24 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfYou'd have to refer to the post I made in the debate section.
We know that Philokalia/Jacob does not really believe in a society with a network of "rights" and "freedoms". We know that he believes that rights are an obstacle to discussing politics in the 21st century and that he feels they are a "sacred cow." He is against ascribing rights to humans who are not what he sees as being productive agents in society. And we kn ...[text shortened]... ssumption that their citizenship is valuable and wanted. He has been pretty candid about it all.
You know, you could have just gone over, read it, and made a mental note of it, so as to have it clear.
So let me briefly summarize the position:
Rights/freedoms are not meaningful because they do not actually guarantee us anything in addition to just begin using language to point out things that we should take for granted.
WE should take it for granted that we are able to say what we want, worship how we want, etc., and that no one has the right ot take these things away from us.
It is certainly ironic that a guy named Meechan (who isn't a Nazi) making his pug dog raise his paw to the words "Sieg Heil" is going to be put into a jail in a country that everyone here would agree is "democratic" and supports the "freedom" of its people. Such an absurdity is pretty unconscionable.
And how did your "Freedoms" and "Rights" help prevent any of that? It really didn't.
It's a useless rhetoric tool.
But, more importantly, you cannot invent natural rights. We should only accept what there is.
People usually say that we have rights because those are the ways that we want to be treated, but let's think of it this way: man has a natural sense of justice, although these senses of justice are often very divergent, but we still cannot extrapolate from a Natural Right a whole political or legal right and say that it is proven.
What we are still creating in the head is some manmade institution... and it is a man made institution that is going to fail.
EDIT: excuse me, "GFOING TO FAIL" no, has failed.
24 Mar 18
The reason that Protestants fought so long and hard for the minimization of government is because of the belief that all isntitutions of man become corrupted, andit is through man's corruption that large, authoritative institutions would then be used to destroy great segments of the people.
We saw that happen all over the world in the 20th century and we still see areas where it is happenign now.
What is funny is that these "natural rights" and "rights' that they created are now doing exactly just that: giving an excuse for a temporal power ot interfere in the rights of people.
24 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @philokaliaGo and answer the question on the Spirituality Forum thread you ran away from.
You'd have to refer to the post I made in the debate section.
You know, you could have just gone over, read it, and made a mental note of it, so as to have it clear.
So let me briefly summarize the position:
Rights/freedoms are not meaningful because they do not actually guarantee us anything in addition to just begin using language to point ou ...[text shortened]... e institution that is going to fail.
EDIT: excuse me, "GFOING TO FAIL" no, has failed.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeThe example was to show some sense of ownership in employment is not illogical.
In this unfortunate analogy you provided (comparing your employee to a slave to address the 'property' description) was it equally okay for you to beat your employee, so long as you didn't kill him and if he recovered in a day or two?
And the command from the law of God was not to go out and beat the servant. It was provision for the event that a beating occurred.
If you don't see this you just don't want to.
God knew that such things, along with poverty and servitude, WOULD happen.
Regulation, control, should a beating occur in an inferior work arrangement are the issue not description of God's ideal.
24 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonshipYou have been asked several times about whether you consider slavery as being morall justafiable and you keep avoiding answering; I wonder why that is...
So you will not confess where your are on belief in God.
But you want to talk about God a lot. teaching about God.
I suppose that I really should assume that you have an utter hatred for God. And until you muster some courage to admit where you stand, this thread's veneer of intellectual objectivity is actually an expression of your utter hatred for God ...[text shortened]... irituality forum posturing objective study of the Bible.
I can't respect you ThinkOfOne.[/b]
24 Mar 18
Originally posted by @philokaliaDo you think it was wrong for Meechan to be put in gaol for making his pug dog raise his paw to the words "Sieg Heil"? If so, why?
It is certainly ironic that a guy named Meechan (who isn't a Nazi) making his pug dog raise his paw to the words "Sieg Heil" is going to be put into a jail in a country that everyone here would agree is "democratic" and supports the "freedom" of its people. Such an absurdity is pretty unconscionable. And how did your "Freedoms" and "Rights" help prevent any of that? It really didn't.
