• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Slavery in the Bible: more than meets the eye?

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Let's address YOUR argument, yes:

"What I'd prefer is that people actually think through the consequences of their actions in the real world and their effects on other sentient creatures, rather than taking orders written down in ancient books written by people who knew far less about just about everything than we do today."

Redacted:

"My human ancestors, my parents, were morons. I know better than them, or their God. My subjective morality is superior. Masturbating, while I watch people gang rape other people in porn, even though I would intervene if I saw someone getting gang raped for real, is okay, because it's not like those trafficked teens who are now used up, suicidal 20-year-olds are Bible slaves. The real problem isn't my porn or me not purchasing fair trade good, you know, victimizing living people, it's the book our ancestors wrote long ago."
Seriously, dude? I'm trying to have a real discussion with you here and you come at me with this total perversion of what I said?

Perhaps you could try for once to be a reasonable human being and address what I actually said. Wouldn't that be the honest thing to do?

I have to say, this is just pathetic.
Do better.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
First, we have already established that you do not know what a tautology is.

Second, you misrepresent my position, recklessly, and concoct an absurd strawman, I gather because you realize that you cannot logically counter my position.

Third, you are engaging in all of this silly mental gymnastics to try to hoodwink, I guess yourself, into believing that the deity that YOU devoutly follow and worship, had no problem whatsoever with humans being kept (and abused) as property.
You, despite your 3 degrees, has swallowed that obvious lies of YouTube evangelists and crazy creationist ministries regarding slavery in biblical times being only to pay off debts - when it painfully obvious that this was solely for other Hebrews. In fact, in order to get to the Exodus lines about this, one has to GO PAST verses clearly outlining God's permission to buy slaves from foreign hordes as permanent possessions, especially their children:


Exodus 21

2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.


7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.


Then there is:

Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Leviticus 25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you
Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you
, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.​


You claim that this is my argument:

"Biblical morals are profane, because I believe slavery is wrong, and wherever my subjective morals don't intersect with any other belief system, I KNOW I'm right, since my subjective morals are absolutely inflexible. Slavery is ALWAYS "subjectively" wrong."​

I've said nothing about biblical morals being "profane" - I have said that your God is not a very good role model (in so many words), for He is more of a 'do as I say, not as I do' Law Giver.
You claim that this deity 'outlaws' slavery as far as you are concerned because of the 'love thy neighbor' thing, yet you totally ignore the very clear verses outlining from among whom Hebrews may buy slaves, how the slaves may be punished, how Hebrew masters can get away with murdering their slaves as long as it takes more than 3 days for them to die of their beatings, etc.

YOUR subjective morals - and the subjective morals of most of the hard-core evangelical/born-again types in this thread - seem to allow you to think slavery is totally OK, as long as Jehovah says so, but it is totally bad in other cases.

My "subjective morals" are at least MORAL, and consistently so on this matter. YOUR 'absolute' morals seem as wishy-washy as the love for Trump that so many 'sanctity of marriage'-types exhibit.





ME: Simple empathy-based opposition to slavery.


BB: Moral relativism embraced to rescue Jehovah from endorsement of slavery (to include real southern-style 'Murkan slavery); engaged in strawman fallacy; engaged in misrepresentation; engaged in the fallacy of shifting the burden.


WINNER: Me.

LOSER: BB

Your empathy-based opposition to slavery matches mine.

What you're lacking empathy for, however, is the indentured servitude role that afforded land, shelter and food to the impoverished. In the medieval period, serfs lived on property not their own, farmed it, and were afforded protection in this feudal system.

There are numerous provisions in the Israelite system that are prescient, empathetic, advanced. Tons of provisions for orphans, widows, the impoverished, etc. Simply following the Bible laws would virtually abolish poverty, hunger--and slavery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moz

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
It means that Jehovah had double standards.

You can pull this sad "apologetics" crap all you want - even as you totally IGNORE what you bible says about foreigners:



EXODUS 21
2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

So first, you can BUY a Hebrew servant. BUYING someone, even for a limited time, seems an odd way for them to 'pay off debts.'

But not for you, I guess... But look at what happens to the Hebrew slave's kids:


3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.​


Master gets to keep Hebrew slave's - you know, the guy that was purchased to pay off debts... - kids AND his wife! So moral!
And if a man sells his daughter as a slave? Well, she gets to be master's pet forever:



7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


I can barely contain myself - such is my awe at Jehovah's rules for slaves. Wait - there is more:

Exodus 21
20 “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

What's that? Beating people that you bought for - what is your "argument" - for merely paying off their debts? - is totally cool as long as they don;t die!
Again, the awe at your absolute morals just flow through me...

