Crime

nPeace said:

View attachment 45681 Meet Bill - a hardworking family man, who goes to work everyday of each weekday, to provide for his family - a wife and two young children.

While working one evening, a desperate masked man, burst into the store where Bill was just preparing to leave for home.
View attachment 45682 The robber demanded Bill hand over all the cash. During the robbery, Bill is shot several times, and the robber makes his escape.

View attachment 45683 Bill is rushed to the hospital "fighting for his life".
The fight is short-lives, as Bill succumbs to his injuries. View attachment 45684
His life snatched away...
View attachment 45685 Bill leaves to mourn, a grieving widow, and two children.

FBI Releases 2019 Crime Statistics
Is there a solution to crime? What is the solution to crime?
Do you see a future where there is no crime, or do you see crime existing forever into the future?

Why, or why not?
Feel free to participate in the poll.

Click to expand...

The death penalty is our only hope.

Just make the punishment for any crime the death penalty. Run a red light - death. Jaywalking- death. Littering - death.

Either people will stop committing crimes or we will just run out of people. win-win.

Nakosis said:

The death penalty is our only hope.

Just make the punishment for any crime the death penalty. Run a red light - death. Jaywalking- death. Littering - death.

Either people will stop committing crimes or we will just run out of people. win-win.

Click to expand...

I think you would run out of problems, not people.

Nimos said:

The only way I can see it happening is when people learn to value the greater good for all humans rather than individual people, cultures etc. So in that regard I agree with the overall idea that the bible speak of. But I strongly disagree that such thing should come through the belief in a God. It has to come from reasoning, like you probably won't find a lot of people living today, that wouldn't agree that killing animals to the point of extinction is probably not the best idea when it come to our chance of surviving. We don't need to hide behind the concept of a God to figure that out, we have enough knowledge today in order to explain why this is a fundamentally bad idea, the reason we are capable of doing this, is due to science and the technology, that allow us to study how each of these species and lifeforms interact with each other, not only locally, but globally. So we have rather good information, now we just need our economic and political system to catch up and that is obviously not easy as long as economics is the governing factor and is based on consumption and profit, its not exactly something that is optimal when it comes to sustainability. This is where the main issue is, whether you have a religious rule or not, it still can't get rid of this. That is why I think the only solution to a lot of these problems we have like crime, poverty etc. Has to be solved by changing how we assign value to thing.

How insane is it, that we have people starving in the world and then you have people like Bill gates that make 10+ million dollars a week. And it's not to point fingers at him, but I think it tells a lot about how we are doing things wrong.

To me the big question is, is it possible to change this system? And to me the only way to do it, is for things to not have any value or for things to not be a constant competition, but where the end goal and collaboration to solve problems is the main goal and not how much money you can pocket.

Greed as I see it, comes when you have scarcity. If you worry about being able to feed your family or whether you would end up sleeping on the street, or if it simply gives you what you could consider an advantages over others, then greed is a possible reaction.

But if you removed those, there is not really any reason to greed anything. And if people were taught why collaboration is better so everyone can live good lives, except a selected few, then that would go a long way as well. If we for a moment imagine that things were done differently, then everyone could live in luxury, its not that we don't have the resources on Earth and it probably doesn't take "that many" years, before mining the asteroid belts in our solar system is possible, which will give us almost infinite resources, especially, if a lot more effort were put into space programs, we have Mars as well, the Moon, lots of other moons around other planets as well. Obviously all this would require that we were sensible in regards to how we recycled things, stop all the use and throw away mentality etc. Made sure that products were designed and manufactured for the best possible quality and could easily be repaired, again to avoid constantly having to replace them in the name of profit.

It's definitely possible, but not with an economic system that works the way it does.

Click to expand...

Do you realize what keeps coming up, repeatedly in almost every post... if not all? "when people learn..."
We can't escape it, can we. It's about the mentality. Human thinking is the problem. If it changes... for the better, that is, it makes a difference.

What will change it? That's the question Nimos.
I presented the education that gets to the root - changing minds and hearts.
Perhaps it's important we spend a little time looking into the details of how it works.

The scripture I referred to earlier was to highlight some important things. (Acts 2:41-47).

Please notice, 3,000 persons joined themselves to the congregation made up of 120 individuals (baptized followers of the man Jesus Christ).
They continued devoting themselves to ...
1) the teaching of the apostles
2) associating together
3) the taking of meals together
4) prayers
They had everything in common, and they were selling their possessions and properties and distributing the proceeds to all, according to what each one needed, and day after day they were in constant attendance in the temple with a united purpose, and they took their meals in different homes, and shared their food with great rejoicing and sincerity of heart

This is a relatively small community, in the same land. However, extent that 1000 fold or triple that, to 150 lands. Then take your mind further, and extend it 1,000, 000 fold times 3, and in every land.
Would we not arrive at what you are describing above... minus the religious aspect ... what you refer to as superstition?

Notice that they all had the same things in common, and money was not an issue - a prime concern, and they were united in love.
Now take a moment, and consider.
1) The above is actually a reality - the first occurred in the first century, as we read.; the second is taking place presently; the last is yet future, according to what's written in scripture.
So that you do not confuse the picture I am painting for you, with Catholics and Muslims.
2) what makes it possible? The superstitious, according to you. It was based on a) what people were being taught, and b) whom they were being taught by. The scriptures say... "the teaching of the apostles", and the teaching of the apostles was from God, through Jesus Christ, and holy spirit., according to Acts 1:7, 8, and Acts 2:1-4.

So let's do an actual experiment.
Take away the part you call superstition.
Now show me the same results actually being accomplished worldwide.

Nimos said:

I don't have a clear solution to that, my best guess though is that we are going to be forced to change when robotics and automations really kicks in. Because the only way the economic system can function is if people have money to spend. But humans can't compete with robots when it comes to a huge amount of jobs. However robots don't buy anything, so if people can't afford to buy things because they either don't have a job or are forced to work for poor salaries, then the system will collapse. And I think that is what is going to happen, it will come to a point where there is simply not enough purchasing power in the population to keep things going and first the government will probably make help packages to make sure that people have money to spend and to try to keep the system artificial alive, but eventually it will simply not make sense and then I think changes will be made. If it doesn't happen like that, then I think it will end in huge uprisings from people all around the world that are desperate.

What we are going to face in the future in regards to robotics is nothing we have ever faced before, we are used to having machines replace certain jobs or to help us being more effective. But when we are getting completely replaced then its not easy. Imagine a truck driver, sure they have gotten better trucks, automatic lifts to help them etc. But when the truck starts driving by it self, then he is not needed anymore, taxi drivers, ships, trains etc. Where would all these people go? Million of dollars are being invested into staff free shops, supermarkets etc. Where do they go? Military personnel will be replaced, even lawyers etc. will be, when you have computers that can gather all the informations faster and cross references them with laws etc. People are greatly mistaken as I see it, if they believe that their jobs are secured in the future. People want profits and human salary is a huge cost, especially if they can be replaced by a machine that works night and day, never complain and make far less errors.

Click to expand...

So on the one hand, you are optimistic. On the other hand you are pessimistic.
It seems to me, you are more pessimistic, and I don't blame you.
I don't have a clear solution to that, my best guess...
...then the system will collapse. And I think that is what is going to happen,
In fact, I see no reason for optimism. I think those who claim there is, are only fooling themselves, and living in a pipe dream.
However, some people do love to hold on to things, even when it's doomed for failure. The Titanic disaster is an example.
The way it seems to me, is as you highlighted, the rich seem to be more interested in money, and material things, than they are, in people, and personal needs.. minus material.
So I think you agree with me, that man does not have the solution. it doesn't matter that you don't want God in the picture. Whether we want God or not, is not a foundation for reality.

Nimos said:

I didn't meant to skip it.

Sure, having students for example that doesn't beat up each other constantly is better than if they did.

Click to expand...

So would you agree that children whose "superstitious" - according to you - education make them better persons are to be commended, and since it helps them, if it spreads, and is effective in changing other children for the better, then it can't be as bad as you make it out to be, and maybe you are allowing bias to get in the way of reasonableness, because you personally are against it? Would you accept that?
Could you give a reasonable explanation to show that the reason is not that you want to label religious people irrational... perhaps because of wanting to side with peers?

