide with a graceful exit You originally clearly alleged that God condoned rape. He never condoned any sexual permissiveness as being "normative" as you put it. He clearly condemned all sexual permissiveness and created the institution of marriage, instructing sex be ordained as a sacred gift. I even outlined the destruction he wreaks upon dens of iniquity against cities and nations of peoples who engage in it. You then claim ...
I am addressing it and referred you to my replies made to Dee, whose questions overlap yours. I have one more to answer, which includes your own duplicate question.
.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Biblical s    nbsp   historical events   material evidence  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
Again, the NLT is an aberration, a complete distortion of accurate and scholarly interpretations of the original and approved Biblical texts. Below is the accepted translation by scholars, with the attendant context, and which has been accepted by the Christian Churches across two millennia, quoted from the Douay-Rheims Bible - recognized as the most authoritative translation by scholars ...
Yes, agreed, it is a parable. It is discussing the coming of the Lord on Judgement Day and exhorts us to be spiritually prepared for that day, using as an analogy the situation of servants and their conduct while their Masters are absent. Another Gospel, (I've forgotten which one), likens the coming of the Lord to this: "He will come like a thief in the night", meaning when we least expect it. The moral of the parable is to be good, moral and upright citizens, paying attention to our state of sin at all times, in preparation for that day, for we will be taken by surprise and cannot know and will not know in advance, when that day will be.
The punishments described are not God's law, not spoken as if they are to be any law, but are merely literary devices to illustrate the different measure of culpability, deserving of different degrees of punishment, hence it uses the number of stripes, (lashes) to clearly demonstrate that difference in the degrees of punishment. That is all this passage is intended to illustrate. It is illustrative, is not law, not condoned as law, not intended to be interpreted as law, but merely intended to be illustrative. It illustrates the degrees of guilt, differentiating between those who have knowledge of Christ's teachings but wilfully ignore them and those who have no knowledge of these teachings, described as less culpable and therefore the degree of punishment is to a lesser degree. These are simply literary devices to illustrate how much we have offended God and that we will be held accountable on Judgement Day in accord with the nature of our offences.
It also discusses the fact that we cannot presume to conduct ourselves wilfully in a sinful manner for the best part of our lives, with the intent of becoming repentent at the eleventh hour, believing we can wash away all of our previous wilfully sinful past and then be redeemed at the eleventh hour. God sees through that and will know our intent from the get go. In such a case their will be no forgiveness and no mercy.
So @Dee and @SkepticalOne - Where then, as shown in my replies, is all this Hoo Ha about beating slaves and God condoning slavery and the beating of slaves? Where are the approved texts which give any evidence of the Hebrews condoning and engaging in slavery? My replies prove there is none in the verses you selected. I see none in the accredited, authoritative translations of these Verses that you have presented, so far.
T H E R E W E R E A S T H E R A R E A C C O U N T S O F T H I S I N T H E B I B L I C A L T E X T S.
I A M S A Y I N G T H A T Y O U R S E L E C T E D T E X T S D O N O T P R O V E T H I S A N D A L S O N E I T H E R D O T H E Y P R O V E T H A T G O D C O N D O N E D
S L A V E R Y OR B E A T I N G S, A L T H O U G H Y O U C L A I M T H E Y D O.
W H E N C O M P A R I N G Y O U R Q U O T E D T E X T S W I T H T H E S C H O L A R L Y A P P R O V E D T R A N S L A T I O N S W E F I N D Y O U R C L A I M S A R E F A L S E.
@SkepticalOne I will move on now to answer, separately, your quotations which remain extant.
.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.9  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 25%  
  Learn More About Debra
So you do agree that there are multiple passages in the Bible for which we have no material evidence. And yet you do not have the process of epistemology backwards by claiming they are true? How does this make sense?
Imagine if I publish a scientific article tomorrow in which I make a lot of claims that are not supported by any material evidence. What do you think the peer-reviewers will say? Well, they will call it pseudo-science, and any reputable scientific journal will refuse to publish something that might as well just be my personal fantasies. Yet in religion, for some reason, taking these claims for granted based just on the fact that there is no evidence directly contradicting them is considered fine.
