Commitment to God

QuestioningMind said:

If the old books got it so wrong, why should anyone expect the new books to do any better?

Click to expand...

I believe God allowed slavery in the Bible not because it was a good thing morally back then, but because the economic situation made the abolition of slavery impractical given the lack of moral development of the slave owners. It would be unrealistic for slave owners to change so drastically that they would give up the material benefits of slavery and become probably poor. This is just a guess mind you.

As to women's equality, it was so taken for granted in the Old Testament that men were in charge, they would not been able to accept such a radical change. In the New Testament, the only one who appears to advocate women being subjugated to women was Paul, and that is from letters which likely weren't actually written by Paul. Not that I consider Paul as being infallible. Jesus seemed to highly regard some women. It's true that his twelve disciples were all men, but I ascribe that to the fact that in Jewish society back then, men were freer to travel with Jesus.

Who is God but men in that scenario looking back.

Your one man self spiritual advice says against hypocrite brothers scientists no man is God.

The agreed science statement. No man is God.

God O an end in formation stone.

Try to end any stone product a body of God you destroy support of life.

A man O born from an ovary thinks one cell that gave me back my man male life. My father never. My mother holy o cell ovary.

If he falsely looks back and calls an ape ovary O his mother. He will be abominated. For falsifying his life in. Falsified science lie.

O pi says science man thinking.

Looks at Phi change to O God as the cell that created all life. Falsified thinking.

Thinks about microbes as being first O cells like ovary. Not O Phi on ground.

Says ovary types had to own by variables all end life forms. Complete.

A tree now forms a new tree present by seed.

His man seed sperm however does not continue his life.

Quotes I need a life equal a female with a cell.

To own spirit life. O ovaries a cell gives the spirit its body form.

The spirit does not precede O.

What he lies about in science.

The spirit adult owns lots of O cells also to exist. Spirit plus O life.

O by itself is of no spirit.

The lie argued biologist versus nuclear occultists.

O cell on ground equals presence alien image.

Reasoning no man is O God.

CH spirits gases in science not O from cells. Mass.

Anti Christ. To anti gas spirit is not a human. But man X men not a man caused Christ to fall the gases.

What coercive lying is. I never caused it says one man. I am not Christ mass or anti Christ. Men group did it.

Study human consciousness and see it lying to itself.

Trailblazer said:

The old books were written for a different age in history, and maybe slavery and subjugation of women was what was needed in those ages. That was thousands of years ago, so how can we really know what people and the world they lived in were like back then?

The new books were written for the age we live in, so the teachings and laws as well as the new message from God were written for people living in this age

Christians and Jews cling to old books that have outdated teachings and laws because they do not want to relinquish their older religions and accept a new religion, because they believe their religion is the only true religion. It is as if they are living in a time warp, following books that do not apply to the modern age. But time does not stop; time kept moving on and they got left behind.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

Click to expand...

The old books were written for a different age in history, and maybe slavery and subjugation of women was what was needed in those ages.

And that's EXACTLY why I think it's so very dangerous to look for morality in a silly book. Here you are actually trying to JUSTIFY slavery and the subjugation of females, all because it's written in some silly book. If it could be justified in a different age, why couldn't it also be justified in this age?

Truthseeker9 said:

I believe God allowed slavery in the Bible not because it was a good thing morally back then, but because the economic situation made the abolition of slavery impractical given the lack of moral development of the slave owners. It would be unrealistic for slave owners to change so drastically that they would give up the material benefits of slavery and become probably poor. This is just a guess mind you.

As to women's equality, it was so taken for granted in the Old Testament that men were in charge, they would not been able to accept such a radical change. In the New Testament, the only one who appears to advocate women being subjugated to women was Paul, and that is from letters which likely weren't actually written by Paul. Not that I consider Paul as being infallible. Jesus seemed to highly regard some women. It's true that his twelve disciples were all men, but I ascribe that to the fact that in Jewish society back then, men were freer to travel with Jesus.

Click to expand...

I see... so back then God didn't want to upset the 1% who controlled virtually all of the wealth because they would have become 'poor' if they were told they had to share their wealth with those who actually did most of the work. Sounds like the EXACT same argument slave owners in the American south used to justify owning [people as property. It also sounds a bit like what the big corporation's say about having 'no choice' but to seek out labor markets where they can pay virtually nothing for the labor that is making them billions in profits.

And here I thought God was all about caring for the poor and downtrodden, not in maintaining the status quo for the 1%.

QuestioningMind said:

The old books were written for a different age in history, and maybe slavery and subjugation of women was what was needed in those ages.

And that's EXACTLY why I think it's so very dangerous to look for morality in a silly book. Here you are actually trying to JUSTIFY slavery and the subjugation of females, all because it's written in some silly book. If it could be justified in a different age, why couldn't it also be justified in this age?