And here we have Jehovah's teachings re: from where good Hebrew folk can buy their slaves:

Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Leviticus 25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you

Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you
, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.​

So awesome! Hebrews - Jehovah's chosen - can buy slaves from heathen nations, the children of foreigners - and heck, if those slaves have kids, they are yours to give YOUR kids, for ever!
Can't beat those rules for merely paying off debts!
Although I do wonder - what were the debts that the children of foreign slaves had in order for them to be kept forever to pay off? Maybe you can explain that to us all, BB?


Back back to reality -

YOUR subjective morals - and the subjective morals of most of the hard-core evangelical/born-again types in this thread - seem to allow you to think slavery is totally OK, as long as Jehovah says so, but it is totally bad in other cases.

My "subjective morals" are at least MORAL, and consistently so on this matter. YOUR 'absolute' morals seem as wishy-washy as the love for Trump that so many 'sanctity of marriage'-types exhibit.


ME: Simple empathy-based opposition to slavery.


BB: Moral relativism embraced to rescue Jehovah from endorsement of slavery (to include real southern-style 'Murkan slavery); engaged in strawman fallacy; engaged in misrepresentation; engaged in the fallacy of shifting the burden.


WINNER: Me.

LOSER: BB

What I'm "ignoring" as best I can is the five-year-old-like protestations that you're "winning". I've voted for winners in debates before without giving extra points to those who tell me they're winning! If you wish to have an academic debate, try to confine your remarks to those adults make, please. You are starting to sound like President Trump and I'm guessing he's not a favorite of yours...

I don't ignore God's law regarding the enslavement of foreigners. He told the Israelites to KILL a bunch of foreigners. Don't be a child. Anyone can see slavery (for foreigners only, never Hebrews) as a type and shadow of what's coming--the entire COSMOS to the meek, everyone else in perpetual chains. Why not cut to the chase and give emotional arguments against ETERNAL HELL, which is far worse than slavery IMHO!

After all, you haven't made a fact-based argument yet, you've simply made emotional ones. "Wah-wah, the Bible God is mean!" does not prove or disprove Holy Writ!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moz

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
It doesn't.

Oh - you don't know what "proscribe" means, sorry:

pro·scribe
/prōˈskrīb/
verb
  1. forbid, especially by law.
    "strikes remained proscribed in the armed forces"

    Similar:
    forbid, prohibit

    ban
    • denounce or condemn.
      "certain practices that the Catholic Church proscribed, such as polygyny"

Thanks for making my argument for me, and not even knowing it! That happens a lot with you, btw.

Not especially, but you seem to know a lot about this kind of pornography. I have a suspicion that a large number of conservative Christians do like that sort of thing, however. A few days ago, I came across a list of such folks that had been convicted of their crimes. There were hundreds.

Nope, but I can list one conservative Christian that, in his zeal to cover up the fact that his bible allows slavery - his Law Giver gave no laws proscribing it (sorry - outlawing) - tries to dodge and divert and distort my position. Soon perhaps you will claiming that slavery was just a thing in those days, no biggie - like the other 'argument' from zealots on here.

YOUR subjective morals - and the subjective morals of most of the hard-core evangelical/born-again types in this thread - seem to allow you to think slavery is totally OK, as long as Jehovah says so, but it is totally bad in other cases.

My "subjective morals" are at least MORAL, and consistently so on this matter. YOUR 'absolute' morals seem as wishy-washy as the love for Trump that so many 'sanctity of marriage'-types exhibit.


ME: Simple empathy-based opposition to slavery.


BB: Moral relativism embraced to rescue Jehovah from endorsement of slavery (to include real southern-style 'Murkan slavery); engaged in strawman fallacy; engaged in misrepresentation; engaged in the fallacy of shifting the burden.


WINNER: Me.

LOSER: BB

I apologize for using proscribe in error rather than proscriptive.

You're not "winning" points with me by attempting to parse healthy, decent pornography from bad pornography. Porn is filled with participants who are trafficked SLAVES. Be consistent, if you can, via your subjective morals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moz

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Hypothetically, that is correct.

