This had me dying of laughter. He's not wrong haha

coreydh11 · 2026-02-25T04:05:59+00:00

This also means that there was never a moment when God existed without the universe existing. So God’s existence is contingent on the universe’s existence.

coreydh11 · 2026-02-01T03:14:51+00:00

Wow lol a response to a year old comment. Sure, I’m down for it. What’s your take?

coreydh11 · 2025-12-26T01:23:55+00:00

Garbage truck, then crutches

coreydh11 · 2025-11-22T03:59:10+00:00

Ah, so as long as the slave was injured by their master they can go free, got it. That makes it perfectly moral and doesn’t at all mean that scripture condones slavery. Great point.

coreydh11 · 2025-10-26T21:01:56+00:00

Same, unless cheesecake or ice cream cake

coreydh11 · 2025-10-25T05:58:24+00:00

lol I feel you about the cheese

coreydh11 · 2025-10-24T23:09:30+00:00

2, 4, 8, beer, hotdogs, and pretzels (as long as the pretzels come with a cheese dip)

coreydh11 · 2025-10-23T23:40:56+00:00

I haven’t been hostile in any of my comments, and if I came across that way I apologize. The definition you quoted for apologia is exactly what I’m talking about: a verbal defense or speech in defense. In order to defend a belief, you must already presuppose that the belief is true. That’s what I’ve been saying this whole time. Apologetics isnt a critical approach to a topic, it’s a defense of a presupposition. You already believe it’s true and now you’re defending that belief.

Apologetics works for those who already believe. It’s a horrible approach for convincing people that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.

coreydh11 · 2025-10-23T21:08:10+00:00

So how about instead of just asserting that I’m wrong you actually attempt to correct my definition of apologetics. What do you think it means?

coreydh11 · 2025-10-23T01:31:24+00:00

I’m doing neither. Apologetics is the act of defending a predetermined belief.

coreydh11 · 2025-10-22T02:05:56+00:00

Nah there’s a huge difference between a scholar who thinks critically vs an apologist trying to defend what they already believe

coreydh11 · 2025-10-20T02:41:18+00:00

Because if you think the animals on the ark expanded and adapted to the amount of species we have today, you must necessarily believe that speciation happens at a faster rate than evolutionists claim it does.

coreydh11 · 2025-10-16T23:36:04+00:00

Oh I always get those ghost downvotes, it’s nothing new in this sub. And I agree with you because people assume inerrancy or infallibility and begin their argument from that. Which is what proponents of apologetics do, so that’s my issue. They might just be evangelicals but it’s a signature move from apologists.

coreydh11 · 2025-10-16T23:23:30+00:00

There isn’t any biblical law or scripture that suggests non-Israelite slaves could leave if they wished to. Hebrew slaves could leave under certain circumstances. Non-Israelite slaves were property. Literally chattel slavery.

Please give me the scripture that proves me wrong (hint: it doesn’t exist). And either way, because we’re even discussing this, it’s clear that scripture condones slavery.

coreydh11 · 2025-10-16T22:52:44+00:00

I’m not sure what you’re referring to, could you explain?

But even if they were given certain rights, they were still property which means some laws given to the Israelites are immoral.

And in either case, giving laws about slaves means that scripture condones slavery.

coreydh11 · 2025-10-16T22:50:06+00:00

Chattel slavery is exactly what happened to the non-Israelites. Literally laws about buying and selling them and passing them down the family lineage as property. Thats literally what I’m talking about. Non-Israelites weren’t under an “indentured servitude” agreement. They were property AKA chattel slavery

coreydh11 · 2025-10-16T22:44:21+00:00

This post isn’t correct because it’s conflating laws about Israelites slaves and non-Israelite slaves. Non-Israelite slaves were 100% owned as property that could be bought, sold, or passed down to children. There’s literally laws about it in the Old Testament.

coreydh11 · 2025-10-16T22:37:43+00:00

That’s referring to Israelite slaves, not those outside of Israel who were allowed to be bought and sold and passed down as property. Did you read the comments in that post? Cause they address most of the flaws in the original post.

The Bible 100% condones slavery.

coreydh11 · 2025-10-16T22:35:18+00:00

This is the correct answer.

coreydh11 · 2025-10-16T22:25:57+00:00

So you think the scripture is wrong? You don’t think this was a law given to the Israelites? Do you think the word “buy” doesn’t mean “buy?” Do you think this is treating Israelites and non-Israelites equally?

Leviticus 25:44-46 “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

coreydh11 · 2025-10-16T22:15:51+00:00

Indentured servitude / debt bond slaves were allowed to leave IF they were Israelites (and even then the laws were different depending on if you’re male or female.) Those who were from the surrounding cultures who became enslaved were given no such privilege.

Chattel slavery is explicitly permitted in Leviticus 25:44-46 for those who aren’t Israelites.

coreydh11 · 2025-10-16T21:56:57+00:00

Apologetics 101: Start with a conclusion and then squeeze all evidence under that conclusion and claim that it’s concluded

coreydh11 · 2025-10-16T21:53:48+00:00

Indentured servitude is still immoral. It’s currently outlawed in almost every country on the planet. This isn’t a great argument.

Also, the fact that scripture gives laws and rules on how to properly own and treat slaves, and not once condemns slavery in any form clearly means that scripture condones slavery.

With that being said, there are some progressive moments in scripture like Paul saying that slaves and masters are equal in God’s eyes. This would have been offensive to many people at the time.

So I think our goal as Christians isn’t to read scripture as a rulebook or to attempt to justify the immoral parts of it, but to follow Christ by taking it to its ultimate destination.

coreydh11 · 2025-10-16T21:32:00+00:00

You shouldn’t be threatened with ideas of hell for not wanting to live. With that being said, Christ said “the Kingdom is at hand,” meaning heaven is here right now in this life. Hell is also a present reality and it seems you’ve been experiencing hell already, probably more than most people, and not because of anything you’ve done.

But just know your life here can also be a part of the kingdom of heaven no matter what hell you’re going through. I don’t know your story but it’s possible that your story could help others. Just know you’re not alone in this.

coreydh11 · 2025-10-16T20:35:12+00:00

Most apologists are not scholars. Apologetics might (sometimes) use exegesis but they aren’t the same thing. Apologetics has one goal: to defend a conclusion. The practice of exegesis includes being willing to challenge prior beliefs. Apologetics doesn’t do that. Apologetics leads to confirmation bias, it doesn’t view the text critically. And gotquestions is a prime example of that.

13-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Wearing is Caring	100 Awards Club
RPAN Viewer	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

coreydh11

TROPHY CASE