You guys live in your personal fantasy worlds. So many religions, so many denominations - yet you all simply fantasize, and yet develop very complex philosophies behind those fantasies in order to make them look like something more than fantasies. You pretend so hard to have sophisticated world views, but they all rest on quicksand - which becomes fastsand upon any minor logical scrutiny.
Here, in the real world, when we cannot prove something to be true, we do not claim that it is true. We do not claim that it is false either, but we certainly do not assume it being true as a part of our worldview.
Nothing wrong with fantasies; I myself absolutely love fantasy worlds, roleplay fantasy in real life sometimes and even hold some views that I know are not based on anything but my imagination (for example, I like the Shintoist idea that every entity has a soul and live as if it is true). I will not pretend, however, that those fantasy worlds have anything to do with reality. You are free to do so, but that does not make it so.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: personal fantasies    personal fantasy worlds   religion   lot of claims  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
**** You originally clearly alleged that God condoned rape. He never condoned any sexual permissiveness as being "normative" as you put it. He clearly condemned all sexual permissiveness and created the institution of marriage, instructing sex be ordained as a sacred gift
Except of course when you capture them as virgins to keep for yourself ............
(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
After agreeing with me that knowledge in advance does not dictate the necessity for any pre-ordination of the future, you now do a 180 degree about-turn and argue the opposite? So what IS your argument, then? That God's all-knowing omniscience must mean that He has already mapped out our future OR that it does not necessarily mean that at all and that He gave us free will to map it out for ourselves? Which do you adhere to? I clearly adhere to the latter - that although God may well know what our choices will be, He has a hands-off approach and allows us to decide and determine our future through His gift of free will. You then claim ...
So let me get this straight. Clearly it can only be agreed by all that the concept of damnation, fire and brimstone - the ultimate end if we disobey God - is a strong deterrent to disobey Him and an ever-present pressure to instead obey Him. Let's compare that with the secular view and see how our own societal constructs compare with the concept of freedom and how the concept of God and Christianity, also compares. If we break civil laws, is not the threat of a conviction and the term of our natural life spent forever behind bars not the same concept as Hell? Yet, we claim we live in a nation which burns brightly the torch for freedom, liberty and the pursuit of our own happiness. What's the difference between the two concepts? Why is God only the big bad bogey man here, but the State is not, when God does nothing differently from the State, on the question of law enforcement?
Then you double down again on your 180 degree about turn, rejecting what you previously agreed, rejecting the concept of free will and no pre-ordained future, by adding this remark ....
I already answered that and you yourself did as well, if unwittingly, when you accepted that the concept of the notion of an all-knowing and all-powerful omniscient God does not necessarily mean that God has to have set down a pre-ordained future or path for any of us, given the passage of free will. Now you're repudiating your own previous agreement with that.
Lucifer as the Archangel known as the Bringer of Light, exercised his free will to defy God. That produced a new and entirely different situation on earth, with God banishing Lucifer from the Heavens and binding him to the earth forever, he now representing all that opposes God, in a new identity which Satan crafted for himself, without any help from God and without any direction or influence from God. Satan chose his own path. Although God may well have had foreknowledge of it, doesn't mean God had to have planned it for Satan at all. If that were the case, then none of us would have free will. We'd have, instead a pre-destined will that we cannot change, alter or influence. If that is what you believe, then state it. If it's not, then state it. Meanwhile all you are doing is talking contradictions and oxymorons. God simply now uses Satan to test our love of and fidelity to God.
.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: concept of Hell    purpose of the concept of Hell   powerful omniscient God   ordination of the future  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
What?? I agree with scholars and historians. Are they senseless? I state historians cannot be expected to advance any opinion or put a construct on historical events contained in the Biblical texts, for which there is no material evidence in corroboration. How can anyone disagree with that? Your next statement about publishing unsupported science is irrelevant, because no-one is advocating that should be attempted, yet on that patently false premise, you then run off at the mouth with this ...
Really? Indeed, you give us great credit where none is due. Did we invent Christ? The scholars agree he is a proven and well-documented figure. Did we invent His philosophy and put words in His mouth, many of which are recorded and attested to outside of the Biblical texts? How very clever of us. Did we invent the prophesies in the Old Testament? Did we invent their fulfilment? How would we control that? These prophecies foretold of Christ's birth, His ministry, His crucifixion and resurrection in books written, according to scholars, thousands of years before the time of Christ. We managed that too? WOW! We must be amazing.