Your hypocrisy does not seem to affect your frequent judgement of others.


Yes - that is your go-to dodge, your typical ad hominem. It is what you do when you've got nothing of merit to offer.

Of course, I've never claimed to be an all knowing, all loving creator deity with absolute morals, have I?

I've never claimed to be a devotee of such a being, have I?

I have never, in my zeal to defend such a "moral absolutist" (i.e., do as He says, not as He does deity) tried to change the subject and dodge and divert as you are doing, have I?

No - that is YOU, Mr.Morality, that has done all of those.



Your morality and your book in which slavery is OK?

In which the keeping of virgin girls after killing their families is OK?

In which slaughtering infants and fetuses because their parents did not worship the Law Giver of your book and your morality is cool?

THAT book? THAT morality?

My goodness, do you EVER stop and think about what you advocateand argue and assert for even a second?




And I judge that you have a clear tendency to project your own moral shortcomings and character flaws onto others all so you can prop up your mere beliefs, your mere indoctrination.

YOUR subjective morals - and the subjective morals of most of the hard-core evangelical/born-again types in this thread - seem to allow you to think slavery is totally OK, as long as Jehovah says so, but it is totally bad in other cases.

My "subjective morals" are at least MORAL, and consistently so on this matter. YOUR 'absolute' morals seem as wishy-washy as the love for Trump that so many 'sanctity of marriage'-types exhibit.


ME: Simple empathy-based opposition to slavery.


BB: Moral relativism embraced to rescue Jehovah from endorsement of slavery (to include real southern-style 'Murkan slavery); engaged in strawman fallacy; engaged in misrepresentation; engaged in the fallacy of shifting the burden.


WINNER: Me.

LOSER: BB

It's neither and ad hom nor a goal post shift nor any other fallacy to point out your double standard:

"I'm pissed off that an ancient book of myths, in a world where 1/3 of humanity was enslaved, dares to allow for slavery, but I advocate abortion, sex trafficking into porn, etc. because my morality meter is superior to that of all Christians."

I could put this post up of yours during a sermon to show what a double standard IS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moz

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Seriously, dude? I'm trying to have a real discussion with you here and you come at me with this total perversion of what I said?

Perhaps you could try for once to be a reasonable human being and address what I actually said. Wouldn't that be the honest thing to do?

I have to say, this is just pathetic.
Do better.

This remains sad from you:

"What I'd prefer is that people actually think through the consequences of their actions in the real world and their effects on other sentient creatures, rather than taking orders written down in ancient books written by people who knew far less about just about everything than we do today."

Why not just say you are postmodern/neo-Marxist, an iconoclast who hates our ancestors and all the ancient world of knowledge, and get over it? You're not wanting to be a history professor or deal with the most influential volume in human history, I understand...

PS. I'm quoting what you said and addressing it!

PPS. Instead of insulting our ancestors as morons, recognize their superb intelligence, there were few atheists "back then", because people were far more intelligent than now!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moz

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Your empathy-based opposition to slavery matches mine.
Yet, you needed to consult your holy book of absolutist morality from which to gain inspiration.
What you're lacking empathy for, however, is the indentured servitude role that afforded land, shelter and food to the impoverished. In the medieval period, serfs lived on property not their own, farmed it, and were afforded protection in this feudal system.
The bible was written in the medieval period?
If not, why mention this? As a distraction, perhaps?
There are numerous provisions in the Israelite system that are prescient, empathetic, advanced. Tons of provisions for orphans, widows, the impoverished, etc. Simply following the Bible laws would virtually abolish poverty, hunger--and slavery.
Very 1984.

Abolish slavery... by allowing slavery....


Here, I guess, is your debtor's slavery - indentured servitude, supposedly:

Exodus 21

2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

But then, it all breaks down:

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

So even the 'indentured servitude' routine fails for women and children! How loving and moral!

Then there is:

Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Leviticus 25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you
, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
What was it you wrote - ah yes:

"...the indentured servitude role that afforded land, shelter and food to the impoverished. In the medieval period, serfs lived on property not their own, farmed it, and were afforded protection in this feudal system."

No mention of the feudal system in the rules for slavery in the bible, so please dispense with that distraction in the future. It is unbecoming,
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
This remains sad from you:

"What I'd prefer is that people actually think through the consequences of their actions in the real world and their effects on other sentient creatures, rather than taking orders written down in ancient books written by people who knew far less about just about everything than we do today."