Nimos said:

Not sure what you mean by this? God is not exactly a role model when it comes to good behaviour. Applying dictatorial rules, I doubt would be better compared to reason and making people understand why one thing is better than another.

Click to expand...

Your personal belief is noted, but more than half the world disagrees with you, and even though less than half of those are on the side of the Abrahamic, you are still giving a subjective opinion.

The evidence shows too, that Jehovah God, is perfect father, and because his children imitate him, they are witnesses to, and for his great example, as a loving merciful father.
How do they give a witness to this? By their own example, in imitating God.

I can tell you that if I had not learned about God, I would be a different person.
Many people testify to this.
Jesus Christ, first and foremost, was approachable. he was tender in compassion. He treated women with impartiality, and dignity. He cared about those who were looked down upon. He loved his enemies, and encouraged his followers to pray for them.
“You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)
It was all in imitation of his father.

This is why his followers, throughout the centuries, have always refused to retaliate against their enemies, but rather continued to show them kindness, and love.


The followers of Christ, numbering into the thousands, could have banded together, and formed an army, against their enemies, but they did not. Instead, they obeyed Jesus' instructions to flee to the mountains.

Today, the followers of Jesus Christ, show love instead of hate toward those who persecute them, and this results in a witness of God's love and mercy. It sometimes moves persons to take God's side.
Now who in their right mind would choose the side of persons who are persecuted? Those who recognize the good qualities and conduct of the persecuted, and consider that a very praiseworthy thing.

I don't know if you recall, I sent you these before.
POPE FRANCIS PRAISES JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES WORLDWIDE !!
I'm a Mormon. Here's Why I Love Jehovah's Witnesses They're a good people from a good tree
USA Today Emphatically Hails Jehovah's Witnesses
Witness missionaries were chased and beaten by vigilantes in Texas. Their literature was confiscated and even burned. Less than a week after the court decision, a Kingdom Hall was stormed and torched in Kennebunk, Maine. American Legion posts harassed Witnesses nationwide. The American Civil Liberties Union reported to the Justice Department that nearly 1,500 Witnesses were physically attacked in more than 300 communities nationwide. One Southern sheriff told a reporter why Witnesses were being run out of town: ''They're traitors; the Supreme Court says so. Ain't you heard?''
Partly because of this violent reaction to its decision, the Supreme Court reversed itself with remarkable speed.

Those who know Jehovah's witnesses, are aware that they will call on their enemies, and continue to show love to them, even inviting them to be their brother, and when they do become a brother, they treat them as such.. with love. Former Enemies Who Became Friends
The evidence therefore speaks for itself. The God we worship is the best role model. We make his personality ours, and it is praised, by millions.

Making people understand?
Whatever do you mean by that? Can you please explain, how you make someone understand, and what methods you propose for doing so.

Nimos said:

We vote about it. But you can't vote whether Jesus is the son of God, God himself or just a prophet.

Click to expand...

You vote about what? Which party governs?
How does voting stop political fights and divisions? How does voting stop protesters? Please explain.

Nimos said:

But you must know that this would never work. Again religious beliefs are not something you can sort of agree on. If you believe that Jesus is the son of God and I as an atheist say that I don't think so. Its not like we can agree to just refer to Jesus as God's step son, and sort of meet in the middle. Either he is what you claim or he isn't. And if he isn't then the bible is wrong, but if he is, then clearly atheism is wrong. We can agree to accept each others views. But the moment we have to discuss something important like abortion or whatever, if your view on it, is based on the bible, rather than you spending the time considering the for or against, then we have a conflict. Because I don't accept any argument regarding this that is based on some religious scriptures, when they are not verified.

Click to expand...

Seems I am not making myself clear.
The theocratic rule I refer to, provides the opportunity for removing the ills of religious domination, and other crimes against humanity.
However, regarding opposers and dissenters, who really might be considered protesters, that is where the law of the particular rule would be of consideration.
Recall, I mentioned that the educational program is just one element, but other elements would need to be utilized.
Just so that I can sort of get an understanding of your thinking... how do you understand that? Could you put that in words, based on how you understand it please.

Nimos said:

Im not sure, if I still didn't answer it. Try to formulate it in another way and Ill try to answer it. I miss things here and there

Click to expand...

The issue of who gets to drive is not one theocratic rule has to deal with, or will have to deal with.
Is that any clearer?

nPeace said:

View attachment 45681 Meet Bill - a hardworking family man, who goes to work everyday of each weekday, to provide for his family - a wife and two young children.

While working one evening, a desperate masked man, burst into the store where Bill was just preparing to leave for home.
View attachment 45682 The robber demanded Bill hand over all the cash. During the robbery, Bill is shot several times, and the robber makes his escape.

View attachment 45683 Bill is rushed to the hospital "fighting for his life".
The fight is short-lives, as Bill succumbs to his injuries. View attachment 45684
His life snatched away...
View attachment 45685 Bill leaves to mourn, a grieving widow, and two children.

FBI Releases 2019 Crime Statistics
Is there a solution to crime? What is the solution to crime?
Do you see a future where there is no crime, or do you see crime existing forever into the future?

Why, or why not?
Feel free to participate in the poll.

Click to expand...

For starters, "crime" is that which is in breach of the law.
So theoretically, if you legalize murder, then murder is no longer a "crime" or "unlawful behavior"

So let's try to avoid implying that behaving (im)morally is the same as behaving (un)lawfully.

Having said that...

As long as there is a system of rules in place, there will be people who break those rules.
In fact, I'ld say that the sole raison d'être of rules is precisely because there are people who tend to behave a certain way that is damaging to society or aspects thereof.

If nobody ever showed any motivation whatsoever to steal something, if the concept of "stealing" was completely foreign to humanity... then I submit that there would be no rules / laws concerning stealing.

The very reason for laws about stealing, is precisely to attach consequences to that practice in an attempt to make people refrain from engaging in it - which in and of itself is an acknowledgement that there are people that tend to want to engage in it.

Why would any government bother to make up laws about things that are completely irrelevant, right?


So, will crime stop in the future? No, I don't think so.

As long as there are laws, there will be people that break those laws.

nPeace said:

That would not end crime. It would be a crime itself, and leads to more crime.

Click to expand...

In topics such as this, it is important to use terms correctly.

If there are no laws, there can be no crimes by definition of both of those words.

You are conflating "immoral behavior" with "criminal behavior" it seems to me.
These are not the same things.

A crime is whatever is a breach of the law.
An immoral action isn't necessarily a breach of the law.

There are no laws against being a lying a-hole, for example.

Regiomontanus said:

Jesus is our only hope.

Click to expand...

Then why are thee so many Chistians in prison?

nPeace said:

So let's do an actual experiment.
Take away the part you call superstition.
Now show me the same results actually being accomplished worldwide.

Click to expand...

But what you are talking about is not being accomplished. Even if people refer to themselves as Christians, they have different views on what it means. JW call themselves Christians, yet many other don't consider them to be so. And obviously they disagree with that being the case.

World war 1 and 2, lots of people on all sides were Christians and were shooting and bombing each other left right and centre.We see the same in the Islamic countries as the different delegations doesn't get along. Random crimes, people don't ask first whether the person they hurt is a Christian or not.

The unity you speak of, is no different than what have been accomplished by cultures and nationalities. Like 1+ billion people consider themselves Chinese, others Americans, French and even as Europeans. The same you can find looking at football fans, all dressed up in the colors of the team they support and cheering for them. It is purely a superficial labelling, that in certain situations can cause unity.

nPeace said:

So on the one hand, you are optimistic. On the other hand you are pessimistic.
It seems to me, you are more pessimistic, and I don't blame you.
I don't have a clear solution to that, my best guess...
...then the system will collapse. And I think that is what is going to happen,
In fact, I see no reason for optimism. I think those who claim there is, are only fooling themselves, and living in a pipe dream.
However, some people do love to hold on to things, even when it's doomed for failure. The Titanic disaster is an example.
The way it seems to me, is as you highlighted, the rich seem to be more interested in money, and material things, than they are, in people, and personal needs.. minus material.
So I think you agree with me, that man does not have the solution. it doesn't matter that you don't want God in the picture. Whether we want God or not, is not a foundation for reality.