Likewise, are you claiming that we wrote the ancient public records, also dated and authenticated by scholars, which attest to the soldiers' confirmation of the empty tomb - did we steal the body, maybe? ..We wrote historians' ancient accounts of how Christ showed his wounds to a crowd of 500? We invented that too? We orchestrated all of this thousands of years in advance? Wrote it down thousands of years ago, attested to in relics, parchments, The Dead Scrolls, all authenticated by Scholars, and then when these events actually occurred, we were orchestrating them? These events were all a great big heist by a bunch of scheisters? ... even though Governors, State records, respected and authoritative historians record them? WOW! You really do believe in pixie dust. But it is still all a fantasy what we believe? Right. Got it. LOL!
Your problem, May, is that the material evidence is against ALL of you, but blind, bigoted anti-Christian, atheistic hatred simply prevents any acceptance of it. I proved how the objective and material evidence is against you all in an earlier post, as per below, outlining the very F A C T S that you see fit to flatly deny, with no substantiation nor reasons given. .It's easy to see who has the credibility problem here.
All you've done, May, is put up a glass wall to hide behind and then argue your glass wall is not there, DESPITE the fact we can all see your glass wall and its transparency, with you on the other side hiding behind it. This is basically the construct of the Atheistic argument. Put up a glass wall to block the truth out, deny the facts, like all of those listed above, then argue the glass wall does not exist and proceed to make proclamations against all of those facts the glass wall is blocking, as per those in the above list, because the glass wall, supposedly, makes atheists the experts. It is so unhinged it's pathetic and is precisely what you've done here.
.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.24  
  Sources: 2  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    ancient public records   State records   historical events  
  Relevant (Beta): 47%  
  Learn More About Debra
My hard copy of the Bible is what is called an Annotated Bible, which provides beside each passage the history on customs and unusual events, in order to remove all misunderstanding. It is the only way to properly interpret these ancient Books. Again, the following is the text from the Douay-Rheims Bible .....
The context here is that the Israelites are at the end of their journey from Egypt of more than forty years and are on the borders of The Promised Land, where they have been for a while and already begun to settle along the Banks of the Jordan River in the Land of Canaan. God sees his people mixing with the Canaanites and adopting their pagan ways, so He summons Moses advising him that the land of Canaan must be completely "cleansed" of all its inhabitants, that all buildings and war booty must be "purified" and "cleansed", because these are an extremely wicked people and have already drawn God's people into their wicked ways, therefore they are the enemy of God and of His people All must be killed, men, women and children. The land must be completely conquered. All things belonging to them and the land itself must be cleansed and purified, before God's people may possess it. In other texts God describes the land as that which he has promised to His people, "The land of their inheritance".
From other texts we already know that God has revealed that the Canaanites are idolaters, sacrificing their infants on the altars of pagan gods, the god of Baal, (sometimes written as Balaam or Bel), the gods Molech, Phogor and Balac, also the god Baphomet, the god of Satan, who demands the blood of infants. God tells Moses that the Canaanites are fornicators committing sexual abominations and are polygamists. The annotated historical notes in my Bible add that the women require a sacrifice be offered to their gods before fornicating. This is the reason for God's wrath against the women.. Thus God instructs Moses to command the Israelite armies of each tribe to wipe out and raze to the ground this evil nation, every single person, not a single one to remain.
This background is important to understand for these commands were highly unusual, especially the command to slaughter the women and children, which did not sit easily with Moses. We see that he is a mere flawed human like us all, and disobeys God by relenting and allowing the tribes to keep the women, but only the female children and the women who are virgins, because he considers that they had not yet been defiled by the abominations and therefore would not present a moral problem. Yet again, we see a wicked people destroyed by God in these above verses. In the next book, we come to understand God's purpose. He is preparing the Promised Land for his people to settle in peacefully without evil cultures drawing them into wicked ways - that they may prosper and grow. The verses below in Deuteronomy reveal God's intentions.
  Considerate: 57%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.82  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
**** Huh? No rebuttals to my replies?
Why not what? Educate you you on the meaning of the term bondsman from the original Hebrew as in a slave / prisoner or do you mean get you to read what’s agreed by scholars the best English translation?