Why not just say you are postmodern/neo-Marxist, an iconoclast who hates our ancestors and all the ancient world of knowledge, and get over it? You're not wanting to be a history professor or deal with the most influential volume in human history, I understand...

PS. I'm quoting what you said and addressing it!
No, you haven't quoted what I've said and addressed it. You quoted it, then perverted it into something unrecognizable, and then addressed that.
Let's try doing this without you first bastardizing my comments to fit your agenda.
Like seriously, are you interested in an actual discussion about morality, or not?
Why do I have to continually beg you to for some intellectual honesty?

Do you not believe that human beings should consider the consequences of their actions and the effects of those actions on others when making moral decisions?


PPS. Instead of insulting our ancestors as morons, recognize their superb intelligence, there were few atheists "back then", because people were far more intelligent than now!
It's not their fault our ancient ancestors were more ignorant about the world than we are. It's just the way humanity has progressed. They gave morality a shot, as best they could at the time. We know better about a lot of things now - like slavery for instance!

What superb intelligence are you referring to? Do you seriously deny that we know far more about the world NOW than our ancient ancestors did thousands of years ago? How could somebody possibly deny that?
 
Last edited:

tas8831

Well-Known Member
What I'm "ignoring" as best I can is the five-year-old-like protestations that you're "winning".

LOL!

I just do that for fun. I do that because it is obvious that you have convinced yourself that YOU are 'winning' by distorting and diverting.
It isn't fooling anyone, so you can give that up any time now.

If you wish to have an academic debate, try to confine your remarks to those adults make, please. You are starting to sound like President Trump and I'm guessing he's not a favorite of yours...
But I'm guessing he is a favorite of yours, so I thought my emulation would impress you.
Academic debate? is that what this is? Was that what you thought you were having when you ignored my explanations re: the appendix and neural control and all that? Huh....

But sure - here are some adult remarks:


Leviticus 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Leviticus 25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
Leviticus 25:46
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you
, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.


Weird that you keep ignoring these lines from your Holy Book. Almost as if you are embarrassed by them.
I don't ignore God's law regarding the enslavement of foreigners.
"Love thy neighbor" - isn't that your token bible verse via which you find slavery immoral? By which you just ignore all that other stuff?
He told the Israelites to KILL a bunch of foreigners.
"All loving."
Don't be a child. Anyone can see slavery (for foreigners only, never Hebrews) as a type and shadow of what's coming--
Seems more like fascistic nationalism than the act of a Creator God.
the entire COSMOS to the meek, everyone else in perpetual chains. Why not cut to the chase and give emotional arguments against ETERNAL HELL, which is far worse than slavery IMHO!
The MEEK??? The dues slaughtering entire cities at Jehovah's command - well, except for the virgin little girls?
OK - there is no Hell.

After all, you haven't made a fact-based argument yet, you've simply made emotional ones. "Wah-wah, the Bible God is mean!" does not prove or disprove Holy Writ!
You're funny.
I am seeing the sad desperation of a fellow that has realized a lowly atheist, non-bible expert has shown you up and exposed your hypocrisy and double standards.

Hilarious.

SHORT VERSION:

God hates slavery!
But what about these verses?
Oh, right... um it is really just about paying off debts! Yeah, thats it! Just indentured servitude! No biggie! In fact, the sla - er, servants loved it!
Ok, well, what about this, where there is all this talk of permanent possession and buying foreigners as slaves and -
In the middle ages, indentured servitude SAVED people! And it was just for Hebrews!
But, that is irrelevant to these bible ver-
Oh, you're just a baby! You hate Jesus! Just because God really did allow foreigners to be slaves - which totally contradicts the arguments I have been making for the last few days - that doesn't mean the bible is false! Boogity boogity! Don't be childish!
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
One of my points:

If evolution is amoral, and you have no god, but devoutly follow evolution, you cannot say any kind of killing, subjugation, etc. is moral or immoral, logically speaking.

Logically speaking that is a non sequitur.of course, I can, or are you arrogating yourself the monopoly of morality based on what an imaginary being tells you?

And what I believe is not relevant. What interests me what you think. You seem to think that slashing kids against walls and ripping women apart with a sword can be moral acts.

