Atheist - Christian Dialogue: the bible is violent/immoral?

i recorded Matt Slick and Bob Seidensticker at the atheist convention having an interesting conversation about the bible and God's judgement..then they sidetracked talking about babies.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• apologetics
• Matt
• Slick
• Bob
• Seidensticker
• immorality
• abortion
• bible

[teardropblue]

The verse the Atheist was talking about is God's warning to the Israelites to have nothing to do with the followers of a god called Molech (this name is spelled many different ways btw)... the pagan god of newborn sacrifice. Infants were killed in the most inhuman of ways by followers of Molech. God was warning AGAINST this for his people's sake. There are several mentions of this to give you more context: 2 Kgs 8:12; Isa 13:16; Hos 13:16; Nah 3:10

[Johnf85]

Is the religious speaker dodging the question?

[Aleksamson]

Mat Slick reminds me of : medieval greedy corrupt clergy.....sneaky, sex scandal concealing tipe..... Slimy, most dishonets,pretending....sleaze­....

[titilandus21]

RE: Now, lets say abortion is wrong.. Then maybe curing a fungal infection is wrong, they're are a result of meiosis too, so they're 'fertillised' right? Also the bible is, in many ways,immoral stating the rights a man has to rape and keeping slaves for instance. How can people think that this is moral? IMO the bible was written by sexist men to keep control in times in when the norm is very different to now. So why do people still follow this? Hope? From a God, who seems to me to have DPD?..

[WorthlessSix]

Ugh Matt Slick makes me sick. There's no convincing him of anything. His problem is he doesn't listen. He pretends to be listening, then he pretends to be kind and open to debate. The truth is that he's completely close minded. His brain is like a perfect vacuum. Nothing may escape or enter.

[raintree93]

Of course he uses a rarely used abortion procedure to somehow prove his point. Doesn't work. He still believes that the god of the bible had every right to kill already breathing children. No contest- I'll choose a compassionate abortion at 12 weeks vs. death and destruction by bashing against rocks.

[voncello]

@MrFungus420 Furthermore, your claim that the flood killed everyone on earth except for Noah and his family is just your opinion. The Hebrew word "eretz" in scripture is translated "earth" 665 times, "land" 1581 times, "country" 44 times, "ground" 119 times, "lands" 57 times, "countries", 15 times. Many Bible experts therefore hold that the flood was local. There is actually good evidence for this. In that case, your genocide claim doesn't hold water, even if we were to consider God a human!

[voncello]

@MrFungus420 By your own definition "genocide" is "the systematic destruction of a (1) racial, national or ethnic group of people" not several groups. In any case, accusing God of genocide is like accusing nature. Do you accuse nature or perhaps the ocean itself of genocide for the tsunami that hit Japan? Human law doesn't apply to forces of nature or the force behind nature.

What word did Matt misuse?

And you are the one misusing "genocide". You are twisting the definition that you supplied.

[MrFungus420]

@voncello With the exception of Noah and his family, EVERY racial group was killed (genocide of each of them), every nationality was killed (genocide of each of them). every ethnic group was killed (genocide of each of them). In one act, God committed genocide upon genocide upon genocide, etc.

The point is that Matt Slick was purposefully misusing words to make an emotional appeal. Seeing that you are misusing "genocide" in exactly the same way, I can see why you are avoiding the point.