****Instead you shift through the sands of time in search of something else to hurl on the page at God. LOL!
I read through that pile of garbage your latest novel and it’s absolute nonsense
****We see that he is a mere flawed human like us all, and disobeys God by relenting and allowing the tribes to keep the women,
Nonsense he’s doing as “god commanded “ read the verse again you clot
*****but only the female children and the women who are virgins, because he considers that they had not yet been defiled by the abominations and therefore would not present a moral problem
Right Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha......yeah sure that’s it that’s why god said “keep the virgins for yourself “
and you’re still avoiding answering what I’ve asked 25 times now after saying you would try , tough luck here you go again get the other brain dead on site “Christians “ to help if you wish ......
Here are the questions you’re still fleeing from ........I anticipate your usual typing up of a novel that fails to address what I’ve asked 17 times now , when are you going to stop running and attempt to answer?
Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?
Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property?
Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?
Jesus talked about how you could beat your slaves do you deny this?
  Considerate: 46%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: best translation    latest post   original Hebrew   latest novel  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
.Then like a drunken parrot squawk you repeat the tired, same old, same old questions, which you seem to think are some kind of "killer take all" rebuttals. LOL!. Your first one ...
Only a fool would think it was not. Slavery went right into the 18th Century, so why would anyone think otherwise? As a stand-alone question it deserves no other reply. Then you ask ...
It is never moral. Yet again, As a stand-alone question it deserves no other reply. Leviticus, which you even quoted, makes it quite clear that God condemned it. So what is your point?
Again as a stand-alone statement, this goes nowhere. We know that the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Phoenicians, the Romans, the Assyrians, the Sumerians and the Arabs all built their economies on slavery. So what's your point? You failed to prove in the passages you selected that (a) God condoned slavery, although that was your original claim. Instead I proved your interpretation was flawed; (b) The selected verses, accordingly did not show the Hebrews had slaves or even condoned it. I showed your interpretations were wrong again. So for crying out aloud, what's your point?
End Result: The above are all testimony to the fact that you clearly do not read my posts. That is obvious. You admit that you are mentally lazy, unprepared to read anything longer than four lines. The fact that you are still asking these questions is testimony to that too. Your arguments have already been rebutted. You are the only fool who does not realize it, though, because you have not read my posts. LOL!
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
Interesting and telling that despite the term bondsman being recognised by scholars as slave or prisoner as translated from Hebrew you reinterpret it’s meaning to suit your flawed narrative.
It is typical really as you believe CERN is actually a “satanic organization “ and you post up a video claiming it has images of a demon emerging from a tunnel when in fact it’s paid actors in fancy dress , you then claim every belief that disagrees with your own is in fact a satanist / commie plot to destroy the world and you outdo yourself then by claiming magicians doing card tricks are actually utilizing satanic forces ......you’re nuts buddy ......
****I’ve shown you appropriate Scholarly regard already for the Douay Rheims, quoted in the the Preface of King James Bibles.
No you’ve given your subjective opinion on the best biblical translation academics , scholars and historians disagree with your assessment
***What have you provided to authenticate your atheist abomination, paraded as a "Christian" Bible"?
Right only your bible is “authentic “ and a billon or so Christians are actually following an “Atheist abomination”
***Zero, zilch, nada, zip. You have no argument Dee, instead falling back on a fake strategy, as already pointed out to MayCaesar ,,,,
You’ve offered Zero, zilch, nada, zip. You have no argument @grafix instead falling back on a fake strategy
Do you seriously think that slavery was not part and parcel of society at the time of Jesus?
*****Only a fool would think it was not. Slavery went right into the 18th Century, so why would anyone think otherwise? As a stand-alone question it deserves no other reply.
Right , at last we are getting somewhere Jesus was a man of his times which is why he approved of slavery
Tell me when is it ever moral to own people as property?
****It is never moral.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Thank you for agreeing your god is immoral
*****Yet again, As a stand-alone question it deserves no other reply. Leviticus, which you even quoted, makes it quite clear that God condemned it. So what is your point?
Maybe read that verse again from the best English translation?
Several bible verses tell one that slaves are your property do you deny this?
