Thanks for completely ignoring my point, which was that there's no evidence that prayer has ever worked or that miracles have ever happened. Intercessory prayer, which isn't selfish, has been specifically shown to work no better than random chance. Even if one thinks a miracle has occurred, how can they distinguish between a miracle and a coincidence?I'd say the prayers are mostly for support purposes, but don't quote me on that, for all I know if you don't sincerely identify as a god's servant and go his way, then the prayer is probably useless. Now, if you learn the way, internalize it and practice it, then you won't pray for rain unless there is a situation where people are suffering from drought or something. What I mean is that you will not ask for selfish things, your prayer must go on the same path as the path of the saints so to speak.
Miracles, of which I have read, were not given by a prayer but because the beneficiary was very devoted to, say, a virgin or a saint, etc. The miracle of Calanda, to say something is very famous (among catholics) and is well documented.
If you can't distinguish between a world with a god who performs miracles and a world without one, it isn't rational to believe that god exists.
It is never moral to own another person as property, and it is never moral beat a slave nearly to death. If you think this passage "isn't promoting any bad behavior," you are a fool, and you are foolishly trying to defend literal atrocities for the sake of your foolish and immoral religion.Okay, I might be wrong but this is what I can say after reading the whole 21 chapter: First, it says that if a man arbitrarily kills another -out of rage, out of anger- he should be punished by death (12 & 14). Then it says that if two men engage in a fight and one beats the other but does not kill him, the perpetrator doesn't receive death punishment but instead must pay compensation for the days it took for the other to recover (18-19). What about if they're lord/slave? (this is the one you quoted) In case of killing the slave, the perpetrator is under the same law of vengeance, that is, death punishment (the slave had the same natural right as a free man, apparently). What if the slave didn't die? Same story as with any free man: the perpetrator doesn't receive death punishment. Though here's one difference: the perpetrator (lord) doesn't owe the slave any compensation for the days it took him to recover. Why? Because the lord payed for him -and in fact the slave is living under his lord's roof, eating from his fields, etc-.
It's quite clear to me. This law is not promoting any bad behavior, actually the bible talks about the proper way in which a lord/slave should behave towards each other in other passages (see Coloss 3:22- onwards for example). Also by reading exodus ch 21 it can be inferred that slavery in the Hebrew people (unlike that of Egypt) wasn't generally oppresive or cruel, since there were cases in which the slave by his own free will chose to renounce his freedom to stay with his lord, implying that he had a good relationship with him; there's a rule for that aswell.
Being a steward to your children isn't analogous to the ownership of another human being as property. The former is a moral imperative, and the latter is a moral atrocity.Sure, but the point of it was that the analogy works in terms of subordination. Children are compelled to follow the rules their parents give them, while parents are also compelled to make their rules agree with God's. It's a hierarchy.
"Kill your son."Except God did not change his mind in the binding of isaac (I didn't know it was called like that), if that had been the case He would have let it happen. It was for abraham to take the mission God commanded him seriusly I think. Sure it is a sad story but afterwards it was actually God himself who gave his own son for sacrifice, go figure lol.
"No don't, lol."
It doesn't matter if God actually changed his mind or intended to do this the whole time. The point of the story is that if God says to murder, it's moral, and you'd better do it. The "he would never do that" counterargument is both irrelevant and also provably incorrect, and this isn't limited to the Binding of Isaac.
The only subjective morality is religious morality, and that's why the Euthyphro dilemma exists.
In addition to being imaginary, your god is also feckless then. What reason should anyone have to follow the rules in the Bible if they are going to be based on what's "common in society" instead of what's actually moral? Lol.This is the case when humans make laws though, they can be self-contradictory to the detriment of humans themselves. But what I said about god's law is that he can say something different but not morally different, if that makes sense.
It is not that the later laws were the true ones and the previous ones were lies, the later ones added more things and were more detailed because men were degenerating for being idolaters. eg The commandments for Adam/Eve were simple: grow, reproduce and populate the earth, eat the fruits of the trees, etc. (no eating animals allowed, i think) While by the times of Noah it was allowed for them to eat anything, with a few exceptions. But there was nothing on killing or fornicate; it does not mean god was okay with that.
When Moses was around, slavery was common in society -as I said- for better or worse, so God established laws for it for the hebrew people; there was a lot of idolaters around so he made very strict laws for that, and so on.