> There is no known way to verify whether any of them are true.

That's just verificationism and logical positivism, which has not even been close to have been proved. At its core, the notion of verifiability cannot so much as even be explained, let alone defended. There's no way to identify data that has objective validity. Without a workable definition, no one can say whether religious statements are or are not verifiable.

You take "violation of the known laws of the universe" as a workable definition of an untenable epistemology, but on what data or proof do you make such a claim? It sounds as if you are taking a representationalism approach to epistemology, but there are plenty of truths that don't have a verifiable content to them. Ultimately, verificationism is self-refuting. The principle of verification (all statements that are not proved true are false) is a universal, and thus cannot be proved, and thus if it is true, it is false.

> "In an agrarian society such as Israel, people didn't hire employees..." I've never heard this and I find it hard to believe.

It has been established by archaeology that greater than 90% of the ancient Israelite population was engaged in small farming. It has been established by historians and theologians that almost all of "slavery" in ancient Israel was debt slavery—the service of one human to another to pay off a debt. The Torah had rules about debt slavery so that they would be equitable to both parties, not abusive to the debtor, and not even a long-standing situation: 7 years maximum for any given debtor. Their economic system was that of individual proprietorship fed by apprentices. There were occasionally "hired workers", as is mentioned by Jesus in the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Mt. 20.1-16).

> Leviticus 25

Let's start here. My response is that God is accommodating, not endorsing, and his allowing is not to be mistakenly construed at endorsing immoral behavior. For my evidence I'll refer to Mt. 19.8: "Moses (and hence God) permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." The ideal will of God (moral perfection) can make provision for human sinfulness without endorsing the sin. The sin is denounced, and neither authorized nor sanction, but still tolerated. Jesus is using an established legal category of actions allowed out of consideration for wickedness or weakness. The point is not to make divorce acceptable, but within the framework of human failure to limit sinfulness as much as possible and control its consequences. Only moral perversion creates the kinds of divorce scenarios that prompted the question, but ideal is quite different, and the text says so. If we extrapolate those principles of Scripture to the subject of slavery, we find similar principles in Scripture. While God accommodated the practice, he instituted laws to make it not harsh, and always treating people as human beings and not as property. You need to understand this: Only Israelites were allowed to own land in Israel (which ultimately belonged to YHWH: Lev. 25.23; Josh. 22.19). The only way for a foreigner to survive was to be incorporated into an Israelite home to serve there.

My analysis is this: YHWH created us to be free, to have a relationship with him as priest and priestess in his temple (the earth), to be stewards of the earth and take good care of it, to love God with all our beings, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. As such, chattel slavery (our subject at hand) is immoral, just as divorce, polygamy, adultery, misogyny, and many other practices. And yet people (God's people! nonetheless) divorced each other, married more than one woman, slept with people not their own spouses, oppressed women, etc. God's ideals were still God's ideals, and his accommodation of humanity's sinfulness is not to be interpreted as approval or endorsement.

> Is "well-being" defined, then, by who won the war? Or is there an object standard by which such opinions can be measured?

There are numerous objective ways to measure human well being. And there are many subjective measures as well. Compare this to the fact that there if a god exists there is no known way to determine what rules he wants us to follow. Referencing the bible does not help because there is no reasonable basis for believing that the people who wrote the bible had any information about what god wanted either. And even if there was some reason to think god had a hand in writing the bible there is no agreement on what says about many moral questions. Large sections of bible contain specific rules that no Christians follow anymore because they are clearly not conducive to human well being. So it doesn't get anywhere closer to an objective standard to reference the bible because it is silent on most moral questions and there is no demonstrable way to know if you are interpreting it correctly.

> Thousands of times in the Bible, the writers wrote, "And the Lord said..."

Thousands of other times numerous other people have written religious texts claiming that god told them things as well. People today claim that god tells them things. There is no known way to verify whether any of them are true. So the most reasonable position would be to disbelieve all such claims unless given a reasonable basis for belief.

> So I guess it all comes down to what YOU mean by "reasonable basis."

I mean the same basis that would be required to accept any other similar claims. If someone is claiming something that violates the known laws of the universe, what would it take for you to believe them? Probably more than just an anonymous book claiming that it's true.