***Again as a stand-alone statement, this goes nowhere.
Well yes it does it demonstrates god and Jesus totally approved of slavery
****We know that the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Phoenicians, the Romans and the Arabs all built their economies on slavery. So what's your point? You failed to prove in the passages you selected that (a) God condoned slavery,
although that was your original claim. Instead I proved your interpretations was flawed; (b) The selected verses, accordingly did not show the Hebrews had slaves or even condoned it. I showed your interpretations were wrong again. So for crying out aloud, what's your point?
Incorrect let me help your god condoned and approved slavery ...... If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT
Jesus talked about how you could beat your slaves do you deny this?
****I showed you that Jesus did not say it was law, did not state it as intended law, did not illustrate it as law, but merely used it as an analogy, to make a point. So what is your point?
Ah right an “analogy” Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha......
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
****End Result: The above are all testimony to the fact that you clearly do not read my posts.
End Result: The above are all testimony to the fact that you clearly do not read my posts.
***That is obvious.
*That is obvious.
****You admit that you are mentally lazy, unprepared to read anything longer than four lines.
I admit I find your novels tiresome , you would bore for the U S
****The fact that you are still asking these questions is testimony to that too.
The fact that you are still avoiding these questions is testimony to that too
***Your arguments have already been rebutted.
Your arguments have already been rebutted
****You are the only fool who does not realize it, though, because you have not read my posts. LOL!
You are the only fool who does not realize it, though, because you have not read my posts. LOL!
  Considerate: 37%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
You have no arguments. instead you just re-claim the already rebutted claim. You advance no new argument against those rebuttals, instead, just fall back on your original claim, wanting to re-prosecute it all over again. It's mind-numbing. You just deny, deny deny, deny, deny, deny in a childish litany of single illiterate sentences running down the page, one after the other, which present no evidence to support your claims, no refutations with arguments either to substantiate them. It is not debating, it is not providing evidence, it s not substantiation. It is not even a discussion. No authentication of your dubious source, either. It is nonsense.
See you around. You are a waste of time, except as a good tool by which to educate others. I have to say, I can't fault you on that. Bye, Dee.
.
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
***These are not rebuttals.
Those are rebuttals
****They are distortions and glibly ignore the evidence I put in front of you, because you never read it.
You are accepting distortions and glibly ignore the evidence I put in front of you, because you never read it.
***Strong's Concordance defined bondman as a "servant" and as a "prisoner", both of which I gave the definitions for in the time of their known usage,
Strong agreed with what I claimed bondsman means slave /prisoner ......accept your correction
One of the translations of the word `ebhedh, very common in the Old Testament. It refers to the ordinary slave, either foreign (Genesis 43:18; 44:9,33; Leviticus 25:44,46) or Hebrew (Leviticus 25:42; 2 Kings 4:1). Hebrews were forbidden to enslave Hebrews, but did it nevertheless. It also refers to the Israelites in the bondage of Egypt (Deuteronomy 15:15, and often), and in the exile of Babylonia (Ezra 9:9). The intended treatment of the men of Judah in Samaria (2 Chronicles 28:10) was apparently to sell them into ordinary slavery or bondage. The word is used once in the New Testament (Revelation 6:15) to translate doulos, where it evidently means a slave in contrast with a free
***according to professional theologians and linguists.
Incorrect read above
****It did not define it as a slave as we know a slave to be, did it?
It did
****You ignore that and persist in using an unaccredited translation which substitutes the word "servant" with the word "slave"
Accepted you mean by the majority of scholars sorry mate you lose again
***You pander to a deceit. The definitions Strong and the Theologians provide and the texts which use "servant" completely dismisses all of your claims.
They don’t they agree with me despite your denial , you admitted slavery was a societal norm why are you so ashamed that your god approves of a societal norm?
***You have no arguments.
You have no arguments
**** instead you just re-claim the already rebutted claim
instead you just re-claim the already rebutted claim
. ****You advance no replies to those rebuttals, just falling back on your original claim, wanting to re-prosecute it all over again. Mind-numbing. You just deny, deny deny, deny, deny, deny in a childish litany of single illiterate sentences running down the page, one after the other, which present no evidence to support your claims, no refutations with arguments either to substantiate them. It is not debating, it is not providing evidence, it s not substantiation. It is not even a discussion. It is nonsense.
