[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And what terrible choice has the child made, exactly?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that I didn’t claim that the child made a terrible choice.
[quote]
If one allows one’s followers to own those who don’t follow one, one is not absolutely good.[/quote]
-Of course, maybe that IS good.
-I do not have to bend my sense of morality to admit that what is good is good.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Yes their faith is in god. And they believe the book that was divinely inspired by God would be the truth.[/quote]
But to ignore the book was written and influenced by man, is to ignore the very lessons religions teach. See Varq’s cute facebook meme.
lmfao… What the fuck are you smoking? Of course it matters that it was written by man. Jesus Christ. Are you even reading anything, anyone here is writing or just cherry picking tiny portions to try and make some asinine argument? Oh, right you are doing that.
It certainly, without question or equivocation matters that the holy books were written and or effected by MANKIND.
[quote]
How could you possibly know what god finds excessive.[/quote]
I have faith that the most simple and obvious answer is the most likely. One life was ended by the hand of another, not in defense of an assault.
Is killing an innocent chicken for food moral? Because we have to eat other living things (or once living things) in order to survive ourselves, I’m going to go out on a limb and assume it is moral. And if it isn’t moral, we’re in a particular conundrum as it pertains to our human situation, and life is purely about suffering and overcoming difficulty and mistakes.
[quote]
I’m pretty sure you can find instances of people being murdered in the bible when there were no victims. I’m pretty sure some were killed for idol worshiping.[/quote]
You’ve tried this fallacy before, and apparently didn’t read a fucking thing that was written. The people that did it in the name of Christianity were fucking wrong then, and the people doing it now are wrong too.
Holy
fucking
shit
you
are
dumb
Yes that is a personal attack, yes. I can’t take it anymore.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Who are you to question god?[/quote]
Again, another person that ignores these holy books written by men when it is convenient for their argument. [/quote]
I’m sure the people who believe in these books will tell you that while they may have been scribed by man, these men were guided by god and god is perfect. [/quote]
jesus man… Put the keyboard down.
I quit with you for today. It’s too much work watching you say the same stupid shit over and over in different ways and not reading what people are saying. I’ll come back later.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Yes their faith is in god. And they believe the book that was divinely inspired by God would be the truth.[/quote]
But to ignore the book was written and influenced by man, is to ignore the very lessons religions teach. See Varq’s cute facebook meme.
lmfao… What the fuck are you smoking? Of course it matters that it was written by man. Jesus Christ. Are you even reading anything, anyone here is writing or just cherry picking tiny portions to try and make some asinine argument? Oh, right you are doing that.
It certainly, without question or equivocation matters that the holy books were written and or effected by MANKIND.
[quote]
How could you possibly know what god finds excessive.[/quote]
I have faith that the most simple and obvious answer is the most likely. One life was ended by the hand of another, not in defense of an assault.
Is killing an innocent chicken for food moral? Because we have to eat other living things (or once living things) in order to survive ourselves, I’m going to go out on a limb and assume it is moral. And if it isn’t moral, we’re in a particular conundrum as it pertains to our human situation, and life is purely about suffering and overcoming difficulty and mistakes.
[quote]
I’m pretty sure you can find instances of people being murdered in the bible when there were no victims. I’m pretty sure some were killed for idol worshiping.[/quote]
You’ve tried this fallacy before, and apparently didn’t read a fucking thing that was written. The people that did it in the name of Christianity were fucking wrong then, and the people doing it now are wrong too.
Holy
fucking
shit
you
are
dumb
Yes that is a personal attack, yes. I can’t take it anymore. [/quote]
Never said I believed this stuff. You used certain elements to justify your belief. I used those same elements to justify another belief to show you that faith can be used to justify anything. But you get all emotional like a little girl. I’m so hurt by your personal attack.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
You used certain elements to justify your belief.[/quote]
I didn’t justify shit. I explained. Major difference.
No you attempted and failed to try and take what I said and apply it to evil. It didn’t work because you ignored major parts of what I’ve been saying in this thread, cherry picked the portions you thought made an argument for you and just generally did what every bigot “atheist” does when they want to shit on religion.
There is no fucking way anything I’ve said can be used to justify slaughtering innocents, and if that is what you got out of it, you literally are no more intellectually advanced than those that slaughter in the name of God that you shit all over all the time.