> In an agrarian society such as Israel, people didn't hire employees,

I've never heard this and I find it hard to believe.

> People would work for others who "owned" them until their debts were paid off, and the people were set free.

I don't think this is a good system for maximizing human well being, but regardless this only applied to some people. I'm talking about the people who were permanently owned, the owner's family inherited them, and their children became the owner's property.

From Leviticus 25:
44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

There are numerous other rules regarding slavery that are clearly detrimental to human well being such as allowing fathers to sell their daughters as slaves. But the most obvious one is probably owning other people as property, as described above. Surely you agree that following these rules would not maximize well being within a society.

> He could say that regardless of how (or by whom) morality is defined.

What I am saying is that unless there is a standard by which the word is defined and the concept understood, there is no such thing as morality. "Good" that changes based on the individual and the situation, perceptions and definitions of "well-being" isn't "good" at all, but mere opinion. If there is an idea of "well-being", there has to be a plumb line of well-being against which the opinions of people and the practices of any given culture can be assessed. If "morality" has any meaning, it has meaning as a concept and definition that exists outside of what an individual human being thinks. Hitler claims he was working for the well-being of society; the Allies claimed we were working for the well-being of society. Is "well-being" defined, then, by who won the war? Or is there an object standard by which such opinions can be measured?

> there is no way to demonstrate what god thinks about morality or what his rules are.

As I'v said, the Bible is filled with "what God thinks about morality [and] what his rules are." The laws of America were founded on Biblical ethical principles. What God's rules are are fairly easily discernible.

> Under your model Hitler could simply say "God wants me to kill Jews" and there would be no way to prove him wrong.

In the Bible, when God commanded people to kill, it was always accompanied by a miraculous sign so that nobody could just cavalierly claim, "God wants me to kill ________" and get away with it. If God really commanded it, God confirmed it with evidentiary signs to verify it wasn't just someone's lust for blood and/or power.

> But there is no reasonable basis for thinking that any of the authors of the bible had any information about god.

Thousands of times in the Bible, the writers wrote, "And the Lord said..." THOUSANDS. So I guess it all comes down to what YOU mean by "reasonable basis." It sounds as if you've judged the Bible as guilty before proven innocent, and you *a priori* don't believe anything it says, therefore we have no reliable information there. If that's the case, I consider that prejudicial and biased on your side.

> own others as property

I believe you are guilty of anachronistic reasoning, a perspective known as "presentism." In an agrarian society such as Israel, people didn't hire employees, they "owned" people for temporary periods of time, almost always to relieve a debt (not a whole lot different than our system of employment, actually). People would work for others who "owned" them until their debts were paid off, and the people were set free. It's more a matter of terminology than immorality. The Old Testament is pretty strict about the rules of such "ownership," that it be designed and implemented to increase well-being, not to be abusive, treat people as less than human, with no rights or respect. The OT configuration insisted on humanity, well-being, honor, and integrity throughout the whole system. And every 7 years, even if the debt wasn't paid off, the rest of the balance was to be forgiven and the ledger wiped clean. Often "slaves" were trained in trades, in an apprenticeship manner, and then released to created their own businesses.

Too many people think of the antebellum American South when they think of ancient Israel, and the two have nothing in common.

> Morality can't be "that which contributes to human well-being", or else a guy like Hitler can slaughter 6 million Jews and say, "Hey, I just made the world a better place!"

He could say that regardless of how (or by whom) morality is defined. But he would be wrong because as you already know, a society that institutionalizes killing of people based on race is likely to reduce the well being of nearly everyone in it. To think that such a thing improves well being would require you hold false beliefs such as thinking that Jews are subhuman and are trying to destroy society. But even Hitler would probably have agreed that morality was connected to human well being. It was through false beliefs that he thought what he was doing was good for society.

The fact that morality corresponds to human well being does not mean that there will be a universally agreed upon answer to all moral questions. Nor does it mean that morality is somehow going to be magically enforced on people who choose to ignore it. But in these respects it is no different then where we would be under the theory that morality is determined by god.

> "Well-being" is too easily a contrivance of opinion is there is no reference point from which morality stems.