Click to expand...

I don't think im being pessimistic but rather realistic. Nothing of what we see happening around us, seems to suggest that this is not the way we are heading. Someone posted a video of Elon musk and some medical thing they are working on, where they implant some threads into the brain and they do this avoiding any blood vessels, and the procedure has to be done by a robot, because it needs to be so precise, which humans simply can't do. Our hands shake to much.


I don't think all rich people are especially concerned, at least not to be understood in that way. Obviously some are, but its more like, that is how the system works. It is not designed for equality and to ensure that humans wellbeing is the end goal, but rather profit and the promise that this will somehow cause wellbeing. And it does, but only a very few number of selected people.

Look at the healthcare system, we have all the knowledge etc. to be able to give all people the best possible treatments they can get. The only thing that stops it, is lack of money.

nPeace said:

So would you agree that children whose "superstitious" - according to you - education make them better persons are to be commended, and since it helps them, if it spreads, and is effective in changing other children for the better, then it can't be as bad as you make it out to be, and maybe you are allowing bias to get in the way of reasonableness, because you personally are against it? Would you accept that?
Could you give a reasonable explanation to show that the reason is not that you want to label religious people irrational... perhaps because of wanting to side with peers?

Click to expand...

Given the assumption you set, I agree. But they are simply not reasonable to work with. There is nothing to suggest that children with a religious background behave better.

I think your premise is wrong and not valid.

nPeace said:

Your personal belief is noted, but more than half the world disagrees with you, and even though less than half of those are on the side of the Abrahamic, you are still giving a subjective opinion.

The evidence shows too, that Jehovah God, is perfect father, and because his children imitate him, they are witnesses to, and for his great example, as a loving merciful father.
How do they give a witness to this? By their own example, in imitating God.

Click to expand...

Obviously it have certain subjectivity to it. But not to the degree, that we can not examine whether or not my position is not valid.

To take a very simple example.

Am against slavery, the bible approves it, therefore I think the bible is wrong. That God have no issue with it, suggests to me, that im morally superior to him. Unless you can somehow justify, how God as a perfect father can teach his children that holding other humans as property is acceptable. Then I think, my position regarding God is more correct than those that say he is a perfect role model. Because if I were wrong, clearly people should support God in this, but most people don't and we consider it a crime.

nPeace said:

It was all in imitation of his father.

Click to expand...

Yes and he was also the person, that said the laws should be kept and gave an example that parents should kill their children if they cursed them, just as the law say. Jesus apparently said a lot of things. Yet doesn't change the fact, that we have no clue what he actually said, because he didn't write any of it. And there are many differences and contradictions in the various scriptures, it depend which you read and how you interpret them.

nPeace said:

This is why his followers, throughout the centuries, have always refused to retaliate against their enemies, but rather continued to show them kindness, and love.

Click to expand...

What do you mean? People have fought in the name of Christ all over the world. Prosecuted people for blasphemy, killed them for being witches or having another religion.

nPeace said:

Making people understand?
Whatever do you mean by that? Can you please explain, how you make someone understand, and what methods you propose for doing so.

Click to expand...

Not sure what the context of this was "Making people understand"?

nPeace said:

You vote about what? Which party governs?
How does voting stop political fights and divisions? How does voting stop protesters? Please explain.

Click to expand...

It doesn't, but currently that is the best solution we have, which allow people to be heard.

nPeace said:

Seems I am not making myself clear.
The theocratic rule I refer to, provides the opportunity for removing the ills of religious domination, and other crimes against humanity.
However, regarding opposers and dissenters, who really might be considered protesters, that is where the law of the particular rule would be of consideration.
Recall, I mentioned that the educational program is just one element, but other elements would need to be utilized.
Just so that I can sort of get an understanding of your thinking... how do you understand that? Could you put that in words, based on how you understand it please.

Click to expand...

I understand it as you wanting everyone to follow an educational system that rely on your understanding of the teachings of God and some other unspecific educational programs, which I have no clue what is.

nPeace said:

The issue of who gets to drive is not one theocratic rule has to deal with, or will have to deal with.
Is that any clearer?

Click to expand...

Then who will?

Nimos said:

But what you are talking about is not being accomplished. Even if people refer to themselves as Christians, they have different views on what it means. JW call themselves Christians, yet many other don't consider them to be so. And obviously they disagree with that being the case.

Click to expand...

If you know what I am talking about, then I don't see how you can say it is not being accomplished.
So please tell me... What am I talking about?

Nimos said:

World war 1 and 2, lots of people on all sides were Christians and were shooting and bombing each other left right and centre.We see the same in the Islamic countries as the different delegations doesn't get along. Random crimes, people don't ask first whether the person they hurt is a Christian or not.

Click to expand...

Ah.So you don't know what I am talking about.
Here is what I am talking about... (John 13:35) . . .By this all will know that you are my disciples - if you have love among yourselves.

You evidently are mixing a narrow view... perhaps your view ? with what I am saying, thus completely distorting what I am saying, and in the process, confusing the issue. I hope that is not deliberate. Is there bias at the root of this?

Take a football team you mentioned.
Let's go with Manchester United.
They have their logo...
They have their team members....
Sure, anyone can put on a jersey, and call themselves by the team's name... but are they really part of the team?

In any case, whether it be a team, a company, money... whatever it may be, everything has an identity. So does Jesus' followers, and Jesus gave the ID.
So just because you see a whole bunch of people burning down a building all wearing Trump caps, it does not mean they are Trump supporters.... but you can't tell, because there is no standard for how Trump supporters or those on the opposing side, behave. They all behave the same.

On the other hand, there is a standard for how followers of Christ behave.
So when you see a whole heap of people killing each other, "left, right, and center", they don't identify as followers of Christ. They represent the opposing side. They just wear the caps.
So the fake media, and the fake news, who capitalize on this without really getting the facts, are not doing a justice. They are misinformed, and misinformation does cause a lot of confusion, doesn't it.

Nimos said:

The unity you speak of, is no different than what have been accomplished by cultures and nationalities. Like 1+ billion people consider themselves Chinese, others Americans, French and even as Europeans. The same you can find looking at football fans, all dressed up in the colors of the team they support and cheering for them. It is purely a superficial labelling, that in certain situations can cause unity.

Click to expand...

No. That unity you speak of in no way compares to what I am speaking of. Chinese in every area of the world they travel, are not one - united in love, and thinking, despite ethnicity, background, language, etc....

So you are not able to show me any worldwide unity producing the results I mentioned, when the "superstition" is taken away.
I don't expect you are ready to admit that, though there is none, but the one I mentioned, so let's hear your next objection.

Nimos said:

I don't think im being pessimistic but rather realistic. Nothing of what we see happening around us, seems to suggest that this is not the way we are heading. Someone posted a video of Elon musk and some medical thing they are working on, where they implant some threads into the brain and they do this avoiding any blood vessels, and the procedure has to be done by a robot, because it needs to be so precise, which humans simply can't do. Our hands shake to much.

I don't think all rich people are especially concerned, at least not to be understood in that way. Obviously some are, but its more like, that is how the system works. It is not designed for equality and to ensure that humans wellbeing is the end goal, but rather profit and the promise that this will somehow cause wellbeing. And it does, but only a very few number of selected people.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on this... being "realistic. Nothing of what we see happening around us, seems to suggest that this is not the way we are heading ...how the system works. It is not designed for equality and to ensure that humans wellbeing is the end goal, but rather profit and the promise that this will somehow cause wellbeing."

Nimos said:

Look at the healthcare system, we have all the knowledge etc. to be able to give all people the best possible treatments they can get. The only thing that stops it, is lack of money.

Click to expand...

Seems money makes the world go round.

Nimos said:

Given the assumption you set, I agree. But they are simply not reasonable to work with. There is nothing to suggest that children with a religious background behave better.

I think your premise is wrong and not valid.