No, I got frustrated because your being dumb on purpose, and it is beyond aggravating.
As you shouldn’t be.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
You used certain elements to justify your belief.[/quote]
I didn’t justify shit. I explained. Major difference.
No you attempted and failed to try and take what I said and apply it to evil. It didn’t work because you ignored major parts of what I’ve been saying in this thread, cherry picked the portions you thought made an argument for you and just generally did what every bigot “atheist” does when they want to shit on religion.
There is no fucking way anything I’ve said can be used to justify slaughtering innocents, and if that is what you got out of it, you literally are no more intellectually advanced than those that slaughter in the name of God that you shit all over all the time.
No, I got frustrated because your being dumb on purpose, and it is beyond aggravating.
As you shouldn’t be.
[/quote]
Whatever this is a waste of time. You have all the answers. You seem to know the truth about everything. So it’s a waste talking to you. Clearly your beliefs are right because you say so lol.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Jesus was re-interpreting a set of old commandments that had been written for an ebullient, warlike, conquering tribe, so that they would be relevant to the lives of an impoverished, broken-spirited people living under foreign military occupation.
[/quote]
That is one possible interpretation.
Ever read the book Zealot? I think you’d like it.[/quote]
I haven’t. In fact, I hadn’t heard of it until just now.
Just now read a review of it, which was not terribly complimentary (but what would one expect? a book about Jesus by an Iranian Muslim/Christian/Muslim does not sound like the kind of book a Jewish book reviewer would find much in to like).
I will keep an eye out for it, nonetheless. Thanks for the recommendation.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s a real good book and I’m not overpowered by the arguments in it (he doesn’t provide any evidence of a lot of his assertions), but it is a very very interesting interpretation of who the historical Jesus really was. Basically that he was a failed anti-Roman revolutionist as part of the Jewish Zealot movement.
[/quote]
Jesus was not a zealot. That line of narrative in life of Jesus works has been a around for over a hundred years. There was a book in the 90’s out claiming Jesus was a zealot. He was actually influenced by the Hillel school of Judaism. It shows in some of the things that Jesus is quoted as saying in the Gospels.
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” - Hillel
And then:
“Do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” - Matthew 7:12
Or
“Pass not judgment upon thy neighbor until thou hast put thyself in his place.” - Hillel
And
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.” - Luke 6:37
The Hillel school also believed in resurrection, were very lenient in observing the law and the Hillel school were in a dispute with Pharisees. The zealots were hardcore observers of the law. Remember, they were the ones who would rather be killed than break the law and not fighting on the Sabbath and so on even if they get attacked. They were fanatical about the law. Jesus disputed the law and favoured a lenient interpretation and welcomed Gentiles - this is all more in line with the Hillel school who were as I said, also in an antagonistic relationship with the Pharisees just as Jesus was.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Jesus was re-interpreting a set of old commandments that had been written for an ebullient, warlike, conquering tribe, so that they would be relevant to the lives of an impoverished, broken-spirited people living under foreign military occupation.
[/quote]
That is one possible interpretation.
Ever read the book Zealot? I think you’d like it.[/quote]
I haven’t. In fact, I hadn’t heard of it until just now.
Just now read a review of it, which was not terribly complimentary (but what would one expect? a book about Jesus by an Iranian Muslim/Christian/Muslim does not sound like the kind of book a Jewish book reviewer would find much in to like).
I will keep an eye out for it, nonetheless. Thanks for the recommendation.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s a real good book and I’m not overpowered by the arguments in it (he doesn’t provide any evidence of a lot of his assertions), but it is a very very interesting interpretation of who the historical Jesus really was. Basically that he was a failed anti-Roman revolutionist as part of the Jewish Zealot movement.
[/quote]
Jesus was not a zealot. That line of narrative in life of Jesus works has been a around for over a hundred years. There was a book in the 90’s out claiming Jesus was a zealot. He was actually influenced by the Hillel school of Judaism. It shows in some of the things that Jesus is quoted as saying in the Gospels.
