Why do you not engage in debates on Reddit?

Compliant: You post on Reddit all the time and yet, you don't engage in any discussions? Why? Are you afraid that your view or arguments won't hold up? 

Answer: 

I would love to have an intelligent discussion on Reddit or elsewhere. The problem with Reddit is the downvotes. 

According to Reddit, if you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the conversation, then downvote it. Voting is supposed to be based on whether one thinks a comment is constructive to the conversation or discussion. It is NOT a like or dislike button. 

The last time I attempted to have a discussion, I received almost 100 downvotes. Almost all of my comments now get multiple downvotes, usually more downvotes than responses. Currently, my last 20 comments have 40 downvotes. See here

Here's the issue with downvotes 

1) Downvotes decrease one's Reddit karma; Once a poster reaches a certain threshold, the post is hidden. 

2) If you have low karma or go negative, it can restrict where you can participate due to community restrictions.

3) Some communities remove or filter content from those with low karma, and especially those with negative karma, the latter being an anti-troll measure.

4) you aren’t able to post in some places; either your post is removed or a time limit gets put on your next post or comment.

5) Being Shadowbanned, which means your account is basically stuck in the spam filter site-wide and all your content is automatically filtered out as a "bad faith" user.

Conclusion: It could be that some are attempting to muzzle me by making the algorithm see my posts as trolling or as a "bad faith" poster. 

Now, it could that my down voters truly think my content is low effort, or doesn't contribute to the conversation or community, and they are simply following the rules.   

Fair enough, but to that I'd say that I too am following the rules as there is no Reddit rule that states one must respond to any comment.

From the Reddit help section concerning responding to comments:

Authors aren’t obligated to respond to anything, they are writing for free, giving content to you, you should be appreciating them, not the other way around, it takes more time to write than it does to read... or downvote

You have no obligation to respond to any comments made in any thread you start...you don't owe them jack.

Replies aren't expected for the most part. If someone put a lot of effort into to their answer, it's nice to recognize that.

And TBH, most of the comments I get are not very thoughtful; they are more like a drive-by-comment, akin to something you shout at someone as you pass them by. 

I guess my guiding principles are 

1) Matthew 11:15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear. 

2) Matthew 7:6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.

Jesus appears to be saying:1) having “ears to hear.” is different from just having ears; it's those who truly listen, are open and seek understanding 2) Do not waste good things on people who will not appreciate them. He warns against wasting time or effort on those who clearly have no interest; they won't appreciate it and may attack you for it.

My posts and comments are for those who have ears to hear; it's my prayer that my words will help those who seek to work through a difficult passage or issue and to enrich their faith.  

If you desire an intelligent discussion, then PM me or respond on my blog.  But if there is a well-thought-out or good faith comment on Reddit, I would respond to it, but at this point it not worth it. 

Was The Resurrection of Jesus Christ a Mythological Development?

An argument for the Mythological Development of the Risen Jesus is put forth this way:

1) The Gospel of Mark which is the earliest gospel contains no post resurrection appearances,

2) the later Gospels of Matthew includes post resurrection appearances, and

3) Luke includes more detail.

4) But only in the Gospel of John [which is the last Gospel] do we get doubting Thomas where And famously says he doesn't believe that it's the risen Christ, and Jesus says come and touch my wounds, and he touches his way and he said my Lord and my God and Jesus says you believe because you've seen blessed of those who believe that don't see it

5) the myth ends in a moral lesson to believe without evidence.

So, we have is this mythological development of no resurrection appearances and as the time goes on as we get further away from the source the stories get more embellished, fantastical, and preposterous, ending in a moral lesson to "believe without evidence".

So, we have is this mythological development of no resurrection appearances and as the time goes on as we get further away from the source the stories get more fantastical, preposterous ending in a moral lesson to believe without evidence.

There are major problems with this. 

The Resurrection as a mythological development idea is subverted by the early creed founded 1st Corinthians 15 while First Corinthians was written in the early 50s which predates Mark's Gospel and it contains an early creed that likely goes back to within five years of the death of Jesus

This oral creed says:

1. that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
2. that he was buried,
3. that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 
4. and that he appeared to Cephas, 
5. then to the twelve. 
6. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 
7. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.  
8. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Belief in the death, burial, resurrection, and reappearance to Peter and the Twelve in verses 3–5, are an early pre-Pauline kerygma or creedal statement. Biblical scholars note the antiquity of the creed, possibly transmitted from the Jerusalem apostolic community. Though, the core formula may have originated in Damascus, with the specific appearances reflecting the Jerusalem community. It may be one of the earliest kerygmas about Jesus' death and resurrection, 

Early kerygma:

• Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964) p. 47;
• Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1971) p. 10 (ISBN 0-281-02475-8);
• Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 90 (ISBN 0-664-20818-5);
• Oscar Cullmann, The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 64;
• Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, translated James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress 1975) p. 251 (ISBN 0-8006-6005-6);
• Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament vol. 1 pp. 45, 80–82, 293;
• R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) pp. 81, 92 (ISBN 0-8091-1768-1)  [From Wiki]

Ancient creed:

• Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 90;
• Oscar Cullmann, The Early church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 66;
• R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) p. 81;
• Thomas Sheehan, First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity (New York: Random House, 1986) pp. 110, 118;
• Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection translated A. M. Stewart (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1977) p. 2 [From Wiki]

The historical facts do not fit well with the idea that the resurrection appearances are the result of mythological development over time as you move further away from the source, so that's the first problem.  They do fit well with the fact that Jesus died, was buried, was risen on the third day, and was seen by multiple people is what Christians believed from the beginning 

More evidence for 1 Cor 15 bening very early

The Oxford Companion to the Bible: “The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul ‘received’ after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19), who, like him, were recipients of appearances.” [Eds. Metzer & Coogan (Oxford, 1993), 647.]

Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]

James Dunn (Professor at Durham): “Despite uncertainties about the extent of tradition which Paul received (126), there is no reason to doubt that this information was communicated to Paul as part of his introductory catechesis (16.3) (127). He would have needed to be informed of precedents in order to make sense of what had happened to him. When he says, ‘I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance (en protois) what I also received (parelabon)’ (15.3), he assuredly does not imply that the tradition became important to him only at some subsequent date. More likely he indicates the importance of the tradition to himself from the start; that was why he made sure to pass it on to the Corinthians when they first believed (15.1-2) (128). This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death. [Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans, 2003) 854-55.]

Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]

A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]

N.T. Wright (NT scholar [Oxford, 5+ honorary Ph.ds]): “This is the kind of foundation-story with which a community is not at liberty to tamper. It was probably formulated within the first two or three years after Easter itself, since it was already in formulaic form when Paul ‘received’ it.” [The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress, 2003), 319.]

Many also speak of how early, in general, the creed must have been. Some feel the creed was “in use by AD 30” ( Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ, trans. V. Geen (Paulist, 1976), 125.). Virtually no scholar puts it beyond the 40s (Gerald O’Collins, What Are They Saying About the Resurrection (Paulist Press, 1978), 112.].).

Peter May: “Christ’s death is generally thought to have occurred in AD 30 (or 33). Paul wrote his letter to the church at Corinth around AD 55, some 25 years later. He had delivered this creed to them when he visited Corinth in AD 51. Few dates could be more certain, because while he was there he was hauled up before the Roman proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12-17). Gallio, who subsequently conspired against Nero, was the brother of the philosopher Seneca. Proconsulship was a one year post and a Roman stone inscription found early in the 20th century at nearby Delphi records his period of office as being AD 51-52. This date is so firmly established that it has become one of the lynchpins for working out the dates of the rest of New Testament chronology.” [“The Resurrection of Jesus and the Witness of Paul,” (2008) online at bethinking.org]

The moral lesson? 

Critics say, John's gospel culminates with the story of doubting Thomas to communicate the moral lesson to believe without evidence. However, read the last two verses of John 20:

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

This passage isn't against evidence for faith. In fact, this passage is part of the evidence for Faith. There are those like Thomas who saw the Risen Jesus and believed. But John knows that's not most people, and that's why he includes this account in his Gospel. We don't get to see the evidence (the Risen Jesus) and believe, rather we get to read the evidence (about the Risen Jesus) and believe, but make no mistake, both seeing the evidence and believing and reading the evidence and believing rest on a firm foundation.

So, ironic that people pick the story of doubting Thomas to show that evidence and belief are at odds. Since, John includes the story for one simple reason: to provide evidence for belief, as John puts it. These are written so that you would believe

Objection A - No matter how well they are evidenced, supernatural claims will never be the best explanation for any historical event, unless we get to establish some actual knowledge about the supernatural first. Call that a supernatural bias. 

Reply: First, that's not a supernatural bias, it's an anti-supernatural bias or a pro-naturalism bias. But, as argued previously, Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting, so we have good reasons to reject a physical-only model for the world and no good reasons to accept it. At least none have been presented. 

Objection B - By not rejecting the supernatural will unavoidably lead to special pleading in favor of the religion one is willing to prove.

Reply - Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the exception. It's a double standard.

The key is "without justifying the exception"; but I have justified it in the link above. Not only that, but naturalism is simply presumed.  In what world is one view, which is simply presumed true, favored over one that has a valid argument for it?

Objection C - How do you deal with the time between when the events happened and the stories were written? Or the time between the events and formation of the creeds? A few days is more than enough time for legends to develop. How do you know what was written was accurate to reality?

Reply - I have already addressed this issue in Do Late Accounts and No Eyewitnesses Justify Doubting The Historical Authenticity of People & Events?

Objection D - The creed in 1 cor 15 doesn't actually go into any detail regarding what those experiences were, so it can't really be used to say that the resurrection appearances being taught in the first few months are basically what ended up in the gospels.

Reply - What detail is it missing? Death, burial, Resurrection, list of five different appearances are there...

Objection E -We know that a person cannot return from the dead, by somehow overcoming death. That would break the Laws of Nature.

Reply - This assumes that Philosophical Naturalism is true, but we know that it's actually a self-refuting viewpoint

If one is simply assuming that Philosophical Naturalism is true, then it can be cut away with Hitchens's razor - "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

If one does not claim that Philosophical Naturalism is true, then this objection falls apart.

If one does claim that Philosophical Naturalism is true, then they need to provide the reason/evidence. And need to address the argument in the link above. 

Therefore, we can safely say the following: Philosophical Naturalism is false and an objection based on that can be, and should be, dismissed

Objection F - You can believe in Yahweh specifically and still think that it is extremely unlikely that someone would be raised from the dead. Orthodox Jews do not believe Jesus was raised, and they are hardly naturalists.

Reply - First there are Jews who did believe that Jesus rose from the dead; for example all the disciples were Jewish, secondly there are Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah today And Jesus did fulfill the requirements to confirm Himself as the Messiah. Additionally, Jesus did fulfill the Messianic prophecies 

Objection G - So you have Paul’s 1 Cor 15 version [50s], then you have Mark's Gospel, which has no resurrection [60s], then you have Matthew and Luke gospels that include the resurrection. This is exactly how myths work, you just made a very strong argument for mythicism

Reply: This falls apart when one reads Mark 16:6-7 - And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” Mark didn't leave out the Resurrection!

Objection H - The oral creed says that christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. But can that be since Mark’s the earliest gospel.

Reply: It makes sense when you realise that it's speaking of Old Testment; mosy likely Jonah and Isaish 53

Objection I -  The Bible isnt evidence that the Bible is true. Thats circular reasoning and non sequitur.

Reply: The Bible is a collection of 66 "books" of various genres, written by over 40 people, on 3 continents over the course of centuries that the church put into a single binder, i.e. book. So, it's like saying "circular reasoning" becuse one cites an entry in an Encyclopedia to support another entry by a different author in the same Encyclopedia. It's an absurd objection

Objection J - How do you go from "the story was told at X time" to "therefore the story was not a myth"?

Reply: Since the Resurrection was told early it couldn't have developed over time

Related posts

1st Corinthians Was Written in the 50s

But I thought Christianity was based on blind faith...

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Is a Historical Fact

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus of the Bible in ancient non-Christian sources

Do Late Accounts and No Eyewitnesses Justify Doubting The Historical Authenticity of People & Events?

1st Corinthians Was Written in the 50s

The case for 1st Corinthians being written in the 50s. 

The first prong of reasoning is that the Epistle was written in ignorance of the Jewish War of 66-70 A.D. Nowhere in the letter is this even hinted at. 