You advance no replies to those rebuttals, just falling back on your original claim, wanting to re-prosecute it all over again. Mind-numbing. You just deny, deny deny, deny, deny, deny in a childish litany of single illiterate sentences running down the page, one after the other, which present no evidence to support your claims, no refutations with arguments either to substantiate them. It is not debating, it is not providing evidence, it s not substantiation. It is not even a discussion. It is nonsense.
*****See you around. You are a waste of time, except as a good tool by which to educate others. I have to say, I can't fault you on that. Bye, Dee.
Yes goodbye , away with you and lick your wounds , if you call “educating others” telling people that card tricks are in fact the work of Satan and that people wearing fancy dress are demons I think you might have a hard time educating others then again I’m sure you might find some eager ears at the local loony bin
.
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.68  
  Sources: 9  
  Relevant (Beta): 48%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: modus operandi    None of your arguments   serious content   Bye Dee  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
**** Bye Dee.
None of your arguments ever address the serious content
****They only address remarks concerning commenters' complaints about you and your flawed modus operandi, never debating the subject content, and you think that's debating.
They only address remarks concerning commenters' complaints about you and your flawed modus operandi, never debating the subject content, and you think that's debating
**** It's petty.
It’s petty
**** I'm only interested in using you as a tool to convey information. That is now over. See you around.
Yes great educators are seen as a tool for information I agree. You’ve yet again been put in your place and soundly beaten , home schooling was obviously not a wise choice by your parents and has left you in the sad position you’re in now as in going into battle totally unarmed
  Considerate: 46%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: modus operandi    serious content   home schooling   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
If historians cannot verify the truthfulness of every claim in the Bible, then how can Christians claim that the Bible is the word of god containing only the truth? Once again: if I wrote a scientific article with unverified information, nobody would ever publish it, and it would be considered pseudo-science. Is believing the Bible pseudo-science?
The only thing that historians have actually confirmed out of all the claims you made is that Jesus existed and that he promoted certain beliefs (having quite little to do with those described in the Bible, should I say). Everything else - all the "miracles" and "resurrection testimonies", Jesus and other things matching the prophecies from the Old Testament, etc. - seems to be a product of imagination, and other than random testimonies from random people, not a piece of evidence even suggests that they should be considered seriously. In fact, even the popular depiction of Christ on a cross might be faulty (putting the name of your entire religion under question) - there is a strong possibility that Jesus was actually impaled, rather than crucified, so it might make more sense to call him "Jesus Pole", rather than "Jesus Christ".
I do not think you understand how historians work and uncover evidence. There has to be many pieces of independent evidence pointing at something being true for them to conclude that that something might be true. We still, for example, do not know for sure what skin color Cleopatra had, despite thousands words written about her throughout the millennia, countless depictions and symbols, etc. Perhaps we will never know; some historical facts might be unrecoverable, such as, for example, whether Cleopatra actually died to a snake bite, as it would be hard to imagine what hard evidence left to this day could indicate at this being true.
I imagine that, if someone decided to venerate Cleopatra, write a holy book about her, write about her resurrection and gain testimonies from multiple people of it being true, then we would have Cleopatrianity religion right now, which could be quite popular. Cleopatra, for that matter, is quite a bit more interesting a character than Jesus.
Finally, drop your derogatory language; it has zero emotional effect on me and only makes you look like a person with deep insecurities, unable to handle straight talk.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
An example of twisted epistemology:
Being 'proved inaccurate' is unimportant when something has not been proven to begin with. I agree some events described or alluded to in the Bible are factual - like the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. However, others are not and the evidence most certainly does not corroborate (eg. an earthquake which woke the dead as Jesus is said to have given up the ghost).
I never made this claim. I simply stated "Historians do not endorse a man named Jesus rose from the dead and was the son of god", and this has not been denied.
There is no corroboration of the dead walking the streets of Jerusalem at any point in history....
More backward reasoning, but I guess that challenge was met by my last statement.
There is no need to debate that which has already been granted for the sake of the argument. I really am interested in your moral philosophy, and this aspect of our discussion runs us off into to many many unnecessary tangents. That is why I have been attempting to redirect you back to the OP.
Absence of evidence does not prove a claim false, but it doesn't prove it true either. This is an example of the backward epistemology I referenced - being proved false is unnecessary when something hasn't been proven true to begin with.
