That makes no sense at all.
Theism is the claim.
Atheism is the rejection of said claim.
Atheism doesn't make claims.
Yes it probably does not make sense even if the original definition of atheism was that no gods exist.
Theism is certainly a rejection of this claim.
There are of course beliefs which can follow on from our original position of atheism or theism.
Everything anybody thinks to know about god(s), is based on the words of humans who claimed to have had "revelations" and "divine encounters" and "dreams" and "visions".
These Biblical encounters are shown to be true with the prophecies in the Bible having been fulfilled.
Obviously the dude saw it like that, because of cultural homophobia. But the fact is that his core thesis is based on monogamy and stability. There is no reason why a homosexual relationship can't be monogamous and stable. I know enough married gay couples that do exact that. In fact, my wife's best friends are like that. They've been together some 20 years by now. In fact, I'm having a hard time to come up with any other couple (hetero or otherwise) whose relationship is as monogamous, stable and loving as what they have.
Yes I have gay friends who have been in a stable relationship for some time also.
Don't kid yourself. It was full blown slavery. It tells you who you can enslave and from whom you can buy slaves from where.
Yes it was slavery but it was as I said a part of the system of things in those days and an alternative to other things such as prisoner of war camps and overflowing prisons filled with thieves or poverty due to inability to pay debts etc. The stealing of people to sell them as slaves was against the Law.( Exodus 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.) 1Timothy 1:10 also speaks against that practice. If a Jew wanted to sell himself to you to pay a debt he was to be treated as a hired person and his slavery was not to go past the year of Jubilee. (it was not a lifetime thing)
Even if you bought a Hebrew slave (who was of course a slave for a good reason) they were to be released after 6 years and given generously to when he left slavery. The slave could even elect to remain a slave after that time if he liked the master and household. There were special laws for female slaves also to protect them. They were wife to the man who purchased them or his son and were to be treated that way and not sold on into prostitution or anything.
There is a law that allowed Hebrews to buy slaves from foreign countries however but even these had laws to protect them.
Certainly different to what we see as allowable in societies but slavery was acceptable in those days and useful for both master and slave in many cases. I think the Mosaic Laws were a step up from any other laws about slavery at the time in other places.
In those days a man owned his children and this seems strange and even wrong to us but we do in a sense own our kids and nobody has the right to take them from us except for mal treatment these days.
Indeed. It for example tells you in detail how you can beat them to the brink of death, as long as they survive for a couple of days, because as it says: "they are your money".
Ex 21:20 “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
We see that the murderer is to be avenged for the death of the slave. But yes the slave is the man's money and so does not want the slave to be injured and no be able to work. It is recognition that the attack was not meant to murder. This has to be seen in balance with the law that allows slaves to go free for damage received at the hands of their master.
Ex 21:26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth.
Then again, it also says in various stories how they could "keep the virgin girls for themselves" when commanded to go on some genocidal, infanticidal killing spree - like with the amalakites.
The alternative at that time was to kill the Canaanites and wipe them out of the land God was giving the Hebrews. This was also for the good of God's people and because they did not do it and intermarried with the Canaanites and worshipped their gods it ended badly for Israel.
Not in the civilized world, it isn't. Today, this only happens in the most brutal of countries, where human rights are a joke.
In our economic system we become slaves who have to work to pay our debts or have them repossessed. It is a much more "civilised" way of doing things I guess these days.
There are interesting facts and figures about slavery these days however.
https://www.freetheslaves.net/wp-co...ficking-ans-Slavery-Fact-Sheet-April-2018.pdf
Please...........
Let's not go into that silly argument again.
Employees have rights and can quite whenever they want. By no means is employment comparable to slavery. Not even the best kind of slavery you can imagine.
Employees aren't stripped from their rights and freedom. Employees aren't the property of their employers.
There are laws for employees and it took a long time for unions to get them and they are taken away at the drop of a hat by right wing governments,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and really by many left wing governments also who may not have them in the first place.
We are more civilised these days but slavery has served a good purpose at times in history,,,,,,,,,,,and really when I think back I can think of times when I have felt like a slave because of my debts and so lack of freedom to go off and do as I please.
But yes slavery as ownership of a person has been harsh in history also even if the Hebrew version was probably good in comparison to many.
Keep telling yourself that.
The fact is that worker rights only really took off when secularism and human rights (by humanists) were common place. For 1800 years of brutal christian rule, exploitation of workers was the norm.
Different times in history have seen different standards expected of employees but I don't think you could say it was Christian rule. Those who did not treated their neighbour as they would want their neighbour to treat them were certainly going against Christian principles.
que?
Typo? If not a typo then that sentence doesn't make much sense to me.
How does doing evil give good consequences?
Data can point to a certain course of action giving the best results or most desired results but it can be a case of the end justifies the means.
Any (valid) case made would have to be dealing with the data and evidence, not with any perceived authority's opinion.
Gods tend to give commandments instead of reasoned arguments.
Data and evidence are good for determining what is happening and effects of different actions but that does not tell us the rightness or wrongness of the actions.
I have never heared an actual argument from the "pro-life" side. Instead what they have, are religiously inspired assertions.
You means things like taking life is wrong for no good reason or a foetus is a human being because that is what it grows into if fed and protected.
It is good to look at the truth of what a foetus is when making decisions about abortion, instead of arbitrarily deciding when the human life starts.
It is good to have an authoritative rule to work try to live up to when making decisions about abortion also. In this case the rule being that taking human life for no good reason is wrong.
The biggest mistake here, is pretending that religious commandments are a "moral code". They aren't. They are just blind obedience to perceived authorities. That's not a moral code. That's the "morality" of psychopaths.
Usually non psychopaths see the morality in what Jesus had to say to us.