Secondly, Paul visited Corinth in roughly AD 50. We know this because he stood before the proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12), whom we recognize and know from secular history. Archaeologists uncovered the famous “Gallio stone,” which dates the beginning of Gallio’s office to the early summer of AD 51.[source]

When Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians, this was obviously after he stood before Gallio, placing the date after AD 51. Moreover, Paul writes that he was still in Ephesus when he wrote 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 16:8), after just planting the church there (Acts 18:18-21). Therefore, Paul probably wrote this letter sometime in between a two-and-a-half-year span, while he was at Ephesus from the autumn of 52 to the spring of 55 AD (Acts 19:10; 20:31). Thus, most NT scholars date this letter sometime in the late winter or early spring of 55 AD. [Craig Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation, p164] Leon Morris dates the book to the mid-fifties, and cites “wide agreement” on this amongst NT scholarship. [1 Corinthians: an introduction and commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentary, p35] 

And, if Paul is saying that he had delivered this to the Corinthians earlier (which reinforces the notion of a repeatable creed), then that would have been somewhere around 51AD, only 20 years after the resurrection. But, note that if he were delivering it, then it had to be earlier than that, for this had been passed on to him. This might have been in 37AD when he went to Jerusalem after his conversion. Which means the creed had already, within a few years of the resurrection, been a part of the early believers worship. Some scholars think that it could have been formed within a few months after Jesus rose from the dead. 

Why might we think this? Because of the polemic. There were lies being spread that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, but instead His body had been stolen by the disciples. It is challenges like that which make people articulate and summarize what they believe, and thus gives rise to a creed. 

The rest of the New Testament was written early as well

Psalm 78:7-10

Psalm 78:7-10

7 so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments; 8 and that they should not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation,
a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God. 9 The Ephraimites, armed with the bow, turned back on the day of battle.10 They did not keep God's covenant,but refused to walk according to his law.

This psalm recounts the history of Israel from its deliverance from Egypt to the kingship of David. Its negative lesson is that this history not be repeated in the lives of the listeners (verse 8). The positive lesson is that believers be marked by true faith (verse 7). We should not just know the truth about who God is (verse 7) but must trust him from the heart (verses 7 and 8) and show this saving faith through a changed life of obedience (verse 7). Throughout history, many have honored God with external behavior but failed to have converted hearts (Isaiah 29:13; Jeremiah 4:4). Are you just going through the motions of religion, or have you been born again (John 3:1–16)? 

The “men of Ephraim” are the northern tribes of Israel (verses 9–10) that fell into idolatry (1 Kings 12) and were deported and lost to history (2 Kings 17). The root of their problem was spiritual forgetting (verse 11). Christians too can stagnate because they “forget that they have been cleansed from their past sins” (2 Peter 1:9). The key is to have a heart constantly vitalized by deliberate remembering of the costly sacrifice of Jesus. We must remember that for our sins Jesus was, as it were, forgotten (“Why have you forsaken me?” Matthew 27:46) so that God can now no more forget us than a mother her nursing infant (Isaiah 49:14–16). Remembering that will make you a great heart. 

The Songs of Jesus: A Year of Daily Devotions in the Psalms - Keller (p. 184-5). 

The Problem of Evil: Solved for Christians; A Major Problem for Atheists

Problem of Evil Formulated

Many atheists are fond of using the argument from evil to debunk the notion of God. It goes something like this:

• If God is all-powerful (omnipotent), He could stop evil.
• If God is all-loving (omni-benevolent), He would stop evil if He could.
• Therefore, if an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God existed, evil would not.
• Evil exists; therefore, an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God does not.

Another variation of the argument was put forward by the Greek philosopher Epicurus, centuries before the time of Christ:

• Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. 
• Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. 
• Is he both able and willing? Then whence evil? 
• Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
• 
  

The Problem of Evil for Christians

Logically, this argument misunderstands what's meant by God's omnipotence. Omnipotence means that God cannot possibly be more powerful than He currently is. His power is perfect. But within these traditional confines, we acknowledge that God cannot do the logically impossible. He cannot, for example, will what is contrary to His Will. Why? Because that's a contradiction.

Herein lies the easiest answer to the problem of evil:

• God gives us free will, because free will is inherently good.
• Free will entails the possibility of doing what is contrary to God's will (i.e. evil).
• God has morally sufficient reasons for temporarily allowing evil
• Thus, evil exists, because of man's actions, rather than because of God.

The easiest answer expanded:

The Bible makes it clear that evil is something God neither intended nor created. Rather, moral evil is a necessary possibility. If we are truly free, then we are free to choose something other than God’s will—that is, we can choose moral evil. Scripture points out that there are consequences for defying the will of God—personal, communal, physical, and spiritual.

The existence of evil is often presented as an enormous problem for those who believe in God, mostly because it's based on a False Dilemma Fallacy God must either not allow any evil or God - as the Christians define Him - doesn't exist.  In reality, these assumptions miss the actual means by which Scripture resolves the problem of evil.

Freewill defined

What is critical to free will is not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. Sometimes philosophers call this agent causation. The agent himself is the cause of his actions. His decisions are differentiated from random events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind.

He created us with the freedom to choose our actions, and then extended forgiveness to us. Forgiveness, the release of the condemned from punishment is the Christian answer to the problem of evil. Forgiveness is also different from excusing evil—it acknowledges that there is wrong to be made right. The Bible describes evil as something God allowed, but never condoned, for the sake of our free will. 

Objection - What about freewill in heaven - why didn't God jusat create heaven in the first place.  

Reply: Well, I'd argue that  God did create "heaven" first. The Garden of Eden was heaven-like. The problem was that Adam nor Eve never chose to be there or chose to follow God over evil. And apparently God sees real value in freely making morally significant choices - choosing to in follow or disobey God,

In heaven the saved will be elevated to a better state of being eternally than they are currently (Rom 8:18, 2 Cor. 4:17), and once glorified, will no longer have a sin nature throughout eternity (Rev. 21:4,27). The term "born again" from John 3:3 to describe our new relationship with God. Paul talks about the "new man" (Eph 4) and tells us "If any man is in Christ he is a new creation, all things have passed away, behold all has become new" (2 Cor. 5:17)

In heaven we will simply choose not to sin. 

The sanctification of Christians is a continual, lifelong process. It involves both a relational component (separation from participating in and being influenced by evil) and a moral component (growth in holiness or moral purity in attitudes, thoughts, and actions). Our wills will be becoming more aligned with God's will as we continue in our walk. We can never be perfect on this side of eternity, but we can strive to become more like Jesus through the process of sanctification. There will be no CINO's (Christian In Name Only) in heaven.

Glorification is when believers will share in God’s glory as resurrected bodies in the new heaven and new earth. It will remove us from the presence of sin forever. In our eternal home in heaven, we no longer have a sinful nature. Plus, there will be no temptation to lure people to sin, no devil to deceive us.

Jesus Christ, even though He didn't sin, still had free will.  One of the more clear Bible passages that demonstrates such is John 10:17-18. "I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again." 

One can also point to the temptation in the wilderness in Matt 4 as evidence that Jesus had freedom to do what He pleased. What he chose was not to sin. Thus, the notion of an all-loving God is consistent with abundant free will, and free will is consistent with the presence of evil. But it does not necessitate the existence or practice of evil.

Back to the argument...

You may disagree with that solution—you may not see why free will is better than God forcing us to perform on command, for example—but it at least shows that there's no logical problem with the simultaneous existence of an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God and evil.

So the Problem of Evil is easily solved for the Christian. God has morally sufficient reasons for temporarily allowing evil; after this God will wipe out evil (but not free will) from human existence. Those who chose to follow God will do so, those that did not, will not. 

The Problem of Evil for Atheists

If the atheist says that only subjective morality exists (i.e moral values and principles are based on individual beliefs, opinions, cultural norms, and societal contexts) then it is difficult for the atheists to construct a logically coherent problem of evil as rape, murder, torture of children for fun, genocide is just one's opinion, they are not necessarily evil. 

Thus, the atheists is barred from intellectually, rationally, logically condemning rape, murder, torture of children for fun, genocide, etc

If the atheist says that objective morality exists (moral values or obligations are perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations) how then does the atheist ground objective morality in their worldview.

But here's the problem with that: Objective morality is best explained by God. What else can give us moral values or obligations are perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations?

This doesn't mean that atheists can't be moral people, as Christians teach that objective morality is knowable by all via natural law. 

No good definition of Good? 

The atheist may say that we can ground morality in the pleasure or misery of individuals; the atheist defines the “good” as that which supports the well-being of conscious creatures. But why, given atheism, should we think that the "flourishing of human beings" is objectively good? Where, exactly, in the natural world do we learn this objective truth? Harris, as William Lane Craig points out, fails to provide an explanation for this assertion. He simply equates “good” with “human flourishing” without any justification in what amounts to equivocation and circular reasoning.

Science, only explains what “is,” not how things “ought” to be. For example, science tells us how us how to make an atomic bomb. It cannot, however, tell us whether we ought to use it. Harris believes he can prove his point by demonstrating that science tells us how to make humans flourish. But why is “human flourishing” a good thing? Why not "rat flourishing" Or "cockroach flourishing"? 

Harris commits the Is/Ought Fallacy - the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. Example: “That man is a murderer. He should be hung/punished.”  Let's say the former statment is true, but why would the latter statement logically follow? Especially if morality is subjective. Because Harris, and atheists, cannot ground objective morality as the term is philosophically understood, his only recourse is a semantic sleight of hand in which he redefines  the word “good” to mean human flourishing. 

Naturalistic Determinism

If one is committed to naturalistic determinism, as most atheists are, then they most likely reject the notion of free will as well. In essence, humans act in robotic fashion and possess no volitional control over of their actions. Richard Dawkins agrees with this when he states, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”[River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. Dawkins, pp 133] 

So how can one condemn people for their actions?  Given determinism, one's actions were pre-loaded at the Big Bang and carried out by the inflexible laws of physics and chemistry. According to naturalism all actions are the result of antecedent the physical conditions of matter, acting in accordance to the physical laws. How can their be moral choices? How can there be any choices at all? How can there be logical conclusions? 

Naturalistic Reasoning?

The problem for Harris’s determinism runs even deeper. For if naturalism is correct, and human beings are mere matter and nothing else, then rational thought becomes impossible. Rationality is, after all, the ability to adjudicate between arguments and evidence. But how do atoms, molecules, and physical laws make conscious decisions? Years ago, C. S. Lewis recognized this fatal flaw. He remarks, 

“A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe. but which made it impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid, that theory would, of course, be itself demolished.” -  C. S. Lewis. In other words, if atheists are is on naturalistic determinism, it follows that we have no grounds for even knowing if naturalism is true.

While atheists' attempts to affirm objective morality via naturalistic presumptions, they are fatally flawed as they have no rational basis to stand on.

Morality from Evolution?

Darwinian evolution is "descent with modification". This process of natural selection acting on random mutations is the standard view.  If Darwin was right then creatures scratched and clawed their way to survival, killing and eating each other. Natural selection explains sexual drive, hunger, and fear since these qualities aided in preservation. But how does natural selection explain the phenomenon of morality? 

Kin selection theory an animal engages in self-sacrificial behavior that benefits the genetic fitness of its relatives. For example, a rabbit might cry out a warning to her relatives if it sees a predator coming putting itself at greater risk, or may choose to fight/sacrifice  themselves. This sacrifice, ensures that the family genes will survive and pass on to the next generation.

Reciprocal relationships, aka “you scratch my back and I will scratch yours,” a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time. Natural selection, therefore, favors the species that provide services for other species.

Evolution’s Failure to Explain Morality

If Darwin’s theory is correct, all living species descended from a single-celled organism and now form the different branches on Darwin’s tree of life. With this model in mind, who is to say that humans should be treated differently than roaches, rats, or spiders? Given naturalism and the Darwinian model, humans are just one branch of many. Nothing about Darwinism tells us that we ought to act differently from the other species in the animal kindgom.

Take the black widow who often eats her male counterpart during the mating process. Most male animals forcibly copulate with their female counterparts.  Do these creatures commit moral evils? 

If not, why would these same actions be wrong for humans since we all belong to the same tree of life? Atheists and secular humanists may wish to maintain that humans are intrinsically valuable, but they have no way of grounding this position given their naturalism. 

Evolutionary morality is on even shakier ground when we consider that evolution is, by definition, the unguided process of natural selection. Meaning, if we were to rewind back the time to the very beginning and start over, morality could have evolved quite differently. Human morality could have evolved so human females eats her male counterpart during the mating process or it's the norm for  human males forcibly copulate with their female counterparts. And the atheist and secular humanist would simply nod in agreement. 

Evolution  does not begin to explain why acting in those ways is objectively good. Similarly, naturalists also think that because they can discern morality means that they have solved the problem. 

but they confuse Moral Epistemology and Moral Ontology

Atheists, naturalists, and secular humanists may be able to explain the origins of altruism. And they might even "know" objective morals. But they cannot account for the existence of the moral standard itself and why humans ought to follow it.

The fact is humans experience a certain “oughtness.” They feel like they ought to love rather than hate, and that they ought to show courage rather than cowardice, they ought to choose honor, rather than dishonor. These “oughts” are epistemically surprising given naturalism. Yet, they correspond nicely with the Christian worldview.

More specifically, the problem is that is that there's no way to get from statements "how the world is" to "how the world ought to be" without imposing a value system. And to say something is objective good [or evil] you must believe in objective values, binding everyone . It has to be something infinitely more than whatever your personal values might be.

This is a serious problem for atheism, since atheistic naturalism denies any such universally-binding moral laws. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, laid out the problem like this:

If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.

Therefore God exists.

The atheists/naturalist/secular humanist might argue that mortality is hardwired into our genes as an evolutionary survival mechanism.  A man might simultaneously be sexually attracted to a non-consenting woman, and conscious that rape is immoral. 

Why, from a strictly biological standpoint, should the man listen to his genetic hard-wiring when it tells him rape is wrong, and not when it gives him an urge to rape? The answer to that question is a moral one, and one that (by definition) can't come from mere evolutionary urges. The urges are the problem, not the solution. You can see this with virtually any sin: man both desires sin, and knows it's wrong. If both the desire and the moral aversion are nothing more than evolutionary conditioning, why listen to the unpleasant one? Why not act like simply another member of the animal kingdom, a world full of rape and theft and killing.

But for that matter, is it morally evil to go against our genetic hard-wiring? If the hard-wiring is nothing more than the result of random chance over millions of years, it's not at all clear why it would be morally evil to disregard it. Your body may also decide to start producing cancer cells, but you feel no moral allegiance to quietly let it have its way. 

And indeed, atheists constantly go against their genetic hard-wiring. For example, I'd venture that most atheists use or have used birth control and don't seem to find this immoral, even though it's transparently contrary to both our genetic hard-wiring, and evolutionary survival mechanisms. They're literally stopping evolution from working: a more direct violation of evolutionary hard-wiring is almost unthinkable (except, perhaps, celibacy).

So, evolution can explain urges we have for or against certain behaviors. But it cannot say which are worth acting upon, some aren't. Nor why. But to know which to obey and which to ignore is a moral question, not a biological one.

The atheists/naturalist/secular humanist might argue that objective moral values do not exist. Not everyone has the same moral standards. Our perception of what is right and wrong have changed over the centuries

If this is true, they cannot logically, rationally criticize the Nazis for killing millions of Jews, Or for the Chinese imprisonment of the Uyghurs Or any genocide, rape, murder, etc. 

If objective morality does not exist, the problem of evil breaks down. So when atheists raise the problem of evil, they're already conceding the existence of objective morality.

Objective Evil Exists

We can see that objective morals do, in fact, exist. We don't need to be told that raping, torturing, and killing innocent people are more than just unpleasant or counter-cultural. They're wrong—universally and completely wrong. Even if we were never taught these things growing up, we know these things by nature.

Incredibly, even the most evil societies—even those societies that have most cruelly warped the natural law for their own ends—still profess these universal morals. Nazi Germany, for example, still had laws against murder, and theft, and rape. They didn't have some delusion that those things were somehow morally good: it's sheer fiction to suggest otherwise. Everyone, with the possible exceptions of the  severely mentally handicapped/ill, recognizes these things to be evil, whether or not they've been formally taught these truths.

Conclusion

So is the problem of evil a problem for Christians? Sure. However, there are intellectually satisfying answers for the Christian

Is the problem of evil a problem for atheists? Yes.  If the atheists denies that objective morality exists, then any "problem of evil" argument falls apart.

Thus, in order to complain of the problem of evil, one must acknowledge evil. To acknowledge evil, you must acknowledge objective system morality. But the atheist/naturalist/secular humanist cannot do that. 

Objective universal moral laws is best explained by a Lawgiver capable of dictating behavior for everyone. This Lawgiver is best explained by One who we call God.

Ironically, the Problem of Evil lays the groundwork for establishing that God not only exists, but cares about good and evil. And humans as well, caring enough to die for them. 

Has My "Seven Facts About Biblical Slavery Prove that It Was Not Chattel Slavery" Been Debunked?

My Seven Facts About Biblical Slavery Prove that It Was Not Chattel Slavery is my second most viewed post.

It also seems to be very popular among atheists and other anti-Christian critics. Popular in that they like try to slam, condemn, denounce, excoriate, disparage, lambaste the post. Unfortunately there isn't a good deal of actual analysis. But I want to respond to my critics and give their criticism the justice it deserves.  

The Hitchen's Razor variety: The critics that have non-effort criticism. 

Most of it is not very intellectual, just rants that say that it's been rebutted, full of fallacies, errors, yet zero effort given to show it or make their case. 

For example: 

"corrected/rebutted/rebuked very thoroughly"

"thoroughly got taken down point by point"

"It just get's crushed by scholarship"

"they are not willing to entertain the idea they are wrong"

The assertion is the extent of the "analysis" - i.e. none; it's just make an assertion that it's been debunked, and hope that people conclude that the assertion is true.

I call these Hitchen's Razor variety criticisms since comments like these one can, and should, apply Hitchens's razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

So I just lop those off and don't worry about them, and neither should you. This dismissal is the justice such criticism deserves.

But now we come to a different category of critism...

The Some Effort Criticism - 

My original statements will be underlined

Debunk attempt : will be noted as such - with bold to indicate key points

My response to the "debunking" will be in red  

Debunk attempt one - Did God in the Old Testament specify that a Hebrew may purchase a person from the foreigners and keep him as property for the lifetime of the person purchased? The answer is yes, the purchased person is chattel by definition, thus chattel slavery. No amount of obfuscations and red herrings alters that fact.

What this seems to have missed is that, the main lynch pin of my argument. The Anti-Kidnap law - and the Anti-Return law. As I sated in my argument:

These laws very explicitly outlaw chattel slavery. With the anti-kidnap law, one could not take anyone against their will, sell or possess them, nor could they be returned if they left. LV25:44-46 is the main verse critics use to argue for chattel slavery, but given these two laws, it's reasonable to read that passage through the lens of indentured servitude.

Regrettably the criticism doesn't take this key points into considereation. 

Given the above, what Lev 25: 44-46 is saying is, peoples from other nations were going to volunteer themselves into the hands of the Israelites - it was permissible to only "purchase" men and women who voluntarily sold themselves into indentured service, which is a big difference from being held against one’s own free will. Voluntary service doesn't equal chattel slavery. And remember, any bond-servant purchased from the Gentiles had the right to flee their master.

It is very difficult to think that the Bible endorses or supports chattel slavery with the Anti-Kidnap and the Anti-return laws in mind.  This is why they need to ignore it. 

Debunk attempt two: 

This alone is enough to dismiss your entire post [Lv 25] and to exemplify the issues in your approach. This passage is the most direct and explicit statement of chattel slavery in the Bible - but you only offer a paper-thin response to it, none of which actually addresses the substance of the passage. You also mysteriously leave out the extremely relevant first half of this passage; here is the full thing: Lev 25:39-46

This makes the same fatal flaw as the one above: ignoring  point 4 - Anti-Kidnap  anti-return laws. Ironically this rock solid foundation is called "paper-thin".   

Debunk attempt three: 

First, one would have to ignore points 1-7 above to reach that conclusion - in reference to LV 25:44-46: says you can buy a foreign slave, and you can bequeath them to your children

Let's break down your response: By itself this is a naked assertion and it's not clear how many of your 7 points would even relate to this. You do argue two specifically though, presumably the two you thought were most relevant, so I'll assume this is just teeing that up.

Calling my entire argument a "naked assertion" is low effort enough to warrant Hitchen's Razor

Debunk attempt four: 

One must assume, without any rational basis, that “ebed” must mean “chattel slave”. But as argued above the passage can mean, and most likely does mean "servants".

This is just completely absurd. No, one does not need to assume that "ebed" must mean "chattel slave" in order to find chattel slavery in this verse. We don't think this verse refers to chatter slavery just because it says "ebed"! We think that because of all the very explicit details of chattel slavery here - 

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my argument; if one is simply using the word "slavery" or "ebed" to say that means chattel slavery an argument without any rational basis. However, I did say that "whether "ebed" mean indentured servant, chattel slave, or something else would have to be determined by the context."

Debunk attempt five:

these people are your property, you can buy and sell them, you can leave them as inheritance, they remain owned for life. We also think it because of the extreme contrast between the two halves of this passage, which immediately clarifies what the meaning of "ebed" is here. The first passage describes indentured servitude of Israelites, and the second passage is written in direct contrast to it and clarifies very strongly that this is not the same indentured servitude slavery discussed in the first half. By your interpretation, 25:39 would be forbidding indentured servitude of Israelites, which is obviously inconsistent with everything you have said and also with the dozens of laws about how to treat Hebrew "ebed"s.

Once again this makes the EXACT same fatal flaw as the one above: ignoring the Anti-Kidnap/anti-returns laws. Ignoreing key points in an arument is NOT the path to debunking it. 

Debunk attempt six:

As Stuart notes [fact 7 above] "buy" means financial transaction related to a contract.

Yes, "buy" relates to transactions. Are you trying to say that the fact this verse uses "buy" is evidence it's not talking about chattel slavery? Even if you want to argue that this word can sometimes be used for other things, you know it's primarily used for buying property, right? This is not a counter to the verse!

Once again the EXACT same fatal flaw as above: ignoring the Anti-Kidnap/anti-returns laws.

Asking, "Are you trying to say that the fact this verse uses "buy" is evidence it's not talking about chattel slavery?" No,  I'm saying that Anti-Kidnap/Anti-Returns laws is evidence it's not talking about chattel slavery.  One must read it in the context of those laws.

Debunk attempt seven:

And note that vs 45 and 46 say that they may be your property and bequeath them to your sons. It doesn’t say must or will, it wasn't required or nor could it be imposed by force.

This is by far the most mind-boggling part of your defense. It says you may take them as property, not that you have to, so there's no chattel slavery here????? If I said "you may murder people if you want" would you read that to have no murder in it????

Sigh. So all this person has is, let's ignore the actual argument and attack a strawman version of it. 

How can they I'd just say go back and [read the response to objection F](https://deconstructingchristiandeconstruction.blogspot.com/2024/02/seven-facts-about-biblical-slavery.html) that answers this.

Debunk attempt eight:

This is very explicitly allowing you to do these things - to engage in chattel slavery. It sets out a legal way to own another person, to buy and sell them, to treat them as property. This passage could not possibly be more explicit about that. It takes care to give multiple redundant examples of property rights, to clarify things multiple ways, to contrast it with indentured servitude so that you can't possibly confuse it with that. This unambiguously says "you may engage in chattel slavery" and your response was "well it says 'may', not 'must', so that means the Bible outlaws chattel slavery".

Only if one ignores the Anti-Kidnap/anti-returns laws, then they could see that this was speaking of indentured servsants and "owning" their services. And these servants, upon the death of the master could be bequethed to the children until their contract runs out. Or they may choose to stay forever, 

Debunk attempt nine:

So to recap all you've said is: "Ebed" doesn't necessarily always mean slave; "Buy" refers to financial transactions;  This only says you "may" buy people as property, not "must"

All three of these are true! And none of them respond in the slightest to the objection that this verse describes chattel slavery clearly and obviously.

But the hat Anti-Kidnap/Anti-Returns laws do!

Debunk attempt ten:

There's so much else wrong here: your brazen mistreatment of slave-beating law which also ignores Exodus 21:28-32, 

Exodus 21:28-32 deals with a bull goring a man or woman. Furthermore corparate punishment was normal in the ANE, even free men could be beaten. So, this has nothing to do with slavery. 

Debunk attempt eleven:

Your attempt to preempt academic criticism because you know this is a fringe view that nearly every serious commentator in the last 2000 years would have found laughable while you yourself lean heavily on a scholar's authority, 

How am I "preempting academic criticism"?

Majority opinion isn't a test for truth.

Debunk attempt twelve:

your reading of a person who "desires" a woman captured in war and so "takes" her and makes her his wife who is not free to go unless he "doesn't delight in her" as just her buddy hanging out with her with no indication of rape,

The law stipulated that a rapist was to be killed by stoning, see Deuteronomy 22:25.

Debunk attempt thirteen :

The complete lack of any discussion of the enslavement of Israelites in Egypt which would counter like half your claims about the meanings of "ebed" and the state of slavery in the ANE, 

First I never said that "ebed" couldn't mean chattel slavery; I said that "whether ebed means indentured servant, chattel slave, or something else would have to be determined by the context.

Debunk attempt fourteen:

your absolutely BONKERS response to objection B that for your sake I'm going to let you reexamine and blame on the person you quoted, 

Calling my response "bomkers" is low effort enough to warrant Hitchen's Razor

Debunk attempt fifteen:

So to recap all you've said is: "Ebed" doesn't necessarily always mean slave, "Buy" refers to financial transactions. This only says you "may" buy people as property, not "must"

You missed the most important part of my argument: the Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law - These laws very explicitly outlaw chattel slavery. With the anti-kidnap law, one could not take anyone against their will, sell or possess them, nor could they be returned. Given that, it's reasonable to read LV25:44-46 through that lens. As I wrote earlier, one would have to ignore points 1-7 above [especially 4 & 5] to reach the chattel slave conclusion; sadly, this seems to be the case of most of the critical replies.

Debunk attempt sixteen:

The first passage describes indentured servitude of Israelites, and the second passage is written in direct contrast to it and clarifies very strongly that this is not the same indentured servitude slavery discussed in the first half.

It's right there in the verse: They are to be treated as hired workers...; the contrast isn't between indentured servitude and chattel slavery, but between indentured servitude and hired workers

Debunk attempt seventeen

By your interpretation, 25:39 would be forbidding indentured servitude of Israelites

Correct, They are to be treated as hired workers... which is different from an indentured servant.

"buying" slaves - The verb acquire [qanah] in Leviticus 25:39–51 need not involve selling or purchasing foreign servants. For example, the same word appears in Genesis 4:1 Eve’s having “gotten a manchild and 14:19 - God is the “Possessor of heaven and earth” Later, Boaz “acquired” Ruth as a wife (Ruth 4:10). So you are trying to force a narrow definition onto the word. And as noted earlier, "buy" can refer to financial transactions, as in "work for x amount of time for x amount of debt to be paid off".

Debunk attempt eighteen

these people are your property, you can buy and sell them, you can leave them as inheritance, they remain owned for life.

Nope, you've ignored the anti-kidnap law and the anti-return law. Under penalty of death they could not be bought or sold, or possessed against their will, and they always had the opportunity of escape without the fear of being returned. Again, one would have to ignore points 1-7 above [especially 4 & 5] to reach the chattel slave conclusion.

For an example of "ebed" escaping: But Nabal responded to David’s servants, “Who is David, and who is this son of Jesse? This is a time when many servants are breaking away from their masters! 1 Sam 25:10; Also 1 Kings 2:39 - Three years later, two of Shimei’s servants ran away to King Achish son of Maacah of Gath

Debunk attempt nineteen

It says you may take them as property

They were not considered property in the same sense as an ox or coat because escaped slaves were not to be returned (Deut. 23:15-16) but an ox or coat was to be returned (Exodus 23:4; Deut. 22:1–4). Since they were not considered strict property nor chattel slaves, it must be that the work these inherited slaves produced was considered the property of the master.

Leviticus 25:47 states that the strangers living within Israel could “become rich.” In other words, a foreign slave could eventually get out of poverty, become self-sustaining, and thus wouldn’t have to be a slave anymore. While foreigners in Israel could serve for life, serving multiple generations if they wanted (just like an Israelite slave could), the Torah didn’t require that. Third, except for automatic debt cancellation in the seventh year, foreign slaves were afforded the same protections and benefits as Israelite slaves, including protection if they decided to leave at any time.

There's so much else that you got wrong here, there's really no point addressing any more of your responses, until you figure out how you will deal with the Anti-Kidnap law & Anti-Return law which is the very foundation of my argument.

Debunk attempt  twenty

You read the anti-kidnapping and anti-return laws a certain way, take that as authoritative, and then say 'what the rest of the entire slavery code says is inconsistent with that, so we should read it some other way.' Not due to any internal reason within the text, but because it doesn't match your reading of these other two laws.

No, I do not say that the rest of the entire slavery code says is inconsistent with the anti-kidnapping and anti-return laws. I say that they are completely consistent with the rest of the entire slavery code if one understand that it talks abut voluntary servitiude. 

Debunk attempt  twenty-one

The verb acquire [qanah] in Leviticus 25:39–51 need not involve selling or purchasing foreign servants.

Are you planning to give any evidence for this, or are you just going to assert it? Saying the word has multiple meanings won't cut it! I agreed with you that the word refers to financial transactions. So what? You're concluding from that "and therefore this does not refer to the purchase of property." Why?????

You agree that acquire [qanah] refers to financial transactions; all I'm saying that based on that alone it doesn't necessarily mean  purchasing chattel slaves.  It could mean, just as easily, purchanse the services of someone. 

Debunk attempt twenty-two

You mention the "anti kidnap law" a lot. If there is a law that says "thou shalt not steal a car", is that the same thing as a law that says "thou shall not own a car"?

Slavery apologetics is just bizarre to me.

In order to aquire a slave one must take another person against their will - i.e. kidnap them. Which is vasly different than purchasing another's services. 

Differentiating between chattel slavery and voluntary servitude us foolish and absurd? I think it's wish to understand something before you judge it 

Debunk attempt twenty-three

Genocidal and slaving societies aren’t known for the consistency in their laws and action. Your whole argument seems to be on the level of denying Israelites ever killed anyone because it clearly says in the bible that killing is wrong so they can’t possibly have committed genocide.

I'm not saying that chattel slavery didn't happen in the ANE or in Israel, I'm saying that if it did it went against the law. Just like Israel had laws against muder, rape, robbery tht doesn't mean those things didn't happen.  those who did that broke the law as did those who partook in chattle slavery. 

Debunk attempt twenty-four

and they always had the opportunity of escape without the fear of being returned.

Slavery was a major social institution, and obviously allowing slaves to run away whenever they pleased would break a whole bunch of stuff. 

I agree, that slavery was a major social institution. I put multiple quotes showing that slavery was poverty based social institution. You accept one but not the other. Why?

For example, enslavement was used as a punishment for some crimes; a thief who can't afford his fine is sold as a slave (Exodus 22:2-4). 

Thanks, that's another example of debt slavery 

You would have us believe they can get up and walk away the next day if they don't feel like serving out their sentence.

Oh, please. You ncan't see the difference between one who voluntarily goes into indentured servitude and another who is sentenced to serve as slave to pay for crime?   

