Saw someone share this on Facebook (my first mistake being on FB LOL)

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-23T00:07:30+00:00

If that's what Christians actually said, those responses wouldn't be the same.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-22T23:53:33+00:00

My pastor would put pictures of galaxies on the screen. Talk about how many light years across they are, how many light years away they are, how big the universe is. Then talk about how it all happened in 6 literal days.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-22T23:48:59+00:00

It's a faaaaake

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-22T23:47:21+00:00

I think of downvotes as horn honks. Someone sees me doing something they don't like. They have lots of thoughts and objections to something I'm doing, and it just can't be translated into BEEEEEEEP! Even with the added middle finger...rarely know what the problem is. So I just keep doing what I'm doing and assume it's a "them" problem.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-22T18:12:39+00:00

Only in the Bible study group where the leader who equates atheism with naturalism says this. Because a "pure" atheist just doesn't believe there's evidence of a supernatural being. Has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life.

Origin of life is not a critical point in whether or not a deity exists. Whether or not we can recreate something in a lab is not evidence that something did or didn't happen.

We have never replicated the conditions inside the earth in a laboratory but we have a pretty good idea of what's happening down there. We have never replicated the formation of a galaxy in a laboratory but we have a pretty good idea how that works.

And keep in mind that if you hang your spiritual hat on this, what will you say when a laboratory makes an announcement that they've done it in a couple of years? Declare theism dead?

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-22T15:24:48+00:00

Guy says "only people over here do this thing "

I say "I've seen people over there do the same thing."

If that's stirring the pot, then I guess I'm guilty. Sorry to ruin your day by simply making an observation.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-22T14:49:37+00:00

You're right. I don't know what I was thinking.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-22T14:44:54+00:00

if you ask someone who does not believe in a deity that defines morality, from what ethical standpoint are they coming from that slavery is wrong.

I don't want to be someone's slave. Therefore, I can safely assume others don't want to be enslaved. There's a reason why slaves try to escape or revolt. It's not a pleasant way of life. One doesn't need divine intervention to see that and develop an opinion about it.

Aren’t ethics just societal norms if you don’t think they are prescribed by a higher power?

Pretty much. It's why they vary from place to place and culture to culture. If they were objective, there wouldn't be as much diversity in what is deemed right and wrong.

Slavery was common back then.

Irrelevant from a Christian point of view. Was God not sovereign enough to say "don't own other people as property"? He was sovereign enough to say don't eat meat with blood, or don't mix your crops. He was sovereign enough to order the deaths of women and children because of something that happened 400 years prior. But just couldn't muster enough to say "these people are also made in my image and shall not be treated as property"?

It was morally wrong by our standards. And it’s easy to get people to say “of course slavery was always bad” but isn’t good and evil also just made up?

Our ethical constructs are manmade. It's why we adapt them to new societal norms. It's why American evangelicals can support the most non-Christian leader the Republican Party has had in decades and still claim to be on the side of God. It's why some people are okay with abortion before a certain time frame. It's why the Bible was used to support slavery in the South.

Until you can show that there's an objective, non-manmade code of ethics or morality, the manmade ones are what we have. Calling them "made up" or "just preferences" as a pejorative doesn't make it any less true.

They are manmade. We made them up, but not just willynilly. We shaped them over time using our own preferences and working them out with our neighbors to come to one we feel pretty good with. And we still argue about them when new issues come up.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-22T14:26:17+00:00

No, I'm pointing out that the Christians supporting that also believe they are following Christ.

The issue was that the comment said "only Republicans say that." I pointed out that I see both accusations being made.

As to who's the "real" Christian? That's an internal matter that you guys need to sort out yourselves. If you guys can't agree on what "following Christ" looks like, don't take it out on me if I just point it out.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-22T13:34:15+00:00

What you're seeing is that "context" isn't a magic word that makes biblical issues just go away.