Click to expand...

Nothing to suggest? On what basis do you say this?
Although I can give you hundreds of real experiences, I don't think that will change any bias.
How about you back up your statement.

Nimos said:

Obviously it have certain subjectivity to it. But not to the degree, that we can not examine whether or not my position is not valid.

To take a very simple example.

Am against slavery, the bible approves it, therefore I think the bible is wrong. That God have no issue with it, suggests to me, that im morally superior to him. Unless you can somehow justify, how God as a perfect father can teach his children that holding other humans as property is acceptable. Then I think, my position regarding God is more correct than those that say he is a perfect role model. Because if I were wrong, clearly people should support God in this, but most people don't and we consider it a crime.

Click to expand...

Evidently these statements are not factual.
For one thing, you need to identify what slavery you are referring to that God approves of.
Second, you need to identify what slavery is wrong, and who gets to decide that.
Third, you need to prove that what the majority of people think constitutes morality.

From what I read here, there is no universally agreed definition of modern slavery.
Some people consider slavery having to work for money in order to eat.
Some consider government to be practicing a form of slavery.

The International Labour Organization estimates that, by their definitions, over 40 million people are in some form of slavery today. 24.9 million people are in forced labor, of whom 16 million people are exploited in the private sector such as domestic work, construction or agriculture; 4.8 million persons in forced sexual exploitation, and 4 million persons in forced labor imposed by state authorities. 15.4 million people are in forced marriage.

There are subtle forms of slavery.


All of it is slavery, no matter how one looks at it.
Do you disagree with all? Please explain what you find wrong with the ones you have a problem with, and especially the one God condoned.
Government-forced labor and conscription
Prison labor
Bonded labor

Nimos said:

Yes and he was also the person, that said the laws should be kept and gave an example that parents should kill their children if they cursed them, just as the law say. Jesus apparently said a lot of things. Yet doesn't change the fact, that we have no clue what he actually said, because he didn't write any of it. And there are many differences and contradictions in the various scriptures, it depend which you read and how you interpret them.

Click to expand...

Without getting into the whether true or not, contradiction or not, let look at what is written.
(Exodus 21:17) . . .“Anyone who curses his father or his mother must be put to death.
(Matthew 15:4) . . .For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Let the one who speaks abusively of his father or mother be put to death.
(Deuteronomy 27:16) . . .Cursed is the one who treats his father or his mother with contempt.

Why were they to be put to death?
(Deuteronomy 21:18-21) 18 “If a man has a son who is stubborn and rebellious and he does not obey his father or his mother, and they have tried to correct him but he refuses to listen to them, 19 his father and his mother should take hold of him and bring him out to the elders at the gate of his city 20 and say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, and he refuses to obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. So you must remove what is bad from your midst, and all Israel will hear and become afraid.

Why do you think God was wrong in this law, please?

Nimos said:

What do you mean? People have fought in the name of Christ all over the world. Prosecuted people for blasphemy, killed them for being witches or having another religion.

Click to expand...

Yes. people have done that "in the name of Christ". So what?
(John 16:1-4) 1 “I have spoken these things to YOU that YOU may not be stumbled. 2 Men will expel YOU from the synagogue. In fact, the hour is coming when everyone that kills YOU will imagine he has rendered a sacred service to God. 3 But they will do these things because they have not come to know either the Father or me. 4 Nevertheless, I have spoken these things to YOU that, when the hour for them arrives, YOU may remember I told them to YOU.. . .
What does people's imagination have to do with reality? Nothing.

Nimos said:

Not sure what the context of this was "Making people understand"?

Click to expand...

You don't remember what point you were making, or you don't know what the context of your using that expression was? ??? Well, am I to guess then at what you mean? Force people. Is that correct?

Nimos said:

It doesn't, but currently that is the best solution we have, which allow people to be heard.

Click to expand...

Well if it doesn't, why mention it? It's irrelevant regardless of what you think it is... best or worst does not matter. It solves nothing.

Nimos said:

I understand it as you wanting everyone to follow an educational system that rely on your understanding of the teachings of God and some other unspecific educational programs, which I have no clue what is.
Your understanding is completely wrong then.

Click to expand...

That's not what I am saying.
If I said one element is an educational program and there are other elements to be utilized, those other elements would not be the educational program.

It's not a wanting everyone to follow this educational system either, although I specified that that will be the case in the future.
How that will occur I did not specify.
According to what's on the books of this governmental rule, all law breakers are to be removed. Proverbs 2:21-22

Nimos said:

Then who will?

Click to expand...

Who will drive? If anyone, everyone. However, I don't know if driving will be necessary, unless perhaps it's a buggy (horse driven). The books are silent on that.
However, I can tell you there will be no pollution according to what's written, so motor vehicles contributing to that would obviously not be present.

nPeace said:

On the other hand, there is a standard for how followers of Christ behave.
So when you see a whole heap of people killing each other, "left, right, and center", they don't identify as followers of Christ. They represent the opposing side. They just wear the caps.

Click to expand...

This is the exact issue im trying to point out.

And it's the exact same thing that former religious people will be told. "They were never true believers to begin with" it's just BS. If you have ever seen the Atheist experience, the hosts there are regularly handed this, and these are people that were deeply committed to their faith. There is no one, who can say or have the right to say who is a true or correct follower of Christ. Which is why there are so much disagreement between religions. They as everyone else as you nicely put it, are just wearing the cap of Christ.

nPeace said:

So you are not able to show me any worldwide unity producing the results I mentioned, when the "superstition" is taken away.
I don't expect you are ready to admit that, though there is none, but the one I mentioned, so let's hear your next objectio

Click to expand...

And im trying to tell you that the thing you want me to show me, that you believe exists with Christ, doesn't!!
Besides that Islam does it just as well as Christians does, but they don't agree with them. So the lack of unity you are talking about simply isn't there.

And you won't find it anywhere, the closest is probably nazi germany where a large population were taught to buy into this and Hitler was seen as a savior, a hero and they follow certain rules. And even between these you would probably find different opinions of what it meant to be a good or correct nazi.

nPeace said:

Nothing to suggest? On what basis do you say this?
Although I can give you hundreds of real experiences, I don't think that will change any bias.

Click to expand...

Because what you are doing is cherry picking, I could link you to people telling how they have suffered by these teachings. But again that would be cherry picking. The fact is that it is not black and white, sure some will find join in this and some won't. Just as you will find it everywhere else.

nPeace said:

For one thing, you need to identify what slavery you are referring to that God approves of.

Click to expand...

Keeping another human being as property and that you can beat them senseless.

nPeace said:

Second, you need to identify what slavery is wrong, and who gets to decide that.

Click to expand...

I get to decide that. You get to decide that. Its simply to ask the question, "Do you think that it is morally right for one person to be able to own another and beat them at hearts desire whenever they please?"

If you think it is wrong, then it is wrong in your eyes. Doesn't matter, if I show you some old text saying that God approves of it, if that makes you go... "Ahh ok, now I see. So it is good", then I would be extremely surprised.

nPeace said:

Third, you need to prove that what the majority of people think constitutes morality.

Click to expand...

Morality is something you arrive at, through careful and critical thinking by questioning the current norms. Today in our society, we might think that it is reasonable to throw people with mental conditions in jail. Whereas in the future it might be seen as highly immoral. Exactly as we have change our views on certain things, that they did back then.

nPeace said:

From what I read here, there is no universally agreed definition of modern slavery.

Click to expand...

But in this case you don't really need a definition, because the bible explain rather well what is meant by this, and you can either agree with it or not.

nPeace said:

All of it is slavery, no matter how one looks at it.
Do you disagree with all? Please explain what you find wrong with the ones you have a problem with, and especially the one God condoned.

Click to expand...

Im not going to read all of them. Rather Ill put it like this.

If a person have been convinced of a crime and thrown to jail, then that is what they have been. If they are forced to work in there against their will, without freely accepting the work, then it is wrong. The were put there to serve a sentence not to be forced into work.

nPeace said:

Why do you think God was wrong in this law, please?

Click to expand...

Because it is based on opinion. A poor father and wife, might pass judgement on their child, without any good reason. There is no clear definition of what is mean, stubborn? rebellious? not obeying? What if the dad told the son to go beat his sister and he refuse? What if the dad is a drunkard with a temper? Even today child abuse and people hitting their partners is an issue. No one would regulate this based on these vague rules, as no one would be able to define what is meant by obeying, being stubborn etc. It is subjective.

I'm much more interested in hearing how you think that God was right about this?

nPeace said:

Yes. people have done that "in the name of Christ". So what?

Click to expand...

That is the whole issue isn't it? You can't tell them that they are wrong, because as you can find verses in the bible supporting your views, so can they.. and they did!! So how would you solve such conflict, if the bible is the final authority and people can't agree on what it means?

nPeace said:

You don't remember what point you were making, or you don't know what the context of your using that expression was? ??? Well, am I to guess then at what you mean? Force people. Is that correct?

Click to expand...

I don't know in which context I wrote it.

nPeace said:

Well if it doesn't, why mention it? It's irrelevant regardless of what you think it is... best or worst does not matter. It solves nothing.

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but it is still the best solution we have. Doesn't matter if its not perfect, since we have no better options as it is now.

nPeace said:

According to what's on the books of this governmental rule, all law breakers are to be removed.

Click to expand...

And which laws are we talking about? Who decide the laws?

Nimos said:

This is the exact issue im trying to point out.

And it's the exact same thing that former religious people will be told. "They were never true believers to begin with" it's just BS. If you have ever seen the Atheist experience, the hosts there are regularly handed this, and these are people that were deeply committed to their faith. There is no one, who can say or have the right to say who is a true or correct follower of Christ. Which is why there are so much disagreement between religions. They as everyone else as you nicely put it, are just wearing the cap of Christ.

Click to expand...

You say that with such authority.... such expert wisdom and knowledge.... such historical omniscience...
Any outer-self evidence to back it up?

The reason there is disagreement can be traced to the words of the apostle Paul... a character that cannot be removed from history as not existing... the same character associated with the apostolic age - a period in history which cannot be refuted, nor erased from history.
The apostolic age - the early Christians is undeniable fact.
So it is clearly evident that your biased opinion is clearly unfounded.

Nimos said:

And im trying to tell you that the thing you want me to show me, that you believe exists with Christ, doesn't!!
Besides that Islam does it just as well as Christians does, but they don't agree with them. So the lack of unity you are talking about simply isn't there.

And you won't find it anywhere, the closest is probably nazi germany where a large population were taught to buy into this and Hitler was seen as a savior, a hero and they follow certain rules. And even between these you would probably find different opinions of what it meant to be a good or correct nazi.


Because what you are doing is cherry picking, I could link you to people telling how they have suffered by these teachings. But again that would be cherry picking. The fact is that it is not black and white, sure some will find join in this and some won't. Just as you will find it everywhere else.

Click to expand...

How does one cherry pick a fact of a matter?
If you claim there are no grapes growing in Alaska, and I went and showed you there are indeed grapes growing in Alaska, I have not cherry picked anything. I have proved you wrong... with evidence.
Your telling me that you can find apples in your country, is irrelevant.

You claimed there is nothing to suggest that children with a religious background behave better. I provided the evidence that proves your claim false.
What does finding people who complain about a religion have to do with your claim being false? It would not make your claim true. It's irrelevant.

Nimos said:

Keeping another human being as property and that you can beat them senseless.

Click to expand...

The first part is Biblical. The second part is not Biblical.

Nimos said:

I get to decide that. You get to decide that. Its simply to ask the question, "Do you think that it is morally right for one person to be able to own another and beat them at hearts desire whenever they please?"

If you think it is wrong, then it is wrong in your eyes. Doesn't matter, if I show you some old text saying that God approves of it, if that makes you go... "Ahh ok, now I see. So it is good", then I would be extremely surprised.

Click to expand...

Huh? You lost me on the last paragraph. So I will comment on the first.
The persons who became property to Israel, were of the nations God was driving out of the land because the deeds they were committing was worthy of death... in God's eyes - the owner and king of the land, and the law giver.
As captives, either by surrender or capture, they became servants or slaves to Israel, and were used as workers. Evidently they preferred that to death. (Joshua 9:3-8)
They were not mistreated. They were allowed to rest, eat, and join in family association. (Exodus 23:12 ; Leviticus 22:10, 11 ; Deuteronomy 5:14)
Going by the Biblical record, cruel treatment was never encouraged by God.

Nimos said:

Morality is something you arrive at, through careful and critical thinking by questioning the current norms. Today in our society, we might think that it is reasonable to throw people with mental conditions in jail. Whereas in the future it might be seen as highly immoral. Exactly as we have change our views on certain things, that they did back then.

Click to expand...

Do you mean like how they changed their minds about capital punishment numerous times.
When I saw the graph, it reminded me of a seesaw.
If that's how morality works, it's choice not morality.
People protest about human rights and it causes the senate to make a choice. Depending on which political party is in power, bills are repealed, and the former choice makes an about face.
Those are not morals really.

Nimos said:

But in this case you don't really need a definition, because the bible explain rather well what is meant by this, and you can either agree with it or not.


Im not going to read all of them. Rather Ill put it like this.

If a person have been convinced of a crime and thrown to jail, then that is what they have been. If they are forced to work in there against their will, without freely accepting the work, then it is wrong. The were put there to serve a sentence not to be forced into work.

Click to expand...

It is wrong to you. It's your view, which differs to more than half the world's population.
Why do you think it is wrong?

Penal labour - Wikipedia
Punitive labour, also known as convict labour, prison labour, or hard labour, is a form of forced labour used in both past and present as an additional form of punishment beyond imprisonment alone. Punitive labour encompasses two types: productive labour, such as industrial work; and intrinsically pointless tasks used as primitive occupational therapy, punishment and/or physical torment.

Penal labor in the United States - Wikipedia
Penal labor in the United States is explicitly allowed by the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Nimos said:

Because it is based on opinion. A poor father and wife, might pass judgement on their child, without any good reason. There is no clear definition of what is mean, stubborn? rebellious? not obeying? What if the dad told the son to go beat his sister and he refuse? What if the dad is a drunkard with a temper? Even today child abuse and people hitting their partners is an issue. No one would regulate this based on these vague rules, as no one would be able to define what is meant by obeying, being stubborn etc. It is subjective.

Click to expand...

No. You can't just make up... um... these, um... I can't find an word that's milder, that would be appropriate... So I'll just go mum , and try to fit them in the Bible.
For one thing, they had to come before the elders, who were there to judge the case. (Joshua 20:4) . . .and present his case in the hearing of the elders of that city. . .
For another, we are referring to the Bible here, not ideas that fly off the top of the head.
Child abuse was never even heard about among Israel.
I quoted some verses for you. (Deuteronomy 27:16) “‘Cursed is the one who treats his father or his mother with contempt.’ (And all the people will say, ‘Amen!’)
Going outside the Bible to introduce speculative views would not make for serious discussion.

Nimos said:

I'm much more interested in hearing how you think that God was right about this?

Click to expand...

God selected the nation of Israel, and was their king, lawgiver, and judge. He set the laws that would keep his people clean from immorality, and teach them regulation that they might prosper in the land he was giving them. Obedience was important in keeping the nation clean from defiled practices.
God enforced those laws. He was not partial, nor did he accept bribes.
Those who said Amen to his laws, made an oath of agreement.

When a man stole items that God said Israel should not take, that man knew the consequences. He paid the price. Joshua 7
I believe a ruler who enforces the law is a good ruler.
These things served as a clear deterrent, and allowed for respect for the laws of the land, and the law giver, and also respect for others, including one's parents who took care of and raised the child in their care.

Would I be torn if my son, was convicted of raping a girl, and murdering her? Yes.
Would I want him to be exonerated if he is 100% guilty of the crime? No.
Would I be concerned if my son did not listen to me, and cursed his mother, and angrily cursed me? Yes.
Would I have obey a law of the land to bring my son before the judges if guilty of such? Yes.
Why?
I might have to sleep with one eye opened... but what can I do if he lights a fire?
There is high public interest in parricide cases – not only do such incidents include homicide, but they are disturbing as they challenge assumptions about the family as a safe space, and upset conventional ideas about the sanctity and intimacy of the child-parent relationship.
I think God's ways are just. He knows human behavior better than I do. We learn after the fact.
The majority of parricides are committed by adults, with just 25 percent of patricides and 17 percent of matricides committed by persons 18 years and under, according to a 25-year study of parricides in the United States.

Nimos said:

That is the whole issue isn't it? You can't tell them that they are wrong, because as you can find verses in the bible supporting your views, so can they.. and they did!! So how would you solve such conflict, if the bible is the final authority and people can't agree on what it means?

Click to expand...

I'm not the one to tell them. Nor am I the one to work that out. The king - the ruler deals with that.
Did I not explain that?

Nimos said:

I don't know in which context I wrote it.

Click to expand...

Maybe it just flew off the top of your head.

Nimos said:

Maybe not, but it is still the best solution we have. Doesn't matter if its not perfect, since we have no better options as it is now.

Click to expand...

It doesn't work. It's useless. Why mention it?

Nimos said:

And which laws are we talking about? Who decide the laws?

Click to expand...

Did I not say? I'm sure I did, quite a number of times.

epronovost said:

To be an absolute pendant I would say the solution to crime is to abolish all laws. A crime is the name given to action that transgress a law. No law, no transgression, thus no crime.

Click to expand...

Theres still natural law around proving we don't make all the rules. ;0]

Twilight Hue said:

Theres still natural law around proving we don't make all the rules. ;0]

Click to expand...

Natural laws cannot be broken and are descriptive not prescriptive. They aren't rules per say.

nPeace said:

You say that with such authority.... such expert wisdom and knowledge.... such historical omniscience...
Any outer-self evidence to back it up?

Click to expand...

But its not said in any expertized way, you can watch the Atheist experience and it probably won't take you long before you hear it it yourself. Why are there different views of Islam for instance? Why are they fighting? Why don't the protestants agree with the catholics, and why don't they agree with JWs? It's common knowledge.

nPeace said:

You claimed there is nothing to suggest that children with a religious background behave better. I provided the evidence that proves your claim false.
What does finding people who complain about a religion have to do with your claim being false? It would not make your claim true. It's irrelevant.

Click to expand...

It is cherry picking because you select the articles that support your view and neglect the others.

Here is an article found in less than 1 minute.
Children from religious families are less kind and more punitive than those from non-religious households, according to a new study.
Academics from seven universities across the world studied Christian, Muslim and non-religious children to test the relationship between religion and morality.
They found that religious belief is a negative influence on children’s altruism.

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

If I went on a rampage saying that atheists children are much better than religious children and base it on this article, that would be cherry picking as well. So now you have some articles that support your view and I have one here and could reference the seven studies they made as well.

nPeace said:

The first part is Biblical. The second part is not Biblical.

Click to expand...

What do you mean the second part is not biblical? Both are written very clearly in the bible.

nPeace said:

Huh? You lost me on the last paragraph. So I will comment on the first.
The persons who became property to Israel, were of the nations God was driving out of the land because the deeds they were committing was worthy of death... in God's eyes - the owner and king of the land, and the law giver.
As captives, either by surrender or capture, they became servants or slaves to Israel, and were used as workers. Evidently they preferred that to death. (Joshua 9:3-8)
They were not mistreated. They were allowed to rest, eat, and join in family association. (Exodus 23:12 ; Leviticus 22:10, 11 ; Deuteronomy 5:14)
Going by the Biblical record, cruel treatment was never encouraged by God.

Click to expand...

What about the passages, where God tell them they can take the wives as their own after they have killed their husbands? And that they should slam babies against the rocks?

Im not sure we have read the same bible

But still, how does that justify slavery?

nPeace said:

Do you mean like how they changed their minds about capital punishment numerous times.
When I saw the graph, it reminded me of a seesaw.
If that's how morality works, it's choice not morality.
People protest about human rights and it causes the senate to make a choice. Depending on which political party is in power, bills are repealed, and the former choice makes an about face.
Those are not morals really.

Click to expand...

You don't wake up one day and suddenly you have changed your morals, you arrive at them over time and through what you have experienced and through careful thinking.

nPeace said:

It is wrong to you. It's your view, which differs to more than half the world's population.
Why do you think it is wrong?

Click to expand...

I already think I explained it. They were put in jail do to something they did, their punishment is to be isolated from the rest of society. Not to work. I have no problem with them being offered to do work in the jails, but they shouldn't be forced to do it.

nPeace said:

For one thing, they had to come before the elders, who were there to judge the case. (Joshua 20:4) . . .and present his case in the hearing of the elders of that city. . .

Click to expand...

But it doesn't change the fact, that this is purely based on how you interpret these words, which are not clearly defined.

nPeace said:

Child abuse was never even heard about among Israel.

Click to expand...

Of course not, because the children were the property of their parents. It not long ago, that you were allowed to slap kids here in Denmark, it was not seen as something wrong. It then got changed and you are now punished for it and if you did it today, say slapped your child every so often you would be looked at as having abused your child.

nPeace said:

I'm not the one to tell them. Nor am I the one to work that out. The king - the ruler deals with that.
Did I not explain that?

Click to expand...

And who is the king? your version of God or their version?

nPeace said:

It doesn't work. It's useless. Why mention it?

Click to expand...

Well because that is how we decide how our society works, who should decide laws etc.

nPeace said:

Did I not say? I'm sure I did, quite a number of times.

Click to expand...

As above, is it your version of God or someone else's version?

Nimos said:

But its not said in any expertized way, you can watch the Atheist experience and it probably won't take you long before you hear it it yourself. Why are there different views of Islam for instance? Why are they fighting? Why don't the protestants agree with the catholics, and why don't they agree with JWs? It's common knowledge.

Click to expand...

Was there an apostolic age?
Do you disagree with this?
Christianity in the 1st century covers the formative history of Christianity from the start of the ministry of Jesus (c. 27–29 AD) to the death of the last of the Twelve Apostles (c. 100) and is thus also known as the Apostolic Age.
Yes or no?

Nimos said:

It is cherry picking because you select the articles that support your view and neglect the others.

Here is an article found in less than 1 minute.
Children from religious families are less kind and more punitive than those from non-religious households, according to a new study.
Academics from seven universities across the world studied Christian, Muslim and non-religious children to test the relationship between religion and morality.
They found that religious belief is a negative influence on children’s altruism.

Religious children are meaner than their secular counterparts, study finds

If I went on a rampage saying that atheists children are much better than religious children and base it on this article, that would be cherry picking as well. So now you have some articles that support your view and I have one here and could reference the seven studies they made as well.

Click to expand...

If I were specifically referring to people in the White House, would it show a coherent response, if the one I am talking to, started talking about Putin?
You are making only incoherent responses, and that does not make for any proper conversation.
if you cannot disprove what i am presenting to you, talking about oranges does not help your argument.
It just distracts... It's like a man waving his hands wildly, and shouting loudly, to draw attention away from the crowd coming through the terminal.

Nimos said:

What do you mean the second part is not biblical? Both are written very clearly in the bible.

Click to expand...

No. sorry. One is in your head.

Nimos said:

What about the passages, where God tell them they can take the wives as their own after they have killed their husbands? And that they should slam babies against the rocks?

Im not sure we have read the same bible

Click to expand...

Oh. here we go again. Switching from one thing to another, when the one you are attacking doesn't budge.
Isn't that what we call strawman? How many are you planning on creating?

Nimos said:

But still, how does that justify slavery?

Click to expand...

Any governmental authority has the right to make it mandatory for a criminal to labor, to give back to society.
Your law accepts that. Why you don't is your choice, but it does not mean you are somhow a moral person because you think so, based on your opinion,

Nimos said:

You don't wake up one day and suddenly you have changed your morals, you arrive at them over time and through what you have experienced and through careful thinking.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion.
Notice you said, your morals.
They are not mine, or anyone else's. Nor are they universal. Nor godly.