Ciao

- viole
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
I apologize for using proscribe in error rather than proscriptive.
That makes no sense either, since the bible does NOT proscribe slavery at all, thus there are no proscriptive verses re: slavery, just rules on beating them and where to buy them and what to do with little girls and such.
You're not "winning" points with me by attempting to parse healthy, decent pornography from bad pornography.
I must have missed where the discussion switched from your God allowing slavery to your vast knowledge of underground porn. But I am curious - since you bring it up, what are your personal criteria for what constitutes "healthy, decent pornography"? Is that the stuff you can buy from Joel Osteen for $69.95? As opposed to "bad pornography" , like the stuff Don Jr. sells out of his limo's trunk?

Porn is filled with participants who are trafficked SLAVES.
Like Stormy Daniels?
180112185625-stormy-daniels-trump-exlarge-169.jpg


Family values are amazing.

Be consistent, if you can, via your subjective morals.
Projecting, are we?
Your absolutist morals tell your bad porn slavery bad, taking the daughters of the vanquished as sex slaves ala God's command good.

But seriously - Wow - you have abandoned using Scripture to show that Jehovah was against slavery completely (good - because He wasn't) to engage in some bizarre ranting about how much you know about illegal bad BDSM porn.

Regarding the porn you know so much about - from what I have read, most of that trafficking is from Russia and eastern Europe or maybe Indonesia - you know, your hero Fat Donny's people. I'm guessing now that people have started getting arrested, we might soon see that pee tape and more...
But you will still vote for him.

Any time you want to return to the actual topic of our discussion, let me know. But if you are just going to try to turn this into a porn-fest, count me out.

Unless you have some insider info on Falwell's "pool boy" scandal!
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
It's neither and ad hom nor a goal post shift nor any other fallacy to point out your double standard
It is when my "double standard" is a false claim. Like this - where you express your own repressed doubts in a fantasy "quote" from me:
"I'm pissed off that an ancient book of myths, in a world where 1/3 of humanity was enslaved, dares to allow for slavery, but I advocate abortion, sex trafficking into porn, etc. because my morality meter is superior to that of all Christians."

I could put this post up of yours during a sermon to show what a double standard IS.
Amazing - let's go through this cathartic act by BB -

"I'm pissed off that an ancient book of myths, in a world where 1/3 of humanity was enslaved, dares to allow for slavery"

Love that equivocation - his Law Giver God made no attempt to proscribe slavery, perhaps via Commandment or something, because He was apparently powerless to do anything since, you know, they were all doing it anyway. And sat and watched it all unfold, seeing as how He created it all...

But thanks for the "myths" part - cathartic?

"... but I advocate abortion, sex trafficking into porn, etc. because my morality meter is superior to that of all Christians."

Weird - I have never written that I "advocate" abortion. And here is the amazingly hypocritical part by our own BB - I HAVE written that humans have been performing abortions for a very long time, and I mentioned some hieroglyphs describing it from 1550 BC as support. Now what was it BB ascribed to me for an example of my hypocrisy -

"I'm pissed off that an ancient book of myths, in a world where 1/3 of humanity was enslaved, dares to allow for slavery"

Funny stuff - can't make it up! The guy that lambastes me for "advocating abortion" because it has been going on for millenia says bible-time slavery was fine because everybody did it!:facepalm:

And then things get creepy, with our bible-hero bringing up and implying that I advocate "sex trafficking into porn". Never wrote or implied such a thing, but BB the Christian sure does seem to have it on his mind.:eek:

He is right about one thing, though - "my morality meter is superior to that of all Christians." Well, maybe not all, but certainly superior to those evangelical types that weasel and flail to rescue Jehovah from all of the vile things He did and commanded in the bible. People like that.

And the really incriminating part:

"I could put this post up of yours during a sermon to show what a double standard IS."

So.. BB gives sermons? And would put up a LIE to his flock to attack me?

Such is the morality of the modern Evangelical, right-wing, pro-Trump "Christian."
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Actually, what position implies, is that your allmighty god was incapable of giving them a mechanism.



You could start by not going on conquest wars....




They should have stayed at home instead of invading other territories and enslaving the survivors.




If he can tell you not to eat shrimp, he can also tell you not to treat humans as personal private property.



Errr.... no. There was no "international law" back then which detailed "rules of engagement" like we have today in international treaties etc. There was no UN or international security council.

The rules were basically dictated by whatever king / emperor / what-have-you from that time.