Well being is the only reasonable reference point because there is no way to demonstrate what god thinks about morality or what his rules are. Also the only moral rules that are generally agreed upon outside of any particular religion are all related to human well being. So even though the most accurate meaning of a word would not depend on whether it is "too easily a contrivance of opinion," I think that claiming god decides morality is far worse in this regard. Nobody can demonstrate what god thinks or what his rules are so under this model nobody knows anything about what I moral or not. It is totally dependent on each individual's beliefs about what they think god wants.

Under your model Hitler could simply say "God wants me to kill Jews" and there would be no way to prove him wrong. Under my proposed explanation you can actually show where he went wrong and explain why you shouldn't think he acted morally.

> Ironically, I would say in the context of this conversation, the whole point of the Bible is to reveal God.

But there is no reasonable basis for thinking that any of the authors of the bible had any information about god.

> This is spurious, unsupported, and illegitimate.

Well for example, we both agree that to have a healthy society where human well being flourishes it is not a good idea to allow people to own other people as property. According to the bible you can own others as property and there are numerous rules detailing the rules of such ownership. Following these rules decrease well being. So if god made these rules then he wants us to live in a state that does not maximize human well being. If you knowingly make rules that will hinder well being then I believe it is fair to call you immoral.

> You would know the difference by trying to determine how something impacts human well being.

You're talking about impact (effect), and I'm talking about source (cause). You're right that we can see the difference in impact, but that's not where we get the definition. Morality can't be "that which contributes to human well-being", or else a guy like Hitler can slaughter 6 million Jews and say, "Hey, I just made the world a better place!" "Well-being" is too easily a contrivance of opinion is there is no reference point from which morality stems.

> But there is no reasonable basis for thinking that the bible contains any information about a god

Oddly enough, I'm guessing you were actually serious when you made this statement. Ironically, I would say in the context of this conversation, the whole point of the Bible is to reveal God. That's what it is: the revelation of God through his covenant with humanity.

> the actions and rules of god in the bible are often immoral

This is spurious, unsupported, and illegitimate. I guess we have a lot to talk about. I'm quite aware that thousands of people use the Internet to skim information about God and the Bible, and form half-baked opinions based on false information, distortions, and downright reckless interpretations (the Skeptics Annotated Bible is one risible example), and conclude without foundation that God is immoral. I've had enough conversations with you to expect better. Let's talk, shall we?

> If there really is such a thing as good and bad, there must be some standard by which to know the difference, and not just "my opinion".

You would know the difference by trying to determine how something impacts human well being. If you agree with this I don't see the problem you have. If we pretend that god told us to determine good and bad based on human well being it wouldn't make any difference at all to the situation.

> In the Bible God reveals himself and his "rules". That is how we know what God wants.

But there is no reasonable basis for thinking that the bible contains any information about a god. And even if there was a good reason to believe it did give us any information about god, the actions and rules of god in the bible are often immoral. So adopting the bible would force us to abandon any moral reasoning and act contrary to human well being, which wouldn't make any sense.

Thanks for the conversation. Let's start with some talk about Egypt (I wish we could actually converse rather than write; it would be so much more efficient). Pharaoh enslaved not just the Israelites (Ex. 1.11), but other foreign populations as well, so we have to question his moral sense. Secondly, he commanded the Israelites to kill all their male babies (Ex. 1.16). Justice? Third, Moses came to him with signs from God and a message from God. Pharaoh didn't change his heart (Ex. 5.2, 6-9; 7.13, etc.). God TRIED to change Pharaoh's heart by gentle means. Didn't work. Pharaoh dug in his heels even harder (Ex. 7.22-23; 8.19, et al.).

The other thing you need to know about the situation is that Pharaoh was regarded as the god of all life and death in Egypt. To kill his own son, as one directly responsible, was meaningless; to kill every firstborn in the land was a statement of the falseness of Egyptian religions, to cripple the Pharaoh's religious authority in the land (Ex. 7.5), and to give a sign of who the true God truly was. It was necessary for the message. Not only that, but the people of Egypt were complicit in all this rebellion against God. The message and the judgment were for them, too.

> Noah's flood

I am firmly convinced through Biblical evidence (as well as scientific) that the flood was not global was immensely regional. We can talk about that further if you wish.