Click to expand...

I already explained that every age is different and has different requirements, so what was justified in former ages is not justified for the present age. People and the world we live in are different than they were 4000 years ago, so slavery and subjugation of women are not justified in the present age (they are not appropriate, they are not needed).

This is not a perfect analogy, but could your behavior when you were a small child be justified now that you are an adult?

“The Prophets of God should be regarded as physicians whose task is to foster the well-being of the world and its peoples, that, through the spirit of oneness, they may heal the sickness of a divided humanity. To none is given the right to question their words or disparage their conduct, for they are the only ones who can claim to have understood the patient and to have correctly diagnosed its ailments. No man, however acute his perception, can ever hope to reach the heights which the wisdom and understanding of the Divine Physician have attained. Little wonder, then, if the treatment prescribed by the physician in this day should not be found to be identical with that which he prescribed before. How could it be otherwise when the ills affecting the sufferer necessitate at every stage of his sickness a special remedy?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 80

Trailblazer said:

I already explained that every age is different and has different requirements, so what was justified in former ages is not justified for the present age. People and the world we live in are different than they were 4000 years ago, so slavery and subjugation of women are not justified in the present age (they are not appropriate, they are not needed).

This is not a perfect analogy, but could your behavior when you were a small child be justified now that you are an adult?

“The Prophets of God should be regarded as physicians whose task is to foster the well-being of the world and its peoples, that, through the spirit of oneness, they may heal the sickness of a divided humanity. To none is given the right to question their words or disparage their conduct, for they are the only ones who can claim to have understood the patient and to have correctly diagnosed its ailments. No man, however acute his perception, can ever hope to reach the heights which the wisdom and understanding of the Divine Physician have attained. Little wonder, then, if the treatment prescribed by the physician in this day should not be found to be identical with that which he prescribed before. How could it be otherwise when the ills affecting the sufferer necessitate at every stage of his sickness a special remedy?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 80

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I've yet to hear any reasonable argument for why slavery and the subjugation of woman was ever NEEDED, even 4000 years ago. Any of the very poor arguments I have heard could just as easily be used to justify the same practices today.

QuestioningMind said:

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I've yet to hear any reasonable argument for why slavery and the subjugation of woman was ever NEEDED, even 4000 years ago. Any of the very poor arguments I have heard could just as easily be used to justify the same practices today.

Click to expand...

Since you did not live back in those days you cannot know why they were needed.

You are making a judgment based upon the way the world is at the present time and perhaps what you know about the last few hundred years. I consider that illogical.

How do you think this argument could be used to justify the same practices today? I don't see it.

QuestioningMind said:

I see... so back then God didn't want to upset the 1% who controlled virtually all of the wealth because they would have become 'poor' if they were told they had to share their wealth with those who actually did most of the work. Sounds like the EXACT same argument slave owners in the American south used to justify owning [people as property. It also sounds a bit like what the big corporation's say about having 'no choice' but to seek out labor markets where they can pay virtually nothing for the labor that is making them billions in profits.

And here I thought God was all about caring for the poor and downtrodden, not in maintaining the status quo for the 1%.

Click to expand...

In the Old Testament, slaves had more rights than slaves in the United States later.

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

Moses, "The Second Book of Moses", 21:2

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Moses, "The Second Book of Moses", 21:20

And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.

Moses, "The Second Book of Moses", 21:26

Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

Moses, "The Fifth Book of Moses", 23:15

Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates: At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the LORD, and it be sin unto thee.

Moses, "The Fifth Book of Moses", 24:14

I would say also that I am only guessing about the reason the existence of slavery was tolerated by God among Jews, and so are you. I give God the benefit of the doubt.

Trailblazer said:

Since you did not live back in those days you cannot know why they were needed.

You are making a judgment based upon the way the world is at the present time and perhaps what you know about the last few hundred years. I consider that illogical.

How do you think this argument could be used to justify the same practices today? I don't see it.

Click to expand...

What's truly illogical is a sad and ugly attempt to justify immoral actions by pretending as if thousands of years ago human being were so very different that slavery and the subjugation of women was somehow a GOOD thing. Sorry, but 'you didn't live back then so you can't know why it may have been moral' doesn't cut it. You may as well be arguing that thousands of years ago it was perfectly moral for parents to roast and eat their own children. After all, YOU didn't live back then and claiming that it was WRONG would be illogical.

See what looking to an old book can do to your moral center.