Yet, he sends commandments all over.
You get killed for working on the sabbath or for disrespecting your parents, but you're fine if you keep slaves and beat them to the brink of dead, as long as they continue to survive for a day or 2 after the beeding. If they die a week later from internal bleeding, then you're just fine.



Yes, people back then were primitive barbarians that still had a lot to learn.
Basically, you are saying that your god's morality is on the same level.


edit: fixed quotes
Hi

Very clever, but it is not a win if you ignore the context of the Biblical outline.


The way you guys interpret things you would be accusing Shakespeare of promoting suicide with his "to be or not to be"
 
Last edited:

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
“Men Have Forgotten God” – The Templeton Address
by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.

Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.

What is more, the events of the Russian Revolution can only be understood now, at the end of the century, against the background of what has since occurred in the rest of the world. What emerges here is a process of universal significance. And if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire twentieth century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God.

The failings of human consciousness, deprived of its divine dimension, have been a determining factor in all the major crimes of this century.

The failings of human consciousness, deprived of its divine dimension, have been a determining factor in all the major crimes of this century. The first of these was World War I, and much of our present predicament can be traced back to it. It was a war (the memory of which seems to be fading) when Europe, bursting with health and abundance, fell into a rage of self-mutilation which could not but sap its strength for a century or more, and perhaps forever. The only possible explanation for this war is a mental eclipse among the leaders of Europe due to their lost awareness of a Supreme Power above them. Only a godless embitterment could have moved ostensibly Christian states to employ poison gas, a weapon so obviously beyond the limits of humanity.

The same kind of defect, the flaw of a consciousness lacking all divine dimension, was manifested after World War II when the West yielded to the satanic temptation of the “nuclear umbrella.” It was equivalent to saying: Let’s cast off worries, let’s free the younger generation from their duties and obligations, let’s make no effort to defend ourselves, to say nothing of defending others-let’s stop our ears to the groans emanating from the East, and let us live instead in the pursuit of happiness. If danger should threaten us, we shall be protected by the nuclear bomb; if not, then let the world burn in Hell for all we care. The pitifully helpless state to which the contemporary West has sunk is in large measure due to this fatal error: the belief that the defense of peace depends not on stout hearts and steadfast men, but solely on the nuclear bomb…

Today’ s world has reached a stage which, if it had been described to preceding centuries, would have called forth the cry: “This is the Apocalypse!”

Yet we have grown used to this kind of world; we even feel at home in it.

Dostoevsky warned that “great events could come upon us and catch us intellectually unprepared.” This is precisely what has happened. And he predicted that “the world will be saved only after it has been possessed by the demon of evil.” Whether it really will be saved we shall have to wait and see: this will depend on our conscience, on our spiritual lucidity, on our individual and combined efforts in the face of catastrophic circumstances. But it has already come to pass that the demon of evil, like a whirlwind, triumphantly circles all five continents of the earth…

By the time of the Revolution, faith had virtually disappeared in Russian educated circles; and amongst the uneducated, its health was threatened.

But in the 17th century Russian Orthodoxy was gravely weakened by an internal schism. In the 18th, the country was shaken by Peter’s forcibly imposed transformations, which favored the economy, the state, and the military at the expense of the religious spirit and national life. And along with this lopsided Petrine enlightenment, Russia felt the first whiff of secularism; its subtle poisons permeated the educated classes in the course of the 19th century and opened the path to Marxism. By the time of the Revolution, faith had virtually disappeared in Russian educated circles; and amongst the uneducated, its health was threatened.

It was Dostoevsky, once again, who drew from the French Revolution and its seeming hatred of the Church the lesson that “revolution must necessarily begin with atheism.” That is absolutely true. But the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot.


But there is something they did not expect: that in a land where churches have been leveled, where a triumphant atheism has rampaged uncontrolled for two-thirds of a century, where the clergy is utterly humiliated and deprived of all independence, where what remains of the Church as an institution is tolerated only for the sake of propaganda directed at the West, where even today people are sent to the labor camps for their faith, and where, within the camps themselves, those who gather to pray at Easter are clapped in punishment cells–they could not suppose that beneath this Communist steamroller the Christian tradition would survive in Russia. It is true that millions of our countrymen have been corrupted and spiritually devastated by an officially imposed atheism, yet there remain many millions of believers: it is only external pressures that keep them from speaking out, but, as is always the case in times of persecution and suffering, the awareness of God in my country has attained great acuteness and profundity.