> "so the event would be confirmed as the will of God" — Are you sure that every one of these had a miracle?

Yeah, that's the way it worked. "It rained during a dry spell. Quickly, kill someone and say God told you to do it"— this is clearly NOT the way it worked. You can't just make up stuff and make that your "evidence" and the substance of your case.

> When God commands armies to kill the neighbors and take virgin women for themselves

The taking of virgin women for themselves that you are referring to Numbers 31. I'm glad I have the privilege to let you know you are severely distorting what the text says and changing the meaning of it. (I'm assuming you got your information off of an Internet link, as many do, but don't really know much about the situation. Not an insult, just an observation from MANY conversations about Num. 31.) "Taking the women for themselves" was an act of marriage, not of rape. The text says NOTHING about rape. The text says NOTHING implying sexual pleasure. AS a matter of fact, Deut. 21.10-14 says it was against the law for a Gentile female POW to be used as a sex object. These virgins were for marriage, not sexual abuse. You're so quick to judge God as immoral, but I bet you haven't even studied the texts you're using as your foundation.

> Do you truly believe this to be the ratio of Catholic Popes?

I have no clue. I'm not the judge, and I don't know enough about Catholic history. I'm talking about Christian leaders through the millennia, not just popes.

> Isn't this actually what Jesus said to do?

Are you saying that Jesus said to take and kill and dismember people? Ha, that's funny. Absolutely not. Yeesh. This is a parable about the end times, after the apocalypse, at the final judgment. Egads, Jesus isn't telling people to do this. You're making some very rash and wrong interpretations of the Bible.

See, it's stuff like this that makes me think so many people are judging the Bible and God on false data, wrong impressions, distorted interpretations, and bad readings. No wonder people think God is a monster—they don't seem to take the time to find out what the Bible is really teaching. I'm glad you're giving me at least a little chance to explain. You're blaspheming God on made-up meanings.

> When God kills people it's a exercise of justice for "crimes" (sin).

Do tell me the crimes of first borns in Egypt and how that's justice when the Pharoah was the one directly responsible. A "just" God would change Pharoah's heart or, at least, kill his first born. The citizens of Egypt had no choice in the matter. This is just one example, I didn't even mention wholesale extermination of vast majority of not only our species but every living thing on the planet during Noah's time. Face it, your real answer here is that God has unlimited power to do anything to us in the same way Hitler or Stalin had unlimited power to do anything to people under their command. You just praise God, not Hitler or Stalin.

> so the event would be confirmed as the will of God

Are you sure that every one of these had a miracle? I'm too tired to look it up myself right now. What about a coincidence? It rained during a dry spell. Quickly, kill someone and say God told you to do it. The real answer here is that it's in the Bible as opposed to actually been proven to have been the will of God.

> anything becomes moral merely because it comes from the mouth of God

Actually this IS what happens. When God commands armies to kill the neighbors and take virgin women for themselves, this is an explicit "this is moral because God, immoral otherwise".

> There may be 99 good Christian leaders for every 1 who is awful, but the one who is awful makes the newspaper.

Do you truly believe this to be the ratio of Catholic Popes? That only 1% of them were awful? I generally agree with you, though I don't believe any of them were good, they were all gray, some more white (good) or black (evil) than others. Considering they're all supposed to be white, it's a major problem of authority.

> The parable in Luke

The what now? Isn't this actually what Jesus said to do?

> I know you can't.

You're implying that you can. How can you, other than saying you have faith.

Perhaps our wisest course would be to examine the story for what it really teaches, and with that as a foundation, continue the discussion.

It was a dark time in the spiritual situation of Israel. Ahab, one of the most godless men ever to sit on the throne of Israel, and his wife Jezebel, even to this day an archetype of evil, were dragging the country into child sacrifice, destructive religious practices, and immorality of every kind. The people were following, like sheep. God sent Elijah to confront the king and the false religion he championed (1 Ki. 17.1). Jezebel went on a killing spree, butchering prophets like beef (1 Ki. 18.4). The Lord wouldn't let go of his people and the covenant he had made with them, and commissioned Elijah to anoint a new king over Israel and recruit a partner, Elisha, to help set the nation back to rights. He sent prophet after to prophet to confront Ahab with his evil (1 Ki. 20.35-43; 22.1-28). Ahab is killed in battle (1 Ki. 22.29-38), and the country has a chance, now, to turn around and be saved from the moral and spiritual cesspool.