Nah, this is pointing out that you are not addressing my argument. Regardless, I accept this was not the strongest argument for rape being condoned on the Bible, but all of the other instances I referenced you were 'addressing it with Dee'. This would include laws codifying rapists to marry their victims, daughters being sold into sexual slavery, and soldiers 'taking wives' from the captive women of conquered nations.
Also, the 'condemnation of Sexiual Permissiveness' didn;t seem to apply to the chosen people including Esau, Solomon, David (and many other Biblical figures) who had multiple wives, concubines, and/or sex slaves. Plus, if Adam/Eve and Noah's flood are to be taken seriously, incest would be a necessity. You are applying your modern day values to a culture which obviously did not share them.
I think this is the 'graceful exit' you mentioned. Seriously though, I don't follow everyone's comments - only those addressed to me or that I find interesting. Dee is not me and his approach is not mine. If it is too much work for you to defend against my words, just say so. I would actually be sympathetic given your lack of conciseness and multiple interlocutors.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
Why are you trying to conflate the historicity of the Biblical accounts with the religious and spiritual message? No scholars ever do so. I did not either and go to great pains always to separate the two, so why do you ignore that ? To invent a rebuttal because you really don't have a rebuttal? That's how it comes across. Historians have, together with archaeology, authenticated the Biblical texts wherever available evidence exists. They cannot do so where there is no evidence to corroborate it at all, now can they? That is merely an absence of evidence, which can neither contest or corroborate it. Scholars are therefore silent on those historical accounts, with no evidence yet found. I gave you a bare bones list of the historicity which is properly on the record, outside of the Biblical text, that authenticates its historicity. There is much more, but I felt my post was long enough and covered the key events in Christ's life, properly recorded in official records and authenticated as historical events. There is much more of the same, but I think this is sufficient to illustrate the argument.
Then you launch into personal opinion, without citing a single source, attempting to rebut the list of events I gave with an historical and accredited source for every one. How does yours work as a rebuttal, May? It doesn't. Yours is merely a hollow claim of, Hey! Don't believe the historical public record, instead you gotta believe me! Do we? Each I list is from the historical record. This is all just your uneducated opinion, as per below ....
You wilfully ignore that I cited material evidence found in parchments, scrolls, official documents on the public record and the writings of ancient historians, Tacitus and Josephus. Meanwhile your claim that these are merely "products of imagination" , can be easily disproved as bunkum. Below is an example, archived in the Congressional Library, Washington D.C., quoting an extract from the Acta Pilati - Pontius Pilate's own writings ...
Then you run off at the mouth, again, with a totally irrelevant passage about Cleopatra. It demonstrates nothing. Adds nothing. A lame attempt to somehow buttress your claim that you are the expert here and that I am not, that I don't understand "how historians work". Really? (My grandfather was an historian, btw.) LOL! It is you who is refusing to accept accredited, properly sourced citations of material evidence, not me. So, who has the problem here? I think it's you, somehow. As for your lame bleat, my response is this: We cannot be accused of that which we do not do. If you can't stand the criticism, then desist from doing it.
.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.98  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 15%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.18  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
This entire exercise proves exactly that which I consistently abhor in the attitude towards debate that atheists demonstrate - reducing the discussion to an argument on misrepresentations, defending what was said, against claims of what wasn't. This is always how dishonest debaters work. Derail the topic with persistent misquoting, persistent misrepresentation, driving the discussion into the ditch. I really am over your obfuscations, SkepticalOne.
I am not interested in any further responses, unless they are honest and on topic. If you want to discuss my moral ethos, then why the bloody hell haven't you? You have had every opportunity to do so, yet all you have done is drive the discussion down every rabbit hole and avoided discussing that which you claim you wanted to discuss. Yeah right.
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
I am not trying to conflate anything; you are. To me the Bible is a fantasy book containing fictional stories with the purpose of illustrating the points of the ideology. To you it seems to be more than that, but every time someone criticises that "more" part, you revert back to, "Do not conflate historicity with the religious and spiritual message". Convenient how you can selectively choose some parts of the Bible as historical, and those that are not confirmed by historians - as religious and spiritual. Why not be a little more consistent? Apply the same standards to all Biblical passages, if you want to be able to make a meaningful conclusion.