It is here that we see the dawn of hope: for no matter how formidably Communism bristles with tanks and rockets, no matter what successes it attains in seizing the planet, it is doomed never to vanquish Christianity.

The West has yet to experience a Communist invasion; religion here remains free. But the West’s own historical evolution has been such that today it too is experiencing a drying up of religious consciousness. It too has witnessed racking schisms, bloody religious wars, and rancor, to say nothing of the tide of secularism that, from the late Middle Ages onward, has progressively inundated the West. This gradual sapping of strength from within is a threat to faith that is perhaps even more dangerous than any attempt to assault religion violently from without.

Imperceptibly, through decades of gradual erosion, the meaning of life in the West has ceased to be seen as anything more lofty than the “pursuit of happiness, “a goal that has even been solemnly guaranteed by constitutions. The concepts of good and evil have been ridiculed for several centuries; banished from common use, they have been replaced by political or class considerations of short lived value. It has become embarrassing to state that evil makes its home in the individual human heart before it enters a political system. Yet it is not considered shameful to make dally concessions to an integral evil. Judging by the continuing landslide of concessions made before the eyes of our very own generation, the West is ineluctably slipping toward the abyss. Western societies are losing more and more of their religious essence as they thoughtlessly yield up their younger generation to atheism. If a blasphemous film about Jesus is shown throughout the United States, reputedly one of the most religious countries in the world, or a major newspaper publishes a shameless caricature of the Virgin Mary, what further evidence of godlessness does one need? When external rights are completely unrestricted, why should one make an inner effort to restrain oneself from ignoble acts?

This deliberately nurtured hatred then spreads to all that is alive, to life itself, to the world with its colors, sounds, and shapes, to the human body. The embittered art of the twentieth century is perishing as a result of this ugly hate, for art is fruitless without love. In the East art has collapsed because it has been knocked down and trampled upon, but in the West the fall has been voluntary, a decline into a contrived and pretentious quest where the artist, instead of attempting to reveal the divine plan, tries to put himself in the place of God.

Here again we witness the single outcome of a worldwide process, with East and West yielding the same results, and once again for the same reason: Men have forgotten God

Our life consists not in the pursuit of material success but in the quest for worthy spiritual growth. Our entire earthly existence is but a transitional stage in the movement toward something higher, and we must not stumble and fall, nor must we linger fruitlessly on one rung of the ladder. Material laws alone do not explain our life or give it direction. The laws of physics and physiology will never reveal the indisputable manner in which the Creator constantly, day in and day out, participates in the life of each of us, unfailingly granting us the energy of existence; when this assistance leaves us, we die. And in the life of our entire planet, the Divine Spirit surely moves with no less force: this we must grasp in our dark and terrible hour.

To the ill-considered hopes of the last two centuries, which have reduced us to insignificance and brought us to the brink of nuclear and non-nuclear death, we can propose only a determined quest for the warm hand of God, which we have so rashly and self-confidently spurned. Only in this way can our eyes be opened to the errors of this unfortunate twentieth century and our bands be directed to setting them right. There is nothing else to cling to in the landslide: the combined vision of all the thinkers of the Enlightenment amounts to nothing.

Our five continents are caught in a whirlwind. But it is during trials such as these that the highest gifts of the human spirit are manifested. If we perish and lose this world, the fault will be ours alone.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “Godlessness: the First Step to the Gulag”. Templeton Prize Lecture, 10 May 1983 (London

I take Solzhenitsyn, Dostoevsky and Nietzche's analysis more serious than the games that you lot are playing. Ignore them if you wish but they were right about the initial violent appearance of this anti-God thinking and things are progressing exactly how they saw it.
Shortened to fit thread limit, look it up and read the whole thing..
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
You lot are so damned shallow, your petty snide arguments do not even approach the real issues. To claim that you are morally superior to your forbears is asinine and lazy thinking. You refuse to address the real issues or to contend with the real problems and just return to your childish mantra of we are more moral than your God. Idiots. Thinkers like Sartre examined your stupid shallow rants and dismissed them as mere self moralizing ,self aggrandizing proclamations that get nowhere near the true depth of these questions.