The successor, Ahaziah, is not much better than Ahab. He's evil to the core. Elijah confronts him too, and he dies. Any judge that ignores evil isn't much of a judge. To let anybody get away with anything they want isn't justice, it's anarchy.

Elijah is taken away, and Elisha is his successor. Within the time of a about a week, Elisha heads to Bethel, the house of God, where Abraham had met with the Lord and where Jacob had his vision of the stairway to heaven. He is minding his own business, or should I say the business of the Lord, when he is accosted by a group (unknown number; "42" is a generic term in their culture for a large group) of teens who, as members of covenant families ought to have been taught that cursing God's servants (prophets) was tantamount to cursing God, an action punishable by death. But remember, the country was depraved.

They mocked the prophet for his baldness. In those days, long hair was the mark of a true prophet. Also, the ritual cutting of hair is prohibited by the law. Now, Elisha was naturally bald, apparently, but the taunt was unmistakable: you're a fake and a fraud, and YHWH is both impotent and false. Everything about your God is illicit.

Elisha turned and rebuked their blasphemy, calling down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Was YHWH real? Was Elisha his true prophet? Did YHWH take any actions to preserve his people, keep them on the right path, and judge rebels? Would God do nothing to maintain the right, and just watch the country go down the toilet?

You'll notice that Elisha doesn't specify the curse. He rebukes them for their blasphemy. God is the one who takes the action. For all we know, all Elisha said is, "May God curse you for your blasphemy," and then to his surprise and that of the teens, 2 bears attack them.

Now, let's look at that attack a little closer. First of all, you know how bears attack. You've seen it on youtube. They're not fast like leopards. Let's be realistic—if two bears attack 10 kids, the 10 kids are going to run in 10 different directions; 42 kids are going to run in 42 different directions. Two bears are only going to get two kids. The rest are going to be GONE with the wind. And it doesn't say any of them are killed. So it's impractical to assume that all of them were mauled. The boys would run for their lives. But the effect would be the same: the Lord will not allow his name to be blasphemed without impunity. Now, I may have also already said that ravaging wild beasts were often seen as punishment sent from God. The point is clearly made even if only two boys are injured.

Now let's talk about blasphemy a little bit:

1. If God is not real, blasphemy is merely insulting the God I have manufactured in my mind, and you have offended me. But if God is real, blasphemy is profaning the creator and sustainer of the universe—whole different offense.

2. Blasphemy is not just "insulting God," but it's cursing him and assuming to oneself his rights. It's not just an act of grave offense, but of deep evil.

3. In the Bible, as opposed to Islam, people don't judge others for the "crime" of blasphemy; God does. Humans are not to go around killing other people for blasphemy. God is the one who defends the honor of his own name. It doesn't make god impotent any more than it made your parents or teachers into terrorists when they demanded that your respect their authority. Authority, respect, and honor all have their place, especially when the person deserves it.

> Ah, here's where you are making a large mistake. The infraction was not insult, but blasphemy.

You're making huge mental gymnastics to get here. The text says only that there were some kids making fun of that guy for being bald. You're reading into it in such a way to fit with your preconceived notions, because you cannot bear (hehe) the fact that a loving god would kill children/adolescents for name calling. The text simply does not support such a convoluted post-hoc rationalization that you make, sorry.

> To berate him is slanderous blasphemy to the name of God.

But it's funny that you think this supports your view that the punishment was moral. It does not. It is immoral to kill and hurt people because they blaspheme. Just as it is immoral to kill and hurt people for insulting you. And isn't blasphemy just a name for "insulting God"? I assume that you agree with the Muslims who make death threats to people who make funny drawings of Mohamed, right?

> this is no time for God to allow his name to be assassinated and his prophet to be vilified.

Really? Is God so impotent that the only way to make his name respected is by killing and maiming kids and teenagers? And you really want to worship such a being? Your God sounds like a terrorist, a mob boss. Tell me, would you agree if the president or any other man would kill children so that he can make himself respected? Kim Jong Un does stuff like this, is he a "good leader"?