No, it demonstrates a great deal. It shows that Jesus was not in any way special, and that any historical person, in principle, could become an idol, with stories around them, with "prophecies" and material evidence confirming those prophecies to be true.
Jesus and Cleopatra both could become divine figures in certain theoretically possible religions; Jesus just got luckier in a way due to a product of chance.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
You are conflating the question of a belief in God with the work of historians. There is no requirement for Christians to have evidence that proves the existence of God in historical data, because that belief began with no such evidence at all, just a faith in Christ's teachings, due to a trust in Him. Historical facts concerning Biblical times, when recorded by historians or archaeologists, do not take into account or record whether they may or may not prove the existence of God. Such attitudes must remain independent from their conclusions on the record, despite what they may privately conclude. I acknowledge that it is helpful to the faithful when they do see that historical material evidence does corroborate the Biblical texts. It just so happens, so far, all of the material evidence available does corroborate the Biblical accounts.
You fail to understand the difference between the two. The definition of faith, looks like this and needs no historical fact or evidence ...
"Blessed is he who has not seen but believes."
Those were the words spoken by Christ, after the Apostle Thomas refused to believe that Christ had risen from the dead, declaring that unless he put his finger in the wounds of Christ's flesh he would not believe it. The account tells how Christ then appeared to the twelve Apostles and asked Thomas to step up and place his fingers in Christ's wound in his side, made by the Roman centurion. Thomas fell to his knees, completely humbled and simply said, with great humility, "My Lord, my God", subsequently giving rise to the age-old axiom, "a doubting Thomas", when those whom we trusted, distrust and disbelieve our words.
This is the quintessential illustration of faith in the teachings, i.e., believing without seeing - the belief in the resurrection of Christ without witnessing it. I excluded such accounts from my list, because they are not on the historical record. I meticulously listed ONLY that which can be verified on the historical record with material evidence. That is not conflating anything. It is a dogged adherence to the historical record only, careful to separate it from unverified Biblical accounts. I can't help it, May, if you find the historical record so disagreeable, that you must now deny even it too, which is exactly what you resort to with this ...
You are denying historical facts, facts backed by material evidence, but which are inconvenient to your belief system, denying them by couching these historical facts in dishonest language, describing them as mere "stories" and "prophecies" in order to demean these verified facts, while completely ignoring that they are, according to the proven historical record with material evidence in support, not disputed by historians. I don't care whether you deny them. I care that you tell lies in order to support your denial. Read my lips: The list contains ONLY verified historical facts. Then you try to fly the most ridiculous kite of all with this ...
That statement is complete and utter gobbledegook, witless, scatter-brained illogical fluff. You are condemning Christianity, (and me) for complying with the long-standing rigors of correct scholarship, when looking at the historical record, i.e., based only upon evidentiary material evidence, while in the same breath exhorting that Christianity should adopt an extremely unscholarly, unprofessional approach and claim that occurrences recorded in the Biblical texts, but not as yet corroborated by historical or archaeological material evidence, should nevertheless be claimed by Christians as equal to that which IS on the historical record in terms of scholarship. That would be an outright lie. It would completely destroy all respect for scholarship.
What Christians are entitled to do and certainly do do, is ALSO accept unverified accounts in the Biblical texts in good faith - there's that important word, again, faith - but we do not expect non-believers, historians or scholars to treat such in that way at all. Consequently, I leave them out of the list of evidence on the historical record, as they should be, yet you berate me for that correct approach. Get your priorities straight.
.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 65%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
To me, taking something on faith means being deluded, regardless of whether that something is actually true or not. If faith is the only way god's existence can be deduced, then the idea of god's existence is completely irrelevant and is just a product of human imagination.
You realise that the same argument you are making defending Jesus being very special applies to Cleopatra as well, or any other historical figure. That is precisely my point. Some claims made about a person and recorded in history do not constitute evidence; those claims must be cross-matched with the known hard facts, and, as far as I know, that has never been done with the statements you listed.
I do not know what you mean by "scholarship", as you have made a lot of mutually contradicting claims about it. I am talking about science, about history. This science is not on your side, and I do not particularly care about what your scholars have derived, when it is not in line with the factual historical evidence.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: hard evidence    heap of evidence   whole new argument   claim  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra