In the atheistic world, if i said that I think Denise Richards is better looking than Carmen Electra, it is not different to me saying raping little girls is good.
Hey, remember, there are no absolutes, everything is subjective. Each person decides what is right as there are no absolutes, isnt that right atheists....?
No different at all.
Rostos -
Really. Come on.
Society has judged that raping little girls is wrong. Society has no opinion on the morality of saying that one woman is better looking than another.
Dont insult our intelligence. They arent the same. Every person does not decide what is right and wrong - SOCIETY determines what is right and wrong.
Please think before you post.
In the atheistic world, if i said that I think Denise Richards is better looking than Carmen Electra, it is not different to me saying raping little girls is good.
Hey, remember, there are no absolutes, everything is subjective. Each person decides what is right as there are no absolutes, isnt that right atheists....?
No different at all.
Rostos -
Really. Come on.
Society has judged that raping little girls is wrong. Society has no opinion on the morality of saying that one woman is better looking than another.
Dont insult our intelligence. They arent the same. Every person does not decide what is right and wrong - SOCIETY determines what is right and wrong.
Please think before you post.
Rostos -
Really. Come on.
Society has judged that raping little girls is wrong. Society has no opinion on the morality of saying that one woman is better looking than another.
Dont insult our intelligence. They arent the same. Every person does not decide what is right and wrong - SOCIETY determines what is right and wrong.
Please think before you post.
In YOUR society it is wrong, in Iraq and Afghanistan there are reports that little girls get raped and put up for prostitiution.
Remember, it is YOUR SOCIETIES VIEW against THERE SOCIETIES VIEW.
No different at all to one groups view thinking Andrew Bynum is better than Dwight Howard.
Remember, you got yourself into this mess.
There are NO ABSOLUTES according to you. It is one persons (Societies) view against anothers.
Now you are trying to say, cmon dont insult your intelligence.
Cmon pal, u cant have it both ways, is it absolutely wrong what i said or do you simply disagree on my views on raping little girls but ultimately my views that raping little girls is good is NOT WRONG.
You dont know it, but you are contradicting yourself.
In your world view, you CAN never ever say to me, it is absolutely wrong to rape and murder little girls. You are limited to just saying, i dont agree with you, but you cant be wrong either.
Rostos -
Really. Come on.
Society has judged that raping little girls is wrong. Society has no opinion on the morality of saying that one woman is better looking than another.
Dont insult our intelligence. They arent the same. Every person does not decide what is right and wrong - SOCIETY determines what is right and wrong.
Please think before you post.
In YOUR society it is wrong, in Iraq and Afghanistan there are reports that little girls get raped and put up for prostitiution.
Remember, it is YOUR SOCIETIES VIEW against THERE SOCIETIES VIEW.
No different at all to one groups view thinking Andrew Bynum is better than Dwight Howard.
Remember, you got yourself into this mess.
There are NO ABSOLUTES according to you. It is one persons (Societies) view against anothers.
Now you are trying to say, cmon dont insult your intelligence.
Cmon pal, u cant have it both ways, is it absolutely wrong what i said or do you simply disagree on my views on raping little girls but ultimately my views that raping little girls is good is NOT WRONG.
You dont know it, but you are contradicting yourself.
In your world view, you CAN never ever say to me, it is absolutely wrong to rape and murder little girls. You are limited to just saying, i dont agree with you, but you cant be wrong either.
In YOUR society it is wrong, in Iraq and Afghanistan there are reports that little girls get raped and put up for prostitiution.
Remember, it is YOUR SOCIETIES VIEW against THERE SOCIETIES VIEW.
No different at all to one groups view thinking Andrew Bynum is better than Dwight Howard.
Remember, you got yourself into this mess.
There are NO ABSOLUTES according to you. It is one persons (Societies) view against anothers.
Now you are trying to say, cmon dont insult your intelligence.
Cmon pal, u cant have it both ways, is it absolutely wrong what i said or do you simply disagree on my views on raping little girls but ultimately my views that raping little girls is good is NOT WRONG.
You dont know it, but you are contradicting yourself.
In your world view, you CAN never ever say to me, it is absolutely wrong to rape and murder little girls. You are limited to just saying, i dont agree with you, but you cant be wrong either.
You are so dopey.
I am not saying that it is absolutely wrong to do anything.
I am saying that it is morally and subjectively wrong to do lots of things, including raping little girls. And FYI - society means the human race - not an arbitrary tribe, border, or group of people. Morals are the common understanding of humanity.
Slavery used to be acceptable (in your bible god gives rules for it), and now it is not. So if slavery is ABSOLUTELY immoral, why does your bible say it is moral? Maybe because morality is subjective, and changes over time.
In YOUR society it is wrong, in Iraq and Afghanistan there are reports that little girls get raped and put up for prostitiution.
Remember, it is YOUR SOCIETIES VIEW against THERE SOCIETIES VIEW.
No different at all to one groups view thinking Andrew Bynum is better than Dwight Howard.
Remember, you got yourself into this mess.
There are NO ABSOLUTES according to you. It is one persons (Societies) view against anothers.
Now you are trying to say, cmon dont insult your intelligence.
Cmon pal, u cant have it both ways, is it absolutely wrong what i said or do you simply disagree on my views on raping little girls but ultimately my views that raping little girls is good is NOT WRONG.
You dont know it, but you are contradicting yourself.
In your world view, you CAN never ever say to me, it is absolutely wrong to rape and murder little girls. You are limited to just saying, i dont agree with you, but you cant be wrong either.
You are so dopey.
I am not saying that it is absolutely wrong to do anything.
I am saying that it is morally and subjectively wrong to do lots of things, including raping little girls. And FYI - society means the human race - not an arbitrary tribe, border, or group of people. Morals are the common understanding of humanity.
Slavery used to be acceptable (in your bible god gives rules for it), and now it is not. So if slavery is ABSOLUTELY immoral, why does your bible say it is moral? Maybe because morality is subjective, and changes over time.
Me dumb?
Listen to yourselves, just listen to yourselves.
All what i am saying is, if i think raping little girls is good, NO ONE is in a position to say my comments are WRONG.
That is in YOUR world view. Dont try and twist it around after u realise the mess you got yourselves into
Me dumb?
Listen to yourselves, just listen to yourselves.
All what i am saying is, if i think raping little girls is good, NO ONE is in a position to say my comments are WRONG.
That is in YOUR world view. Dont try and twist it around after u realise the mess you got yourselves into
Me dumb?
Listen to yourselves, just listen to yourselves.
All what i am saying is, if i think raping little girls is good, NO ONE is in a position to say my comments are WRONG.
That is in YOUR world view. Dont try and twist it around after u realise the mess you got yourselves into
No, society says you are wrong, and a court of law would say you are wrong, and morality says you are wrong. Morality is not YOUR view, it is the COLLECTIVE view of society.
What mess am I in? You are such a silly person. Please read what I wrote a couple of times before you embarass yourself in your next post.
Me dumb?
Listen to yourselves, just listen to yourselves.
All what i am saying is, if i think raping little girls is good, NO ONE is in a position to say my comments are WRONG.
That is in YOUR world view. Dont try and twist it around after u realise the mess you got yourselves into
No, society says you are wrong, and a court of law would say you are wrong, and morality says you are wrong. Morality is not YOUR view, it is the COLLECTIVE view of society.
What mess am I in? You are such a silly person. Please read what I wrote a couple of times before you embarass yourself in your next post.
No, society says you are wrong, and a court of law would say you are wrong, and morality says you are wrong. Morality is not YOUR view, it is the COLLECTIVE view of society.
What mess am I in? You are such a silly person. Please read what I wrote a couple of times before you embarass yourself in your next post.
I am taking great pleasure reading how you are contradicting yourself
1st of all, Society says it is wrong? In Afghanistan and Iraq, some people think it is ok for children to be up for prostitution. You and your society may disagree with it, but in the atheistic view, it is NOT WRONG. How can it. Just because your society thinks its wrong, it is one societies view against another. How can you say it is wrong? What standard are you measuring it against? Societies? It is one societies view against another. There is no right and wrong. It is just one view against another in your atheistic world.
The LAW? LOLOLOL, so what about in Iraq or Hitlers rein, if you disagreed or didnt follow them, it is ok to kill them. Hey, that is there law isnt it? Ok then cause it is the law it is ok to do it.
Collective view? So because alot of people might think Carmen Electra is better looking than Denise Richards, is Carmen Electra absolutely better looking than Denise Richards? I think Denise is better looking. Are you going to say i am wrong because the majority of people think Carmen is better? Cause that is what you are saying.
On one hand you are saying there are NO absolutes, yet in the same sentence you are saying someones view can be wrong? That is the biggest contradiction anyone on this thread has ever made.
No, society says you are wrong, and a court of law would say you are wrong, and morality says you are wrong. Morality is not YOUR view, it is the COLLECTIVE view of society.
What mess am I in? You are such a silly person. Please read what I wrote a couple of times before you embarass yourself in your next post.
I am taking great pleasure reading how you are contradicting yourself
1st of all, Society says it is wrong? In Afghanistan and Iraq, some people think it is ok for children to be up for prostitution. You and your society may disagree with it, but in the atheistic view, it is NOT WRONG. How can it. Just because your society thinks its wrong, it is one societies view against another. How can you say it is wrong? What standard are you measuring it against? Societies? It is one societies view against another. There is no right and wrong. It is just one view against another in your atheistic world.
The LAW? LOLOLOL, so what about in Iraq or Hitlers rein, if you disagreed or didnt follow them, it is ok to kill them. Hey, that is there law isnt it? Ok then cause it is the law it is ok to do it.
Collective view? So because alot of people might think Carmen Electra is better looking than Denise Richards, is Carmen Electra absolutely better looking than Denise Richards? I think Denise is better looking. Are you going to say i am wrong because the majority of people think Carmen is better? Cause that is what you are saying.
On one hand you are saying there are NO absolutes, yet in the same sentence you are saying someones view can be wrong? That is the biggest contradiction anyone on this thread has ever made.
I am taking great pleasure reading how you are contradicting yourself
1st of all, Society says it is wrong? In Afghanistan and Iraq, some people think it is ok for children to be up for prostitution. You and your society may disagree with it, but in the atheistic view, it is NOT WRONG. How can it. Just because your society thinks its wrong, it is one societies view against another. How can you say it is wrong? What standard are you measuring it against? Societies? It is one societies view against another. There is no right and wrong. It is just one view against another in your atheistic world.
The LAW? LOLOLOL, so what about in Iraq or Hitlers rein, if you disagreed or didnt follow them, it is ok to kill them. Hey, that is there law isnt it? Ok then cause it is the law it is ok to do it.
Collective view? So because alot of people might think Carmen Electra is better looking than Denise Richards, is Carmen Electra absolutely better looking than Denise Richards? I think Denise is better looking. Are you going to say i am wrong because the majority of people think Carmen is better? Cause that is what you are saying.
On one hand you are saying there are NO absolutes, yet in the same sentence you are saying someones view can be wrong? That is the biggest contradiction anyone on this thread has ever made.
Once again:
1. Society does not mean afghanistan. Society means humanity. When Hitler was doing his thing, it was immoral because humanity views it as immoral, even though Germany did not.
2. Who is better looking does not apply to morals. I feel stupid for having to type that.
Society judges what morality is. There is nothing contradictory about that. There are no absolute morals. That does not preclude society from enforcing those morals that they judge are relevant. Society CAN tell an individual that they are immoral.
Jeesh.
I am taking great pleasure reading how you are contradicting yourself
1st of all, Society says it is wrong? In Afghanistan and Iraq, some people think it is ok for children to be up for prostitution. You and your society may disagree with it, but in the atheistic view, it is NOT WRONG. How can it. Just because your society thinks its wrong, it is one societies view against another. How can you say it is wrong? What standard are you measuring it against? Societies? It is one societies view against another. There is no right and wrong. It is just one view against another in your atheistic world.
The LAW? LOLOLOL, so what about in Iraq or Hitlers rein, if you disagreed or didnt follow them, it is ok to kill them. Hey, that is there law isnt it? Ok then cause it is the law it is ok to do it.
Collective view? So because alot of people might think Carmen Electra is better looking than Denise Richards, is Carmen Electra absolutely better looking than Denise Richards? I think Denise is better looking. Are you going to say i am wrong because the majority of people think Carmen is better? Cause that is what you are saying.
On one hand you are saying there are NO absolutes, yet in the same sentence you are saying someones view can be wrong? That is the biggest contradiction anyone on this thread has ever made.
Once again:
1. Society does not mean afghanistan. Society means humanity. When Hitler was doing his thing, it was immoral because humanity views it as immoral, even though Germany did not.
2. Who is better looking does not apply to morals. I feel stupid for having to type that.
Society judges what morality is. There is nothing contradictory about that. There are no absolute morals. That does not preclude society from enforcing those morals that they judge are relevant. Society CAN tell an individual that they are immoral.
Jeesh.
Why dont you try addressing the issue of slavery in the bible. If slavery is absolutely immoral, why does the Bible set out rules for its acceptance?
Please tell me how the morality of slavery has not changed over time.
Concentrate, dont get distracted, and dont ignore the question.
Why dont you try addressing the issue of slavery in the bible. If slavery is absolutely immoral, why does the Bible set out rules for its acceptance?
Please tell me how the morality of slavery has not changed over time.
Concentrate, dont get distracted, and dont ignore the question.
You are wrong again, you can fulfill prophecies in the same book because the individual books in the Bible were written over a time period of many centuries. The first book Genesis written by Moses, was written in 1450-1410 B.C. and the last book of Revelations written by John the Apostle, was written in A.D. 95.
God used many authors...as many as forty writers--over a time period of many centuries to write the sixty-six books of the Bible.
So in essence the Holy Bible is really not just one book but 66 books compiled to make one book that took centuries for its completion.
Did you all believe the Holy Bible was written by one inspired writer, in a certain year or something?...lol Certainly if that was the case then your argument would be correct...lol but as I mentioned above that is not the case.
And so your argument when you stated, "YOU CAN'T STATE PROPHECIES WITHIN A BOOK AND FULFILL THEM WITHIN THE SAME BOOK. THAT IS NOT FULFILLING PROPHECIES."....is entirely misleading and wrong.
So could I get you br. kitty to acknowledge this mistake of yours?
If you don't acknowledge it, then you can't keep saying it is just br. Rostos and I that ignore questions, which will then prove yourself to be a hypocrite!
My words are plain to anyone with understanding, clear to those with knowledge. ---Proverbs 8:9
Praise the Lord Almighty!!
You are wrong again, you can fulfill prophecies in the same book because the individual books in the Bible were written over a time period of many centuries. The first book Genesis written by Moses, was written in 1450-1410 B.C. and the last book of Revelations written by John the Apostle, was written in A.D. 95.
God used many authors...as many as forty writers--over a time period of many centuries to write the sixty-six books of the Bible.
So in essence the Holy Bible is really not just one book but 66 books compiled to make one book that took centuries for its completion.
Did you all believe the Holy Bible was written by one inspired writer, in a certain year or something?...lol Certainly if that was the case then your argument would be correct...lol but as I mentioned above that is not the case.
And so your argument when you stated, "YOU CAN'T STATE PROPHECIES WITHIN A BOOK AND FULFILL THEM WITHIN THE SAME BOOK. THAT IS NOT FULFILLING PROPHECIES."....is entirely misleading and wrong.
So could I get you br. kitty to acknowledge this mistake of yours?
If you don't acknowledge it, then you can't keep saying it is just br. Rostos and I that ignore questions, which will then prove yourself to be a hypocrite!
My words are plain to anyone with understanding, clear to those with knowledge. ---Proverbs 8:9
Praise the Lord Almighty!!
Once again:
1. Society does not mean afghanistan. Society means humanity. When Hitler was doing his thing, it was immoral because humanity views it as immoral, even though Germany did not.
2. Who is better looking does not apply to morals. I feel stupid for having to type that.
Society judges what morality is. There is nothing contradictory about that. There are no absolute morals. That does not preclude society from enforcing those morals that they judge are relevant. Society CAN tell an individual that they are immoral.
Jeesh.
In your atheistic world, you said there is no such thing as ABSOLUTES. Ok,
So if i say i think raping little girls is ok, then you can ONLY be limited to saying, "i disagree with you, however you are NOT WRONG".
Thats it, that is all what you have to say.
You can say "Society thinks it is wrong or immoral, but raping girls is NOT ABSOLUTELY wrong. YOU ARE NOT ABSOLUTELY WRONG for thinking raping little girls is right or good".
You and your buddies said there are no absolutes yet in the same sentence you are saying my comment is WRONG? How can a comment be wrong in a world where there are no moral absolutes? ABSOLUTES mean ABSOLUTES, EVERYONE, not societies, i mean EVERYONE.
It is a massive contradiction what you are saying
What a hypocrit.
Once again:
1. Society does not mean afghanistan. Society means humanity. When Hitler was doing his thing, it was immoral because humanity views it as immoral, even though Germany did not.
2. Who is better looking does not apply to morals. I feel stupid for having to type that.
Society judges what morality is. There is nothing contradictory about that. There are no absolute morals. That does not preclude society from enforcing those morals that they judge are relevant. Society CAN tell an individual that they are immoral.
Jeesh.
In your atheistic world, you said there is no such thing as ABSOLUTES. Ok,
So if i say i think raping little girls is ok, then you can ONLY be limited to saying, "i disagree with you, however you are NOT WRONG".
Thats it, that is all what you have to say.
You can say "Society thinks it is wrong or immoral, but raping girls is NOT ABSOLUTELY wrong. YOU ARE NOT ABSOLUTELY WRONG for thinking raping little girls is right or good".
You and your buddies said there are no absolutes yet in the same sentence you are saying my comment is WRONG? How can a comment be wrong in a world where there are no moral absolutes? ABSOLUTES mean ABSOLUTES, EVERYONE, not societies, i mean EVERYONE.
It is a massive contradiction what you are saying
What a hypocrit.
In your atheistic world, you said there is no such thing as ABSOLUTES. Ok,
So if i say i think raping little girls is ok, then you can ONLY be limited to saying, "i disagree with you, however you are NOT WRONG".
Thats it, that is all what you have to say.
You can say "Society thinks it is wrong or immoral, but raping girls is NOT ABSOLUTELY wrong. YOU ARE NOT ABSOLUTELY WRONG for thinking raping little girls is right or good".
You and your buddies said there are no absolutes yet in the same sentence you are saying my comment is WRONG? How can a comment be wrong in a world where there are no moral absolutes? ABSOLUTES mean ABSOLUTES, EVERYONE, not societies, i mean EVERYONE.
It is a massive contradiction what you are saying
What a hypocrit.
You are totally incoherent.
Try answering my question on slavery that you have conveniently ignored 3 times:
Why dont you try addressing the issue of slavery in the bible. If slavery is absolutely immoral, why does the Bible set out rules for its acceptance?
Please tell me how the morality of slavery has not changed over time.
In your atheistic world, you said there is no such thing as ABSOLUTES. Ok,
So if i say i think raping little girls is ok, then you can ONLY be limited to saying, "i disagree with you, however you are NOT WRONG".
Thats it, that is all what you have to say.
You can say "Society thinks it is wrong or immoral, but raping girls is NOT ABSOLUTELY wrong. YOU ARE NOT ABSOLUTELY WRONG for thinking raping little girls is right or good".
You and your buddies said there are no absolutes yet in the same sentence you are saying my comment is WRONG? How can a comment be wrong in a world where there are no moral absolutes? ABSOLUTES mean ABSOLUTES, EVERYONE, not societies, i mean EVERYONE.
It is a massive contradiction what you are saying
What a hypocrit.
You are totally incoherent.
Try answering my question on slavery that you have conveniently ignored 3 times:
Why dont you try addressing the issue of slavery in the bible. If slavery is absolutely immoral, why does the Bible set out rules for its acceptance?
Please tell me how the morality of slavery has not changed over time.
Dont equivocate.
You cannot equivocate society with EVERYONE.
Absolutes mean EVERYONE.
Your discussions are limited to, "i disagree with you that raping girls is ok, society doesnt agree with you, but you are not ABSOLUTELY wrong that raping girls is wrong".
The bottom line is you can NOT say i am ABSOLUTELY wrong.
Comparing my view to societies is absurd as you are equivocating society with EVERYONE.
You are just contradicting yourself. Even your leading athiets Sam Harris conceedes this.
Dont equivocate.
You cannot equivocate society with EVERYONE.
Absolutes mean EVERYONE.
Your discussions are limited to, "i disagree with you that raping girls is ok, society doesnt agree with you, but you are not ABSOLUTELY wrong that raping girls is wrong".
The bottom line is you can NOT say i am ABSOLUTELY wrong.
Comparing my view to societies is absurd as you are equivocating society with EVERYONE.
You are just contradicting yourself. Even your leading athiets Sam Harris conceedes this.
vanzack, do you claim that the Bible approves of slavery, implicating God as its supporter, since rules governing slavery can be found in the both the Old and New Testament.
First, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the OT was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today, in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to OT law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:16
So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.
So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable, up to death of the offending party. Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath, slander a slave, have sex with another man's slave, or return an escaped slave. A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first. In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".
Since many of the early Christians were slaves to Romans, they were encouraged to become free if possible, but not worry about it if not possible. The Roman empire practiced involuntary slavery, so rules were established for Christians who were subject to this slavery or held slaves prior to becoming Christians. The rules established for slaves were similar to those established for other Christians with regard to being subject to governing authorities. Slaves were told to be obedient to their master and serve them sincerely, as if serving the Lord Himself. Paul instructed slaves to serve with honor, so that Christianity would not be looked down upon.
As with slaves, instructions were given to their masters as to how they were to treat their slaves. For example, they were not to be threatened, but treated with justice and fairness. And that this was to be done because God is the Master of all people, and does not show partiality on the basis of social status or position.
There is an interesting letter in the NT that gives some insight into the problems encountered in the early Christian church regarding the issue of slavery. Paul, the author of the letter, is writing from a Roman prison awaiting trial He is writing to Philemon, who runs a local Christian church out of his house (since Christianity was highly persecuted at this point in time). Philemon, we find out, is the master of the slave Onesimus, who has escaped but has been converted to Christianity by Paul. In the letter, Paul indicates that he is sending Onesimus back to Philemon. However, Paul says that he has confidence that Philemon will "do what is proper" although Paul wants him to do it by his "own free will" Even so, Paul indicates that Onesimus would be a great aid in helping him spread the gospel. Paul ends the letter by saying that he has "confidence in your obedience" and indicates that he knows Philemon "will do even more than what I say." Although Paul did not directly order Philemon to release Onesimus from slavery, it would have been difficult to come away with any other conclusion from his letter.
The idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is shown to be false. In fact, anybody who was caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed. However, since voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the Bible proscribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves. Paul, the author of many of the NT writings, virtually ordered the Christian Philemon to release his Christian slave from his service to "do what is proper". In addition, numerous verses from the NT show that God values slaves as much as any free person and is not partial to anyone's standing before other people.
vanzack, do you claim that the Bible approves of slavery, implicating God as its supporter, since rules governing slavery can be found in the both the Old and New Testament.
First, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the OT was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today, in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to OT law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:16
So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.
So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable, up to death of the offending party. Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath, slander a slave, have sex with another man's slave, or return an escaped slave. A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first. In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".
Since many of the early Christians were slaves to Romans, they were encouraged to become free if possible, but not worry about it if not possible. The Roman empire practiced involuntary slavery, so rules were established for Christians who were subject to this slavery or held slaves prior to becoming Christians. The rules established for slaves were similar to those established for other Christians with regard to being subject to governing authorities. Slaves were told to be obedient to their master and serve them sincerely, as if serving the Lord Himself. Paul instructed slaves to serve with honor, so that Christianity would not be looked down upon.
As with slaves, instructions were given to their masters as to how they were to treat their slaves. For example, they were not to be threatened, but treated with justice and fairness. And that this was to be done because God is the Master of all people, and does not show partiality on the basis of social status or position.
There is an interesting letter in the NT that gives some insight into the problems encountered in the early Christian church regarding the issue of slavery. Paul, the author of the letter, is writing from a Roman prison awaiting trial He is writing to Philemon, who runs a local Christian church out of his house (since Christianity was highly persecuted at this point in time). Philemon, we find out, is the master of the slave Onesimus, who has escaped but has been converted to Christianity by Paul. In the letter, Paul indicates that he is sending Onesimus back to Philemon. However, Paul says that he has confidence that Philemon will "do what is proper" although Paul wants him to do it by his "own free will" Even so, Paul indicates that Onesimus would be a great aid in helping him spread the gospel. Paul ends the letter by saying that he has "confidence in your obedience" and indicates that he knows Philemon "will do even more than what I say." Although Paul did not directly order Philemon to release Onesimus from slavery, it would have been difficult to come away with any other conclusion from his letter.
The idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is shown to be false. In fact, anybody who was caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed. However, since voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the Bible proscribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves. Paul, the author of many of the NT writings, virtually ordered the Christian Philemon to release his Christian slave from his service to "do what is proper". In addition, numerous verses from the NT show that God values slaves as much as any free person and is not partial to anyone's standing before other people.
Dont equivocate.
You cannot equivocate society with EVERYONE.
Absolutes mean EVERYONE.
Your discussions are limited to, "i disagree with you that raping girls is ok, society doesnt agree with you, but you are not ABSOLUTELY wrong that raping girls is wrong".
The bottom line is you can NOT say i am ABSOLUTELY wrong.
Comparing my view to societies is absurd as you are equivocating society with EVERYONE.
You are just contradicting yourself. Even your leading athiets Sam Harris conceedes this.
You are such a silly person. "leading atheists" - as if atheists have a leader like you dopey christians.
Nobody is saying you are ABSOLUTELY wrong. In fact (if you can read), we are all saying you are SUBJECTIVELY wrong. So score a point for yourself, against yourself - you are having a debate against yourself.
Society is not EVERYONE. It is the majority held human viewpoint. Where do you come up with these rules?
Oh, and by the way, try to answer this - for the 4th time you ignored it:
Why dont you try addressing the issue of slavery in the bible. If slavery is absolutely immoral, why does the Bible set out rules for its acceptance?
Please tell me how the morality of slavery has not changed over time.
Dont equivocate.
You cannot equivocate society with EVERYONE.
Absolutes mean EVERYONE.
Your discussions are limited to, "i disagree with you that raping girls is ok, society doesnt agree with you, but you are not ABSOLUTELY wrong that raping girls is wrong".
The bottom line is you can NOT say i am ABSOLUTELY wrong.
Comparing my view to societies is absurd as you are equivocating society with EVERYONE.
You are just contradicting yourself. Even your leading athiets Sam Harris conceedes this.
You are such a silly person. "leading atheists" - as if atheists have a leader like you dopey christians.
Nobody is saying you are ABSOLUTELY wrong. In fact (if you can read), we are all saying you are SUBJECTIVELY wrong. So score a point for yourself, against yourself - you are having a debate against yourself.
Society is not EVERYONE. It is the majority held human viewpoint. Where do you come up with these rules?
Oh, and by the way, try to answer this - for the 4th time you ignored it:
Why dont you try addressing the issue of slavery in the bible. If slavery is absolutely immoral, why does the Bible set out rules for its acceptance?
Please tell me how the morality of slavery has not changed over time.
A Victorian man has pleaded guilty to brutally murdering his niece with a hammer, saying bushranger Ned Kelly inspired him to enter a plea.
Gavin John Brooker, 52, of Benalla, attacked Annette Brooker, 31, with a hammer before stabbing her in the chest during an argument at her flat in February.
-------------
I really like what the above guy did, good stuff.
Well done. I completely agree with what he did.
Comments are welcolme
A Victorian man has pleaded guilty to brutally murdering his niece with a hammer, saying bushranger Ned Kelly inspired him to enter a plea.
Gavin John Brooker, 52, of Benalla, attacked Annette Brooker, 31, with a hammer before stabbing her in the chest during an argument at her flat in February.
-------------
I really like what the above guy did, good stuff.
Well done. I completely agree with what he did.
Comments are welcolme
vanzack, do you claim that the Bible approves of slavery, implicating God as its supporter, since rules governing slavery can be found in the both the Old and New Testament.
First, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the OT was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today, in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to OT law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:16
So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.
So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable, up to death of the offending party. Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath, slander a slave, have sex with another man's slave, or return an escaped slave. A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first. In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".
Since many of the early Christians were slaves to Romans, they were encouraged to become free if possible, but not worry about it if not possible. The Roman empire practiced involuntary slavery, so rules were established for Christians who were subject to this slavery or held slaves prior to becoming Christians. The rules established for slaves were similar to those established for other Christians with regard to being subject to governing authorities. Slaves were told to be obedient to their master and serve them sincerely, as if serving the Lord Himself. Paul instructed slaves to serve with honor, so that Christianity would not be looked down upon.
As with slaves, instructions were given to their masters as to how they were to treat their slaves. For example, they were not to be threatened, but treated with justice and fairness. And that this was to be done because God is the Master of all people, and does not show partiality on the basis of social status or position.
There is an interesting letter in the NT that gives some insight into the problems encountered in the early Christian church regarding the issue of slavery. Paul, the author of the letter, is writing from a Roman prison awaiting trial He is writing to Philemon, who runs a local Christian church out of his house (since Christianity was highly persecuted at this point in time). Philemon, we find out, is the master of the slave Onesimus, who has escaped but has been converted to Christianity by Paul. In the letter, Paul indicates that he is sending Onesimus back to Philemon. However, Paul says that he has confidence that Philemon will "do what is proper" although Paul wants him to do it by his "own free will" Even so, Paul indicates that Onesimus would be a great aid in helping him spread the gospel. Paul ends the letter by saying that he has "confidence in your obedience" and indicates that he knows Philemon "will do even more than what I say." Although Paul did not directly order Philemon to release Onesimus from slavery, it would have been difficult to come away with any other conclusion from his letter.
The idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is shown to be false. In fact, anybody who was caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed. However, since voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the Bible proscribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves. Paul, the author of many of the NT writings, virtually ordered the Christian Philemon to release his Christian slave from his service to "do what is proper". In addition, numerous verses from the NT show that God values slaves as much as any free person and is not partial to anyone's standing before other people.
You are a looneytunes revisionist.
Yeah OK. Slavery was not slavery in the Old Testament. It was a dorm room for laborers. Voluntary slavery.
Holy shit.
This sounds a lot like voluntary slavery:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. Exodus 12:2
All voluntary slavery!! Buying and selling people, and their children - but they are all volunteers!!!
The stupidity of the three stooges in this thread is epic.
vanzack, do you claim that the Bible approves of slavery, implicating God as its supporter, since rules governing slavery can be found in the both the Old and New Testament.
First, we must recognize that the Bible does not say God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the OT was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today, in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to OT law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:
"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:16
So, obviously, slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations. Unlike our modern government welfare programs, there was no safety-net for ancient Middle Easterners who could not provide a living for themselves. In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.
So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable, up to death of the offending party. Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath, slander a slave, have sex with another man's slave, or return an escaped slave. A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first. In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".
Since many of the early Christians were slaves to Romans, they were encouraged to become free if possible, but not worry about it if not possible. The Roman empire practiced involuntary slavery, so rules were established for Christians who were subject to this slavery or held slaves prior to becoming Christians. The rules established for slaves were similar to those established for other Christians with regard to being subject to governing authorities. Slaves were told to be obedient to their master and serve them sincerely, as if serving the Lord Himself. Paul instructed slaves to serve with honor, so that Christianity would not be looked down upon.
As with slaves, instructions were given to their masters as to how they were to treat their slaves. For example, they were not to be threatened, but treated with justice and fairness. And that this was to be done because God is the Master of all people, and does not show partiality on the basis of social status or position.
There is an interesting letter in the NT that gives some insight into the problems encountered in the early Christian church regarding the issue of slavery. Paul, the author of the letter, is writing from a Roman prison awaiting trial He is writing to Philemon, who runs a local Christian church out of his house (since Christianity was highly persecuted at this point in time). Philemon, we find out, is the master of the slave Onesimus, who has escaped but has been converted to Christianity by Paul. In the letter, Paul indicates that he is sending Onesimus back to Philemon. However, Paul says that he has confidence that Philemon will "do what is proper" although Paul wants him to do it by his "own free will" Even so, Paul indicates that Onesimus would be a great aid in helping him spread the gospel. Paul ends the letter by saying that he has "confidence in your obedience" and indicates that he knows Philemon "will do even more than what I say." Although Paul did not directly order Philemon to release Onesimus from slavery, it would have been difficult to come away with any other conclusion from his letter.
The idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is shown to be false. In fact, anybody who was caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed. However, since voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the Bible proscribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves. Paul, the author of many of the NT writings, virtually ordered the Christian Philemon to release his Christian slave from his service to "do what is proper". In addition, numerous verses from the NT show that God values slaves as much as any free person and is not partial to anyone's standing before other people.
You are a looneytunes revisionist.
Yeah OK. Slavery was not slavery in the Old Testament. It was a dorm room for laborers. Voluntary slavery.
Holy shit.
This sounds a lot like voluntary slavery:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. Exodus 12:2
All voluntary slavery!! Buying and selling people, and their children - but they are all volunteers!!!
The stupidity of the three stooges in this thread is epic.
Dont equivocate.
You cannot equivocate society with EVERYONE.
Absolutes mean EVERYONE.
Your discussions are limited to, "i disagree with you that raping girls is ok, society doesnt agree with you, but you are not ABSOLUTELY wrong that raping girls is wrong".
The bottom line is you can NOT say i am ABSOLUTELY wrong.
Comparing my view to societies is absurd as you are equivocating society with EVERYONE.
You are just contradicting yourself. Even your leading athiets Sam Harris conceedes this.
Dont equivocate.
You cannot equivocate society with EVERYONE.
Absolutes mean EVERYONE.
Your discussions are limited to, "i disagree with you that raping girls is ok, society doesnt agree with you, but you are not ABSOLUTELY wrong that raping girls is wrong".
The bottom line is you can NOT say i am ABSOLUTELY wrong.
Comparing my view to societies is absurd as you are equivocating society with EVERYONE.
You are just contradicting yourself. Even your leading athiets Sam Harris conceedes this.
For example, they were not to be threatened, but treated with justice and fairness.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Sounds fair to me!!!
BTW - you might want to read the last "since the slave is his own property" part. That might lead one to believe that this is actually a slave and not a day laborer.
It gets dumber and dumber.
For example, they were not to be threatened, but treated with justice and fairness.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Sounds fair to me!!!
BTW - you might want to read the last "since the slave is his own property" part. That might lead one to believe that this is actually a slave and not a day laborer.
It gets dumber and dumber.
It doesnt matter what you write. He is debating himself. He has a character for you and me, and he dialog for us - and then refutes it - and in the debate against himself- he always wins!!
Seriously, this thread has been fun - but these three stooges are sick. I mean really sick.
It doesnt matter what you write. He is debating himself. He has a character for you and me, and he dialog for us - and then refutes it - and in the debate against himself- he always wins!!
Seriously, this thread has been fun - but these three stooges are sick. I mean really sick.
Comments are welcolme
Comments are welcome.
Why dont you try addressing the issue of slavery in the bible. If slavery is absolutely immoral, why does the Bible set out rules for its acceptance?
Please tell me how the morality of slavery has not changed over time.
Comments are welcolme
Comments are welcome.
Why dont you try addressing the issue of slavery in the bible. If slavery is absolutely immoral, why does the Bible set out rules for its acceptance?
Please tell me how the morality of slavery has not changed over time.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.