Nimos said:

I already think I explained it. They were put in jail do to something they did, their punishment is to be isolated from the rest of society. Not to work. I have no problem with them being offered to do work in the jails, but they shouldn't be forced to do it.

Click to expand...

I have already noted your opinion.
The laws of your own land disagrees with you.

Nimos said:

But it doesn't change the fact, that this is purely based on how you interpret these words, which are not clearly defined.

Click to expand...

That's not a fact, sorry. That's your opinion.
If you disagree, then you are obligated to prove that what you claim, is a fact.

Nimos said:

Of course not, because the children were the property of their parents. It not long ago, that you were allowed to slap kids here in Denmark, it was not seen as something wrong. It then got changed and you are now punished for it and if you did it today, say slapped your child every so often you would be looked at as having abused your child.

Click to expand...

Can you explain what you mean by, "because the children were the property of their parents"?

Nimos said:

And who is the king? your version of God or their version?

Click to expand...

Good question. The first century version. That's what I go by.

Nimos said:

Well because that is how we decide how our society works, who should decide laws etc.

Click to expand...

It does not work! It's pointless to bring up something that does not work, and when it is shown that it's useless, continue to talk about it, as though it's relevant.

Nimos said:

As above, is it your version of God or someone else's version?

Click to expand...

Again. The first century version is what I go by.

nPeace said:

Was there an apostolic age?
Do you disagree with this?
Christianity in the 1st century covers the formative history of Christianity from the start of the ministry of Jesus (c. 27–29 AD) to the death of the last of the Twelve Apostles (c. 100) and is thus also known as the Apostolic Age.
Yes or no?

Click to expand...

I don't see how that is relevant in regards to what we are talking about? Which is that religions, even those that believe in the same things like Jesus, God etc. can't agree. It's not something speculative, its plain and simple facts.

nPeace said:

if you cannot disprove what i am presenting to you, talking about oranges does not help your argument.
It just distracts... It's like a man waving his hands wildly, and shouting loudly, to draw attention away from the crowd coming through the terminal.

Click to expand...

No its not. You are making an argument that children raised with religion are doing better than those without. I don't have to disprove that, you make a claim that this is the case. To which I say is to cherry pick information, and to illustrate it, I linked you a study showing the exact opposite. So even if you demand me to disprove you, that would be enough to do so.

nPeace said:

No. sorry. One is in your head.

Click to expand...

So how do you understand the following verses, if this doesn't mean that you as a slave owner can beat your slaves senseless?

Exodus 21:20-21
20 - "If a man strikes his male or female servant with a stick and he or she dies as a direct result, the master must be punished.
21 - But if the servant survives a day or two, the master is not to be punished because the servant is his property.

nPeace said:

Oh. here we go again. Switching from one thing to another, when the one you are attacking doesn't budge.
Isn't that what we call strawman? How many are you planning on creating?

Click to expand...

This is no different from what I quoted just above. It is written in the bible.

nPeace said:

Any governmental authority has the right to make it mandatory for a criminal to labor, to give back to society.
Your law accepts that. Why you don't is your choice, but it does not mean you are somhow a moral person because you think so, based on your opinion,

Click to expand...

No they don't, it depends on what the laws are in a given country. Im pretty sure that such thing is not allowed in Denmark, but rather the prisoners are given the possibility if they so desire, and they have the possibility of getting an education and a wage for their work as well, even though it is rather low.

nPeace said:

That's your opinion.
Notice you said, your morals.
They are not mine, or anyone else's. Nor are they universal. Nor godly.

Click to expand...

Have you ever heard or experience yourself that you suddenly out of the blue changed your view on something? So one day you think underage child labor is wrong and the next day when you wake up its suddenly perfectly fine? Sorry its just not going to happen.

nPeace said:

The laws of your own land disagrees with you.

Click to expand...

Can you find where it is said in Danish law that forcing prisoners into labor is legal? I tried to find it and couldn't, but could have missed it.

nPeace said:

That's not a fact, sorry. That's your opinion.
If you disagree, then you are obligated to prove that what you claim, is a fact.

Click to expand...

But then define it and put it to the test and see if everyone agree with it?

nPeace said:

Can you explain what you mean by, "because the children were the property of their parents"?

Click to expand...

When a child's parents are allowed to marry off their girls as they see fits, then I would call that the property of their parents.

Sexual slavery, or being sold to be a wife, was common in the ancient world. Throughout the Old Testament, the taking of multiple wives is recorded many times. An Israelite father could sell his unmarried daughters into servitude, with the expectation or understanding that the master or his son could eventually marry her (as in Exodus 21:7-11.) It is understood by Jewish and Christian commentators that this referred to the sale of a daughter, who "is not arrived to the age of twelve years and a day, and this through poverty."

And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

nPeace said:

Again. The first century version is what I go by.

Click to expand...

And what about people like me or other religions that disagree with you?

Nimos said:

I don't see how that is relevant in regards to what we are talking about? Which is that religions, even those that believe in the same things like Jesus, God etc. can't agree. It's not something speculative, its plain and simple facts.

Click to expand...

I understand why you don't see the relevance. You are jumping from one thing to another, and not staying on track with the direction the conversation is going.
You said, and I quote... "They were never true believers to begin with"
I am saying that is false. The was an apostolic age. The followers of Christ. True believers in the teachings of Christ.
Do you accept that or not?

Nimos said:

No its not. You are making an argument that children raised with religion are doing better than those without. I don't have to disprove that, you make a claim that this is the case. To which I say is to cherry pick information, and to illustrate it, I linked you a study showing the exact opposite. So even if you demand me to disprove you, that would be enough to do so.

Click to expand...

That is not true. You need to keep up, and try not losing track of the discussion.
You said, and I quote... There is nothing to suggest that children with a religious background behave better.
I showed you the evidence that proves that that children with a religious background are known to behave better.
Then you started talking about "people telling how they have suffered by these teachings".
Off topic, and totally irrelevant.

Nowhere did I make "an argument that children raised with religion are doing better than those without". What??? You are the one using the broad brush to conveniently detract from my argument.

Nimos said:

So how do you understand the following verses, if this doesn't mean that you as a slave owner can beat your slaves senseless?

Exodus 21:20-21
20 - "If a man strikes his male or female servant with a stick and he or she dies as a direct result, the master must be punished.
21 - But if the servant survives a day or two, the master is not to be punished because the servant is his property.

This is no different from what I quoted just above. It is written in the bible.

Click to expand...

Quoting you again... you can beat them senseless.
Where did you see that in the verse? Please, show me.

Nimos said:

No they don't, it depends on what the laws are in a given country. Im pretty sure that such thing is not allowed in Denmark, but rather the prisoners are given the possibility if they so desire, and they have the possibility of getting an education and a wage for their work as well, even though it is rather low.

Click to expand...

Now who's cherry picking? Denmark? Come on.

British Empire
England and Wales
Northern Ireland
Scotland
New Zealand
France
China
India
North Korea
Japan
United States
Republic of Ireland
Soviet Union

You're outnumbered. Let's be consistent.

Nimos said:

Have you ever heard or experience yourself that you suddenly out of the blue changed your view on something? So one day you think underage child labor is wrong and the next day when you wake up its suddenly perfectly fine? Sorry its just not going to happen.

Click to expand...

You've lost me. What's your point?

Nimos said:

Can you find where it is said in Danish law that forcing prisoners into labor is legal? I tried to find it and couldn't, but could have missed it.

Click to expand...

Are you only concerned with one part of the world? Why?

Nimos said:

But then define it and put it to the test and see if everyone agree with it?

Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

Nimos said:

When a child's parents are allowed to marry off their girls as they see fits, then I would call that the property of their parents.

Sexual slavery, or being sold to be a wife, was common in the ancient world. Throughout the Old Testament, the taking of multiple wives is recorded many times. An Israelite father could sell his unmarried daughters into servitude, with the expectation or understanding that the master or his son could eventually marry her (as in Exodus 21:7-11.) It is understood by Jewish and Christian commentators that this referred to the sale of a daughter, who "is not arrived to the age of twelve years and a day, and this through poverty."

And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money.

Click to expand...