QuestioningMind said:

What's truly illogical is a sad and ugly attempt to justify immoral actions by pretending as if thousands of years ago human being were so very different that slavery and the subjugation of women was somehow a GOOD thing. Sorry, but 'you didn't live back then so you can't know why it may have been moral' doesn't cut it. You may as well be arguing that thousands of years ago it was perfectly moral for parents to roast and eat their own children. After all, YOU didn't live back then and claiming that it was WRONG would be illogical.

Click to expand...

And that is arrogant for you to think you KNOW what people were like thousands of years ago and what they NEEDED. It is also arrogant for you to think you KNOW -- better than God knows -- what is a GOOD thing for humans.

Roasting and eating their own children is hardly comparable to taking slaves that were treated well (as Truthseeker9 pointed out) or having women subjugated to men... A logical person would wonder if the slaves or the women were bothered by the roles they had in society back in those days, rather than assuming they know it all.

QuestioningMind said:

See what looking to an old book can do to your moral center.

Click to expand...

That is one reason I do not look to old books for guidance on what to do in the present age.
Why would any logical person do that? I expect that of religious believers because they are attached to their older religions like glue, but I often wonder why atheists talk about the Bible so much, as if it was the only scripture ever written.

Truthseeker9 said:

In the Old Testament, slaves had more rights than slaves in the United States later.

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

Moses, "The Second Book of Moses", 21:2

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Moses, "The Second Book of Moses", 21:20

And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.

Moses, "The Second Book of Moses", 21:26

Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

Moses, "The Fifth Book of Moses", 23:15

Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates: At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the LORD, and it be sin unto thee.

Moses, "The Fifth Book of Moses", 24:14

I would say also that I am only guessing about the reason the existence of slavery was tolerated by God among Jews, and so are you. I give God the benefit of the doubt.

Click to expand...

In the Old Testament, slaves had more rights than slaves in the United States later.

That's a blatant falsehood. The non-Hebrew slaves, the ones bought from the nations round you, could be kept for life and could even be passed onto your heirs. They could be beaten - just as long as they didn't die within a couple of days as a result.

Any god being that would condone such behavior is not a god worthy of basing one's morality on. And it's truly sad that it makes otherwise moral people seek to justify such abhorrent behavior.

QuestioningMind said:

Any god being that would condone such behavior

Click to expand...

What makes you think God condoned such behavior?
The Old Testament is anthropomorphism of men.

Trailblazer said:

What makes you think God condoned such behavior?
The Old Testament is anthropomorphism of men.

Click to expand...

There are plenty who claim that the OT are words from the Messengers of God. If you're telling me that these Messengers of God are just fallible men claiming to be Messengers of God, I'd tend to agree.

QuestioningMind said:

There are plenty who claim that the OT are words from the Messengers of God. If you're telling me that these Messengers of God are just fallible men claiming to be Messengers of God, I'd tend to agree.

Click to expand...

They can claim anything they want to claim, but they can never prove that Moses or Jesus wrote any of those scriptures. That was my point.

Jews and Christians know they were not written by Moses or Jesus but they still believe they are the Word of God.
I do not quite know how that works but it does not matter to me because those are not the scriptures I adhere to.

QuestioningMind said:

In the Old Testament, slaves had more rights than slaves in the United States later.

That's a blatant falsehood. The non-Hebrew slaves, the ones bought from the nations round you, could be kept for life and could even be passed onto your heirs. They could be beaten - just as long as they didn't die within a couple of days as a result.

Any god being that would condone such behavior is not a god worthy of basing one's morality on. And it's truly sad that it makes otherwise moral people seek to justify such abhorrent behavior.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know the non Hebrew slave could be kept for life, at least that's what I understand, though I couldn't on my search find that. Suit yourself how you look for it.

Truthseeker9 said:

Yes, I know the non Hebrew slave could be kept for life, at least that's what I understand, though I couldn't on my search find that. Suit yourself how you look for it.

Click to expand...

So how is it that non Hebrew slaves had it so much better than slaves in the United States?

QuestioningMind said:

So how is it that non Hebrew slaves had it so much better than slaves in the United States?

Click to expand...

I'm through with this discussion. It's not really a matter of reason, ultimately. I'm not into endlessly arguing.

Truthseeker9 said:

I'm through with this discussion. It's not really a matter of reason, ultimately. I'm not into endlessly arguing.

Click to expand...

Who are you arguing with? I simply asked you to tell me why you thought non Hebrew slaves had it so much better that slaves in the United States. Perhaps you're conceding that what you claimed simply isn't true.

QuestioningMind said:

Perhaps you're conceding that what you claimed simply isn't true.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps he just does not like to argue because it leads to discord.
Some of us could learn from him.

Trailblazer said:

Or perhaps he just does not like to argue because it leads to discord.
Some of us could learn from him.

Click to expand...

He took the time to disagree with what I posted... yet you claim he doesn't like to argue. That's rather confusing.