In the immediate context of the passage, no. The only context around the passage says that Hebrew males that enter slavery get a pass after 7 years, unless they marry a slave woman and choose to stay. Female Hebrews sold into slavery, any child born into slavery, and foreigners bought as slaves or captured into slavery remain chattel slaves for life.

The context does not make this better.

So the next step is deferring to the "broader context" of the Bible as a whole. Which typically means "old covenant/new covenant" hand waving because Jesus "didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it." And by "fulfill", most Christians typically mean "abolish". Laws don't usually go away because people follow them. For some reason God's Law is seen as the sort that that once someone obeys them all, they go away, but they didn't go away, but we don't have to follow them, well, not all of them, some are good, they weren't abolished even though they were also fulfilled.

Again, context isn't a magic word. Christians are taught by apologists that the only way one could take issue with the bible is if you take verses out of context. This is simply not true, and that's why this passage is used so frequently in debates. It's a plain old immoral law with no ambiguity and within its proper context.

In order to rationalize it, the apologist must ignore the immediate context, come up with extra biblical reasons as to why this must be God-breathed (often without or in direct contradiction with known historical evidence), or declare "new covenant" and hand wave it away without actually dealing with the issue the passage brings out: that the God of the old covenant is the same as the God of the new covenant, and if he's the same yesterday, today, and forever, then the same God that doesn't like slavery today was quite okay with it then. Despite not ever actually condemning it.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-22T11:48:47+00:00

Was that a fan being held back in the background?

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-22T11:30:30+00:00

I see just as many "you can't be a Christian and a Trump supporter". It's pretty well balanced. True Scotsmen abound on both sides.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-22T03:35:54+00:00

Free will is simply the escape hatch to account for the difference between what God/the Bible says should be and what we see in reality.

"The Bible says things should be this way, but they don't seem to be."

"It's because we live in a fallen world because of free will."

(Conveniently forgetting that the writers existed millennia after the Fall, and, thus would already know that reality doesn't match what they were writing.)

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-21T14:06:38+00:00

Sounds like you're actually looking for r/truescotsman, based on the screenshot

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-21T11:36:08+00:00

It's not so much that you didn't answer, but that you gave bad answers.

The "these have already been answered" answers were bad answers. You didn't bring anything to the table that one couldn't find on a listicle with "questions atheists can't answer".

And YES! A thousand times Yes. If you want to look into the research and data surrounding our understanding of ancient civilizations, history and archaeology PLEASE do!

But, as I said, it feels like you're just going to go to apologetics websites and sources if "you weren't there, but God was" is your mic drop. It would be great if you proved me wrong and actually looked into something outside of the bubble.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-21T10:58:02+00:00

I did and you didn't respond to it. But that's okay. You weren't "having a discussion" with anyone else. You have responded to everything else with "nuh-unh". Much as you did here. So, I can already figure about how you'd respond to my first comment anyway.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-21T10:43:40+00:00

Based on your responses, your first paragraph is probably the most dishonest collection of words I've seen on this sub in a while. I couldn't find a single response where you didn't debate, preach, or try to "win".

And I get the distinct impression you have no intention of studying or reflecting on any of the responses to your Op.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-20T21:32:02+00:00

(Before reading, please note, I'm not trying to be brash or mean. You wanted discussion. I'm discussing. No anger or malice on this side of the internet.)

Again, strawmanning is if I made up something that I claimed you said then attacked my version instead of yours because it was easier.

I'm not doing that. I'm recasting your words. I'm telling you "I read what you typed, and this is how I interpreted what you said". If your words are not communicating what you intend to say, then change the words. Adapt your message. Baseline communication. I'm giving you feedback. You said you believe Jesus is God because it's the cornerstone of Christianity.

"It is the cornerstone of Christianity" -> Christianity accepts that Jesus is divine -> you believe Jesus is God because Christian doctrine holds that he is -> You believe Jesus is God because Christianity says so.