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” - Hillel
And then:
“Do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” - Matthew 7:12
Or
“Pass not judgment upon thy neighbor until thou hast put thyself in his place.” - Hillel
And
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.” - Luke 6:37
The Hillel school also believed in resurrection, were very lenient in observing the law and the Hillel school were in a dispute with Pharisees. The zealots were hardcore observers of the law. Remember, they were the ones who would rather be killed than break the law and not fighting on the Sabbath and so on even if they get attacked. They were fanatical about the law. Jesus disputed the law and favoured a lenient interpretation and welcomed Gentiles - this is all more in line with the Hillel school who were as I said, also in an antagonistic relationship with the Pharisees just as Jesus was.
[/quote]
I won’t pretend to be an expert but the book challenges a lot of the stuff that you point out as being un-zealot like. For example he claims that Jesus was not inclusive of the gentiles. His argument that he was a Zealot centers around his preaching on establishing the kingdom of god on earth by kicking out the romans and roman influence and that he was not as anti-violent as what most people believe est.
But it was a novel argument to me and you already sound like you know more about it than I do after reading the book.
[quote] smh_23 wrote:
If an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent being is talking to you about slavery, in a book in which he’s telling you all about what’s wrong or right, and does not mention that slavery is unequivocally among the former, then either he is OK with it, or he is not omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent.
[/quote]
And what’s wrong with being okay with slavery? Given we’re talking about Bronze Age tribes in existential conflict with each other, struggling to survive. The standard practice in ancient warfare, as you should know, is to kill all the male inhabitants of a conquered city and sell the women and children into slavery. This was done as a matter of course from a position of strength. However, the Israelites weren’t in a position of strength. On the contrary, they were on the very edge of existence facing total annihilation. And yet the Torah, as I have shown before, sets out a series of laws establishing rules for the treatment of slaves. They were extremely liberal given the times and the circumstances. Furthermore, they were particularly concerned with fair treatment of slaves because they Hebrews considered themselves runaway slaves who were freed with the help of God. For example, a Jew is required to give protection to any runaway slave that seeks help. This is a law aimed at protecting slaves who were mistreated.
And there are degrees of slavery and mistreatment. Many slaves in modern times and ancient were well treated and even became a part of the family in many cases. Many slave owners formed a bond with their slaves and vice versa and many slave owners were careful not to separate families and so on.
Who are you to judge Bronze Age tribes for practicing slavery? Who says it’s immoral given the circumstances? Maybe God knows all kinds of politically incorrect things that we don’t. For example - just an example mind. Not saying this is what I think. But what if slavery is actually a form of domestication whereby “feral” people are civilised over several generations? Maybe it’s actually a good thing to be plucked from a savage, brutal state of nature, domesticated and treated well and then to be freed after a few generations. As I said, I’m not suggesting anything politically incorrect like that. But maybe an omniscient being knows all kinds of things that we don’t know? Maybe radical egalitarianism isn’t some kind of magic answer to all of man’s problems.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
But what if slavery is actually a form of domestication whereby “feral” people are civilised over several generations? Maybe it’s actually a good thing to be plucked from a savage, brutal state of nature, domesticated and treated well and then to be freed after a few generations. [/quote]
Sounds legit. Certainly worked out well for the Africans.
I mean, really, where would professional football, baseball, basketball and the music industry be today if not for the Atlantic Slave Trade?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
But what if slavery is actually a form of domestication whereby “feral” people are civilised over several generations? Maybe it’s actually a good thing to be plucked from a savage, brutal state of nature, domesticated and treated well and then to be freed after a few generations. [/quote]
Sounds legit. Certainly worked out well for the Africans.[/quote]
I’m not saying it’s “good”. But perhaps consider alternatives. Surely you’d have to agree African-Americans are better off today and have had better living conditions and lifestyle in general are far better than they would have been and are for tribes living on the edge of existence in the Congo. Again, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying I think slavery is good. But everything is not black and white and I get sick of people saying it is and offering that as evidence that God is immoral.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] smh_23 wrote:
If an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent being is talking to you about slavery, in a book in which he’s telling you all about what’s wrong or right, and does not mention that slavery is unequivocally among the former, then either he is OK with it, or he is not omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent.