God tolerated, or put of with certain things, which were not in harmony with his will. However, in putting up with them, he made arrangements, to benefit those involved.
Polygamy was not God's will, but he allowed it, and set rules to benefit those involved.
Divorce was not God's will. He did the same here. Same with slavery,
So while God allowed fathers to sell off their daughters, and he allowed persons to sell themselves, and their children, they were regulations in place, to benefit all involved.

As you see in the scripture, she was to marry an Israelite. He was to treat her fairly. See Deuteronomy 21:15-17
So, I don't see anything wrong with the way God operated then.
He did things in a progressive manner.
Eventually, polygamy was removed, and slavery among his people, which he was audible about, that it was not to exist among them.

The way of God is adjusted right.
When one is not willing to consider the circumstances of any given situation, they can make misguided judgments.

One of the things you have not considered here, is that people among Israel, were willing slaves, and they were not to be mistreated, in any way, form, shape, or fashion.
So they actually lived as a domestic worker, all the while enjoying rest, and festivals, like everyone else, until their seven year work ended, and they were freed.
Also, fathers gave their daughters and sons (Genesis 24) in marriage to the one the daughter agree to marry, even to this day. So she may agree to both the slavery, and the marriage, because it was customary among the Jewish people. Brother-in-law marriage was common practice. Marriage was very important to women. Genesis 38:6-26
Not any more. Except to God's people.

God was always good to his people.
He shows himself to be kind, considerate, and patient.
He always gives people the opportunity to learn from their experience. Rather than forcing them to conform to a new way automatically. Leniency is necessary at times, I think.
Thus those qualifies are appealing, imo.

Nimos said:

And what about people like me or other religions that disagree with you?

Click to expand...

What about you? I'm interested in truth, not you and other people's opinions.

nPeace said:

I understand why you don't see the relevance. You are jumping from one thing to another, and not staying on track with the direction the conversation is going.
You said, and I quote... "They were never true believers to begin with"
I am saying that is false. The was an apostolic age. The followers of Christ. True believers in the teachings of Christ.
Do you accept that or not?

Click to expand...

I said that those atheists on the show, regularly gets told by believers that call in and talk to them, that these now atheists weren't ever true believers. How can that be false? You can listen to the show and it happens on a regular basis, so what does that have to do with the apostolic age?

nPeace said:

That is not true. You need to keep up, and try not losing track of the discussion.
You said, and I quote... There is nothing to suggest that children with a religious background behave better.
I showed you the evidence that proves that that children with a religious background are known to behave better.
Then you started talking about "people telling how they have suffered by these teachings".
Off topic, and totally irrelevant.

Nowhere did I make "an argument that children raised with religion are doing better than those without". What??? You are the one using the broad brush to conveniently detract from my argument.

Click to expand...

You just quoted yourself saying it here.. "I showed you the evidence that proves that that children with a religious background are known to behave better."

And I showed you a study that say that they are less kind and altruistic, which is highly related to behaviour. So its not irrelevant, when that is your claim and im saying that you are cherry picking information to draw your conclusion.

nPeace said:

Quoting you again... you can beat them senseless.
Where did you see that in the verse? Please, show me.

Click to expand...

What do you mean, where did I see that in the verse? Do you think this is talking about a Master accidentally dropping a stick or heavy stone on a servant?

If you strike another person and they die as a direct result of it, you are to be punished, but if they don't, nothing happens to them, because the one they hit is their property... how do you understand this in any other way, than it meaning one person having the right to hit someone else, because they own them?
And as long as they don't die within a few days, there is no punishment for doing so. It specifically say that "But if the servant survives" so we are not talking about a light slap on the wrist here, but severe beating if the question is about surviving.

So what do you think these verses means?

Exodus 21:20-21
20 - "If a man strikes his male or female servant with a stick and he or she dies as a direct result, the master must be punished.
21 - But if the servant survives a day or two, the master is not to be punished because the servant is his property.

nPeace said:

Now who's cherry picking? Denmark? Come on.

British Empire
England and Wales
Northern Ireland
Scotland
New Zealand
France
China
India
North Korea
Japan
United States
Republic of Ireland
Soviet Union

You're outnumbered. Let's be consistent.

Click to expand...

Its not cherry picking, because its a counter argument to your statement. That this is the case in all countries to which I say it is not, and it depend on the laws of each country and not some general rule. I use Denmark as an example because that is where I come from and it is not the case here.

nPeace said:

You've lost me. What's your point?

Click to expand...

You said I was wrong about how we get our morals and it was just my opinion. Which might be the case, but I doubt it, and therefore I asked you, if you have ever experienced that your morals have suddenly changed from one moment to the next, just out of the blue without this being based on some former influence or experience.

nPeace said:

Are you only concerned with one part of the world? Why?

Click to expand...

No but you specifically said this:

"The laws of your own land disagrees with you."

So I were interested in hearing where you got those information from.

nPeace said:

What are you talking about?

Click to expand...

Are you reading what you write? because it will take a very long time, if I have to summarize former posts all the time. So this will be the last time I do that:

This was in relationship to the definition of certain words in the bible, you asked me:

"Why do you think God was wrong in this law, please?"

To which I answered:
Because it is based on opinion. A poor father and wife, might pass judgement on their child, without any good reason. There is no clear definition of what is meant by stubborn? rebellious? not obeying? What if the dad told the son to go beat his sister and he refuse? What if the dad is a drunkard with a temper? Even today child abuse and people hitting their partners is an issue. No one would regulate this based on these vague rules, as no one would be able to define what is meant by obeying, being stubborn etc. It is subjective.

I'm much more interested in hearing how you think that God was right about this?

To which you replied:
That's not a fact, sorry. That's your opinion.
If you disagree, then you are obligated to prove that what you claim, is a fact.

I then replied:
But then define it and put it to the test and see if everyone agree with it?

By which I mean, that you define the words stubborn, rebellious, obeying and see if people agree with these definitions covering what laws and punishments should be allowed and not allowed based on this. Because my guess is, that most people will agree that God is wrong about this law, because there is no way to define these words in a meaningful way so laws and rules can be based on them. As you implied in the first question "Why do you think God was wrong in this law, please?"

nPeace said:

God tolerated, or put of with certain things, which were not in harmony with his will. However, in putting up with them, he made arrangements, to benefit those involved.
Polygamy was not God's will, but he allowed it, and set rules to benefit those involved.
Divorce was not God's will. He did the same here. Same with slavery,
So while God allowed fathers to sell off their daughters, and he allowed persons to sell themselves, and their children, they were regulations in place, to benefit all involved.

Click to expand...

So how does it benefit a girl to be sold off as a property? and do you think we should reinstate such laws today, because they are beneficial for everyone involved?

nPeace said:

One of the things you have not considered here, is that people among Israel, were willing slaves, and they were not to be mistreated, in any way, form, shape, or fashion.

Click to expand...

You must be kidding right? When parents have the right to kill a stubborn child, that child is not being mistreated? Girls being sold to others as commodities how on Earth is that "willing slaves" from the perspective of the girl?

If a girl is raped and doesn't yell loud enough it's not really rape or they have to marry their rapist if they get pregnant, and yes that is in the bible as well.

nPeace said:

God was always good to his people.
He shows himself to be kind, considerate, and patient.

Click to expand...

Hmmm no If you read the bible, God kills Israelites left, right and center, because they constantly do something that he doesn't like.

nPeace said:

What about you? I'm interested in truth, not you and other people's opinions.

Click to expand...

What about me, not sure what you mean? Im an atheist and the reason for that is, because I don't think there are any evidence pointing towards there being a God, and therefore religious beliefs should have no impact on how we do things, whether that is laws, education etc.

All vices can be traced to intense desires in the form of cravings and aversions, such as lust, gluttony, greed, hatred, egoism, attachments and so on. This is what manifests materially as rape, murder, robbery and other crimes.

By controlling our desires and ensuring virtuous conduct at all times, we can rise ahead of vice and crimes.

An insightful article by the Prajapita Brahmakumaris on the crime curve...

Rapid Rise in Crime Curve | Brahma Kumaris | Raja Yoga Meditation