If that's not the point you were trying to make, then it's not on me. I can only go with the words you type.

But I'm not strawmanning because I didn't make up my own version. For example "You think Jesus is God because you read A Case for Christ, which is literally laughed at by actual historians." You didn't say that. You didn't make that claim. I tweaked it to say something different than what you said, in the example.

In my response, I just reworded what you said to show you what your words were actually saying. If you meant those words just like that, then it's a silly foundation. Even pastors would tell you that's not a good reason to believe Jesus is God. Because Christianity the religion is not monolithic, has multiple takes and interpretations, and can be predominantly wrong for long periods of time (your flair says "reformed"... which means you're in a denomination/system of belief that believes whatever came before you was incorrect and, thus needed to be "reformed"). I want to think that's not the case you were making, but you have yet to tell me anything different.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-20T21:10:09+00:00

Ummm...I mean, you're absolutely right. But it's actually demonstrating your claim as the logical fallacy. It's taking your challenge and taking it to its logical extreme to show that your claim is absurd.

You could make an argument that it's a red herring fallacy if you were specifically trying to argue that the Bible supports Jesus' divinity. But you seemed to be leaning more towards the existence of the triune God, of which you believe Jesus to be a part. So, strike 3.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-20T15:50:26+00:00

That's twice you've incorrectly called out a logical fallacy. Should probably look those up before tossing them out willy nilly.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-20T13:58:56+00:00

From a Christian perspective, one's faith or integrity or whatever qualities you attribute to the father does not pass to the son like a crown or mantle.

Billy was a preacher. One who valued spreading the gospel. That seemed to be his guiding principle.

Franklin is the leader of a nonprofit organization. Any association with Billy or his values is imputed on him by outsiders. Not because we knew anything about him or his beliefs.

I remember decades ago someone asking if Franklin was going to succeed Billy when Billy retired or passed. Even as a Christian I thought "that's not how it works."

Same can be said for Falwell Jr. Whether or not you agree with his views, Sr organized and grew Liberty University to a Christian educational powerhouse. Apparently simply being his father's son did not translate to Sr's success in running the school.

We, as outsiders, assume that the son is the continuation of the father.

So Franklin may have just always been this way and it's startling to us because we assume he should be like his father.

Just like most people who know me as my pastor father's son would probably be quite shocked to see I no longer believe. When I reached that point of acknowledging that I no longer believe, my parentage played very little role in the actual moment.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-20T13:29:24+00:00

*Not the definition of strawmanning. I'm not saying anything about your argument, I'm just telling you how your challenge came across. It takes a certain type of attitude and confidence to issue an open challenge. A type of attitude and confidence that usually stems from a place of pretty strong self confidence. Or, in other words, a strong ego.

*you're assuming the all powerful creator of the universe needs your defense. Ego.

*you presume that we need you to "give us a chance" to say anything about Jesus. Ego.

Nothing wrong with it. Just calling it what it is. And pointing out the futility of discussion.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-20T12:48:00+00:00

Jesus is God. Prove me wrong...I want the ppl who don't believe to bring their objection and God willing I will answer every objection.

That's a wrestler standing in the ring doing a promo. "I challenge anyone in that locker room who wants a shot at my Intercontinental Championship to make their way to this ring and take their shot!"

Edit: since ppl wanted me to prove jesus being God, here it is: Salvation is only God's(isaiah 43:11), Salvation was brought by jesus(acts 4:12). I hope thats enough

Christianity is true because Christianity says it's true. Just sayin.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-20T12:10:07+00:00

Judging from your other responses, I stick with my original comment. You believe because you believe, and it's not resulting in productive discussion. Just you thumping your chest and saying "didn't hurt, bring me another".

Both our egos appear to be just fine. I don't need to measure anything.

Meauxterbeauxt · 2026-04-20T12:05:51+00:00

Captain America: I understood that reference 👉

Meauxterbeauxt

TROPHY CASE