[/quote]
And what’s wrong with being okay with slavery? Given we’re talking about Bronze Age tribes in existential conflict with each other, struggling to survive. The standard practice in ancient warfare, as you should know, is to kill all the male inhabitants of a conquered city and sell the women and children into slavery. This was done as a matter of course from a position of strength. However, the Israelites weren’t in a position of strength. On the contrary, they were on the very edge of existence facing total annihilation. And yet the Torah, as I have shown before, sets out a series of laws establishing rules for the treatment of slaves. They were extremely liberal given the times and the circumstances. Furthermore, they were particularly concerned with fair treatment of slaves because they Hebrews considered themselves runaway slaves who were freed with the help of God. For example, a Jew is required to give protection to any runaway slave that seeks help. This is a law aimed at protecting slaves who were mistreated.
And there are degrees of slavery and mistreatment. Many slaves in modern times and ancient were well treated and even became a part of the family in many cases. Many slave owners formed a bond with their slaves and vice versa and many slave owners were careful not to separate families and so on.
Who are you to judge Bronze Age tribes for practicing slavery? Who says it’s immoral given the circumstances? Maybe God knows all kinds of politically incorrect things that we don’t. For example - just an example mind. Not saying this is what I think. But what if slavery is actually a form of domestication whereby “feral” people are civilised over several generations? Maybe it’s actually a good thing to be plucked from a savage, brutal state of nature, domesticated and treated well and then to be freed after a few generations. As I said, I’m not suggesting anything politically incorrect like that. But maybe an omniscient being knows all kinds of things that we don’t know? Maybe radical egalitarianism isn’t some kind of magic answer to all of man’s problems.[/quote]
At least somebody had the balls to come out and say it.
By the way: I am not “judg[ing] Bronze Age tribes for practicing slavery.” Obviously.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh wrote:
That suggests to me either that god is prone to mistakes or that he is not good. Either way, he is not god.[/quote]
Here’s what I think you’re doing, smh: just like in the gun control debates of PWI yore where you BEGIN with the premise of your argument that since personal, private ownership of ICBM’s can’t possibly be allowed/tolerated/justified therefore…22LR ammunition can be regulated and restricted by the government, you’re starting here with the basic premise that “either that god is prone to mistakes or that he is not good. Either way, he is not god.”
You’ve simply got your premise-making efforts discombobulated.
You’re a guy – like many others – who’s in open, defiant rebellion against his Creator and is bound and determined to shake his tiny, insignificant fist at Him. So you construct premises that exclude Him and proceed from there. And of course, you arrive at your preconceived destination as planned.[/quote]
I ask this sincerely: What other option is there? Where did my reasoning go awry? Change the wording a little, of course: Either god is OK with slavery, or the Bible is errant.
If you prove to be right, sure, I’ll give you a W. But if you prove wrong? “Serving” a master (it would certainly make my skin crawl if I were the one saying it proudly) who does not exist? What does it matter in that case that you imagined he’d had it figured out – he didn’t, in the end. If I am pitiful, minute, and finite, then god, in the event that “you chose poorly,” is less than these things: he’s nothing.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
But what if slavery is actually a form of domestication whereby “feral” people are civilised over several generations? Maybe it’s actually a good thing to be plucked from a savage, brutal state of nature, domesticated and treated well and then to be freed after a few generations. [/quote]
Sounds legit. Certainly worked out well for the Africans.[/quote]
I’m not saying it’s “good”. But perhaps consider alternatives. Surely you’d have to agree African-Americans are better off today and have had better living conditions and lifestyle in general are far better than they would have been and are for tribes living on the edge of existence in the Congo. Again, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying I think slavery is good. But everything is not black and white and I get sick of people saying it is and offering that as evidence that God is immoral.[/quote]
This is the same faux-utilitarian argument pushed by slavers in the 19th-century South. You’re just qualifying it with “I’m not saying it’s good.” Really? If god allows it, going so far as to tell his people how to do it, you think maybe it’s not good? And if in fact American blacks are far better off today than they’d have been otherwise, then what isn’t good about it?
Edited.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote] smh_23 wrote:
If an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent being is talking to you about slavery, in a book in which he’s telling you all about what’s wrong or right, and does not mention that slavery is unequivocally among the former, then either he is OK with it, or he is not omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent.