The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that “the good” exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky once wrote: “If God did not exist, everything would be permitted”; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself. He discovers forthwith, that he is without excuse. For if indeed existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one’s action by reference to a given and specific human nature; in other words, there is no determinism – man is free, man is freedom. Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimise our behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. – We are left alone, without excuse.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
Hi
Do you really think that works.
This is a subject that has been written about from Socrates to our present day and you think your snide remarks at the surface of the issue have any weight with me. If we are going to get technical then if God exists anything he does is moral by definition, that's the greeks btw not christian apologists. I think you were referring to this Greek question, "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" You can write all you want, claiming this and that if you wish, but that still won't help you. Especially when you are wrongfully stating it because of your lack of understanding.

I tried to explain, within the biblical narrative, why it is consistent that God moderates his actions to fit within the limitations of fallen creatures. To win the argument you would need to address the issues that are brought up in Eden and explain why you believe that God had the Biblical authority to impose his absolute morality on fallen creatures.
It is no skin off my nose whether you think that the collective reasoning on this by humanity over the millennia is somehow too stupid to see the brilliant points you laid out in your series of erudite claims but i do not do this for you it is for me and all you are doing by not wanting to treat the discussion seriously is reaffirming what i already know about the shallowness of the atheist position.

Peace.
Aristotle's law of noncontradiction states that "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

So the Greek is saying that, god cannot have absolute morality and also have "moderate" morality because the result is a contradiction.

There's no need to go to Eden, I already won when I've shown that your argument contradicted itself.

Giving your opinion about atheists because you cannot logically support your argument is not helping you.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Hi

Very clever, but it is not a win if you ignore the context of the Biblical outline.

So you're saying that there is a "context" in which it's okay to keep slaves?

The way you guys interpret things you would be accusing Shakespeare of promoting suicide with his "to be or not to be"

I'm not interpreting things. Just reading what it says. It's pretty clear and unambigous....
It's literally regulation of how to enslave people, who you can enslave, which slaves you can buy from / sell to whom, how to make hebrews slaves for life, ...

Sorry dude, but there is nothing there where supposed "context" makes the opposite true.
It's pretty straightforward.
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
So you're saying that there is a "context" in which it's okay to keep slaves?



I'm not interpreting things. Just reading what it says. It's pretty clear and unambigous....
It's literally regulation of how to enslave people, who you can enslave, which slaves you can buy from / sell to whom, how to make hebrews slaves for life, ...

Sorry dude, but there is nothing there where supposed "context" makes the opposite true.
It's pretty straightforward.
So it says God
So you're saying that there is a "context" in which it's okay to keep slaves?



I'm not interpreting things. Just reading what it says. It's pretty clear and unambigous....
It's literally regulation of how to enslave people, who you can enslave, which slaves you can buy from / sell to whom, how to make hebrews slaves for life, ...

Sorry dude, but there is nothing there where supposed "context" makes the opposite true.
It's pretty straightforward.
The people at the time accepted it as moral so who are you to judge them. That is part of the context you miss.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The people at the time accepted it as moral so who are you to judge them

A 21st century humanist with much higher ethical and moral standards then bronze aged ignorant peasants. And aparantly also then the god these people believed in.

That is part of the context you miss.

No, that part of the context is fully within my expectation, from the point of view that the scriptures are just the ramblings of bronze aged goat herders who didn't know any better.

I don't expect much more social wisdom from people living at that time then what I read in those texts.
The disagreement appears when people try to say it is the word of a benevolent, mercifull and just god who's moral superiority is unmatched. That clearly is wrong. Just about every person on this forum, and society at large - most of it anyway - for that matter, is vastly morally superior to the vile "ethics" we find in those texts.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No, you haven't quoted what I've said and addressed it. You quoted it, then perverted it into something unrecognizable, and then addressed that.
Let's try doing this without you first bastardizing my comments to fit your agenda.
Like seriously, are you interested in an actual discussion about morality, or not?
Why do I have to continually beg you to for some intellectual honesty?

Do you not believe that human beings should consider the consequences of their actions and the effects of those actions on others when making moral decisions?



It's not their fault our ancient ancestors were more ignorant about the world than we are. It's just the way humanity has progressed. They gave morality a shot, as best they could at the time. We know better about a lot of things now - like slavery for instance!

What superb intelligence are you referring to? Do you seriously deny that we know far more about the world NOW than our ancient ancestors did thousands of years ago? How could somebody possibly deny that?

Yes, humans should consider the consequences of their moral actions.

We know far more about the world now than our ancestors did, yes.
 
Top