Creditors could take children as slaves to pay the debts of their dead fathers (2 Kings 4:1-7) - you would have us believe they could high-five the creditor and go back home.

Do you realize that Ancient Israel was an honor-shame society, where honor was a cultural value that could grant people power and status? And that walking away from a debt could seriously harm the entire family group? One's family's honor becomes your own and vise versa, as does the reputation of your hometown. That is why genealogies are so important. You can earn honor by doing something worthy or noble. And lose it by doing something unworthy or dishonorable. So to walk away isn't something that was taken lightly 

Debunk attempt twenty-five

Again, you rest your entire case (as you admit) on this plainly wrong reading of the return law. Here, let me quote a Talmudic commentator who says the exact opposite thing that you do and even quotes Deuteronomy 22 as support for returning escaped slaves: The Gemara states that verse is referring to a slave who escaped from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, 

The Gemara, a part of the Talmud, was written around 500 AD by scholars in Babylonia. The Gemara is a commentary on the Mishnah, a written version of the Oral Torah that was completed around 200 AD.

Deuteronomy was written around 630 BC; what was this interpreation based on? From something in the text?  What would that be? Show me where you getr that idea from the text: 

DT 23:14-16 Because the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.15 “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. 16 He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.

This  law applies to ALL slaves who have escaped from their masters

a. The decisive factor is that the text itself does not limit the law to foreign slaves  

b. This law would put pressure on the system of slavery in Israel to be of such a nature that it would be beneficial/tolerable to the slave. Though it could be abused, it would place strong pressure on Israelite society for justice in this area which would be in line with Anti-Oppression laws - 

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. [Leviticus 19:33-34]

You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt [Exodus 23:9]

The fact is Israel was not free to treat foreigners wrongly or oppress them; and were, in fact to, commanded to love them.

c. The fact that ANE cultures had both treaties that dealt with foreign runaway slaves and laws that dealt with internal runaway slaves may favor seeing this law as dealing with both.

Not a single one proposes an interpretation remotely similar to yours. Why do you think that is?

Incorrect. Two who do are Matthew Poole, see English Annotations on the Holy Bible and Christopher J.H. Wright in New International Biblical Commentary: Deuteronomy And of course the  one I cited in the original Seven Facts about Slavery article: 

HANEL Page 1007: "A slave could also be freed by running away. According to Deuteronomy, a runaway slave is not to be returned to his master. He should be sheltered if he wishes or allowed to go free, and he must not be taken advantage of. This provision is strikingly different from the laws of slavery in the surrounding nations, and is explained as due to Israel's own history as slaves. It would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution.

Debunk attempt twenty-six

Leviticus 25:47 states that the strangers living within Israel could “become rich.” In other words, a foreign slave could eventually get out of poverty, become self-sustaining, and thus wouldn’t have to be a slave anymore.

Your reading here is completely and absurdly wrong,... let me point out the obvious: Leviticus 25:47 speaks about foreigners. Foreigners, obviously, were not all slaves!

But neither does it exclude them; once out of indentured servitude they could become a hired worker - they already have the knowledge and skills - and thus work to become self-sustaining

Debunk attempt twenty-seven

Almost every protection for Israelite slaves specifically states it's for Israelites, not for slaves in general. I know of exactly two protections for foreign slaves - no murder (Exodus 21:20-21) and free them if you disfigure them

I cited the Anti-Oppression laws “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. [Leviticus 19:33-34]

You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt [Exodus 23:9]

In Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19, God charges all Israelites to love aliens  who reside in their midst, that is, the foreign members of their households, like they do themselves and to treat these outsiders with the same respect they show their ethnic countrymen. Israel's memory of her own experience as slaves in Egypt should have provided motivation for compassionate treatment of her sservants. But Deuteronomy 10:18 adds that the Israelites were to look to God himself as the paradigm for treating the economically and socially vulnerable persons in their communities.

Debunk attempt twenty-eight

You are wrong when you said chattel slavery is explicitly outlawed by an anti-kidnapping law. Saying you can't kidnap people is not the same thing as saying you can't own people as property. They are two different things, 

In order to own people as property, it must be against their will, so yes the Anti-Kidnap law does apply, since there are no Slave codes that legalize chattel slavery in Israel. The verses that people cite that say "buy" and "property" must be read in light of the anti-kidnap,  anti-oppression laws and voluntary servitude. 

Debunk attempt twenty-nine

To maintain your argument you were forced to claim that the Old Testament forbids indentured servitude of Israelites. The reason for this is that Leviticus 25:39-46 very explicitly and unambiguously draws a distinction between Israelite indentured slaves and foreign chattel slaves:

You want to deny chattel slavery and make the second half of this passage about indentured slaves instead. But this passage could not possibly be more clear that the first half is in contrast to the second, so that means the first half can't be about indentured slaves - so you claim that there were no Israelite indentured slaves and that they were all hired workers:

First, given my argument I reject your presumption that foreigners were chattel slaves

Second, there is a distinction between Israelite and foreign "ebeds", but it's not what you think.

Ellicott's Commentary says this about LV 25:39-40 - Under these circumstances he is not to be treated like heathen slaves who are either purchased or captured, and made to do the menial service which these Gentile slaves have to perform. The authorities during the second Temple adduce the following as degrading work which the Israelite bondman is not to be put to: He must not attend his master at his bath, nor tie up or undo the latchets of his sandals, etc.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible...but a brother, an Israelite, sold to another through extreme poverty, was not to be put to any low, mean, base, and disgraceful service, by which it would be known that he was a servant, as Jarchi notes; such as to carry his master's vessels or instruments after him to the bath, or to unloose his shoes; but, as the same writer observes, he was to be employed in the business of the farm, or in some handicraft work, and was to be kindly and gently used, rather as a brother than a servant, and to be freed in the year of jubilee.

Israelite and foreign could both be indentured servant, but only foreigners could do the work above. 

The good effort critism - These I actually appreciate this kind of critism, since an intelligent, in-depth conversation is hard to find on the internet. Not shockingly these are rare.

Debunk attempt thirty

You are wrong on ebed, the Hebrew word is actually abad

You are correct; abad, whose primary meaning is "to work, serve" is used 3x in Lev 25 and ebed whose primary meaning is "slave, servant" is used 8x; I don't see the meaning changing much, and certainly not to mean chattel slave.

I'll rework my argument to incorporate this into it. 

Note: This will be an ongoing post as I field other critisms and examine them to see if they have any merit. So far, nothing that would justify any significant changes