[/quote]
And what’s wrong with being okay with slavery? Given we’re talking about Bronze Age tribes in existential conflict with each other, struggling to survive. The standard practice in ancient warfare, as you should know, is to kill all the male inhabitants of a conquered city and sell the women and children into slavery. This was done as a matter of course from a position of strength. However, the Israelites weren’t in a position of strength. On the contrary, they were on the very edge of existence facing total annihilation. And yet the Torah, as I have shown before, sets out a series of laws establishing rules for the treatment of slaves. They were extremely liberal given the times and the circumstances. Furthermore, they were particularly concerned with fair treatment of slaves because they Hebrews considered themselves runaway slaves who were freed with the help of God. For example, a Jew is required to give protection to any runaway slave that seeks help. This is a law aimed at protecting slaves who were mistreated.
And there are degrees of slavery and mistreatment. Many slaves in modern times and ancient were well treated and even became a part of the family in many cases. Many slave owners formed a bond with their slaves and vice versa and many slave owners were careful not to separate families and so on.
Who are you to judge Bronze Age tribes for practicing slavery? Who says it’s immoral given the circumstances? Maybe God knows all kinds of politically incorrect things that we don’t. For example - just an example mind. Not saying this is what I think. But what if slavery is actually a form of domestication whereby “feral” people are civilised over several generations? Maybe it’s actually a good thing to be plucked from a savage, brutal state of nature, domesticated and treated well and then to be freed after a few generations. As I said, I’m not suggesting anything politically incorrect like that. But maybe an omniscient being knows all kinds of things that we don’t know? Maybe radical egalitarianism isn’t some kind of magic answer to all of man’s problems.[/quote]
At least somebody had the balls to come out and say it.
By the way: I am not “judg[ing] Bronze Age tribes for practicing slavery.” Obviously.[/quote]
You’re trying to take the moral high ground with slavery. If I had a choice of being dropped in the middle of the Congo in a loincloth to fend for myself or to live in a hut on a plantation in the South I’d choose the latter. And if it was a choice between being beheaded by an enemy soldier or captured by them and sold to the Egyptians as a builder or field worker or something. Slavery is not necessarily immoral given alternatives and given things about the human species that we don’t know.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
But what if slavery is actually a form of domestication whereby “feral” people are civilised over several generations? Maybe it’s actually a good thing to be plucked from a savage, brutal state of nature, domesticated and treated well and then to be freed after a few generations. [/quote]
Sounds legit. Certainly worked out well for the Africans.[/quote]
I’m not saying it’s “good”. But perhaps consider alternatives. Surely you’d have to agree African-Americans are better off today and have had better living conditions and lifestyle in general are far better than they would have been and are for tribes living on the edge of existence in the Congo. Again, don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying I think slavery is good. But everything is not black and white and I get sick of people saying it is and offering that as evidence that God is immoral.[/quote]
This is the same faux-utilitarian argument pushed by slavers in the 19th-century South. You’re just qualifying it with “I’m not saying it’s good.” Really? If god allows it, going so far as to tell his people how to do it, you think maybe it’s not good? And if in fact American blacks are far better off today than they’d have been otherwise, then what isn’t good about it?
Edited.[/quote]
As I said it’s a matter of degree and kind. In some instances and times in history in light of other alternatives and so on it certainly could be the lesser of poor options. Just because something is regulated to ensure fair treatment and in that sense “allowed” isn’t making any kind of statement about slavery being always “good” or anything. There is nothing “immoral” about regulations designed to ensure fair treatment of slaves for a Bronze Age tribe so you don’t have any moral high ground to stand upon here. The point you’re trying to make is flawed and you’re trying to rely upon emotion instead of cold, hard reason.
“Worse things can happen to you than slavery, so slavery is not necessarily immoral.”
Let’s see how well the axiom holds up:
Worse things can happen to you than my crushing one of your testicles with a 2-pound hammer (I could crush both, after all), so my crushing one of your testicles with a 2-pound hammer is not necessarily immoral.
Yes?
(There is no emotion here: this is basic stuff. You are pushing set of moral principles that were torn to shreds – by cold, hard logic – a long time ago. And I’m not trying to take the moral high ground; I have it.)
Edited.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
As I said it’s a matter of degree and kind. In some instances and times[/quote]
So you are a moral relativist.
This has been my point all along, and here it shines: the morality of the Abrahamic believer is a sick kind of relativism, so subjective as to approach nihilism. “What is good is whatever god does–whatever;” “slavery is OK for certain people at certain times, it all depends on circumstance, that old excuser of all bullshit, and, of course, god’s mood in any given century.”