24 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonshipThis is just a dishonest smokescreen sonship. The truth is, if you are honest, that you just don’t want to find yourself once again defending the indefensible.
I have seen your question.
I don't want to have an exchange of thoughts with you.
Maybe as B.B. King said "The thrill is gone."
Look, if kidnapping was punished by a death sentence, it seems logical that slavery based on kidnapping was a moral abomination to God.
Indentured servitude, while not ideal, could be morally justifiable.
I recognize ...[text shortened]... bickering which I told you I desire to graduate from. You can have a different opinion from me.
24 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonshipLook, if kidnapping was punished by a death sentence, it seems logical that slavery based on kidnapping was a moral abomination to God.
I have seen your question.
I don't want to have an exchange of thoughts with you.
Maybe as B.B. King said "The thrill is gone."
Look, if kidnapping was punished by a death sentence, it seems logical that slavery based on kidnapping was a moral abomination to God.
Indentured servitude, while not ideal, could be morally justifiable.
I recognize ...[text shortened]... bickering which I told you I desire to graduate from. You can have a different opinion from me.
What a laughably ineffectual argument.
The prohibition was against "kidnapping a fellow Israelite":
Deuteronomy 24
7If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.
In the passage below God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery. Chattel slaves were non-Israelites. Deuteronomy 24:7 would clearly not apply.
Leviticus 25
44“ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life,..
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
In the OT God said kidnapping was for the Israelites punishable by death sentence.
In the NT God says kidnapping is profane, unholy, ungodly, and against healthy teaching with no regard to whether the kidnapper is towards a Jewish countryman or some other relationship.
In Leviticus 19:33-34 the Israelites were commanded to love the stranger in the land.
Servitude or no, God's command was -
"When a stronger [ger] resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong."
I think that means that God was commanding that they Isaelites should not do that foreigner wrong.
"The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God." (Lev. 19:33-34)
The command in reinforced in Deuteronomy the "Re-Speaking".
"So show your love for the alien [ger] , for you were aliens in the land of Egypt." (Deut. 10:19)
They were slaves in Egypt.
Paul Copan -
Since the land belonged to Yahweh (Lev. 25:23; Josh 22:19), who graciously loaned it to the families of Israel, foreign settlers couldn't acquire it. Yet a foreigner [nokri] could become an alien [ger] if he embraced Israel's ways fully; he would no longer be a permanent outsider. Allowances were made for aliens in terms of gleaning laws and other provisions. The foreigner didn't need to feel excluded in the host country; presumably he wasn't forced to remain in Israel either. Though without land, he would share in the community life in Israel either. and religious celebrations of Israel with many improved economic and status perks; think of Rahab and Ruth here.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
24 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonship"And the command from the law of God was not to go out and beat the servant. It was provision for the event that a beating occurred."
The example was to show some sense of ownership in employment is not illogical.
And the command from the law of God was not to go out and beat the servant. It was provision for the event that a beating occurred.
If you don't see this you just don't want to.
God knew that such things, along with poverty and servitude, WOULD happen.
Regulation, c ...[text shortened]... ld a beating occur in an inferior work arrangement are the issue not description of God's ideal.
Indeed, and it was God's view that no punishment was due if the slave recovered in a day or two (Due to being the property of the owner). Do you truly not glean the abhorrence in that?!
Originally posted by @sonshipYou should really take the time to fully comprehend what was being said in Leviticus 25:39-55. and more to the point in 25:44-46.
In the OT God said kidnapping was for the Israelites punishable by death sentence.
In the NT God says kidnapping is profane, unholy, ungodly, and against healthy teaching with no regard to whether the kidnapper is towards a Jewish countryman or some other relationship.
In [b]Leviticus 19:33-34 the Israelites were commanded to love the stranger in ...[text shortened]... s of Israel with many improved economic and status perks; think of Rahab and Ruth here. [/quote][/b]
In Leviticus 25:44-46 God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery. This will be true no matter how much you try to spin it otherwise,
Christianity is largely built upon half-truths and taking verses / passages out of context and pretending that they say something they don't. It is built upon sand. In this thread, you've been carrying on in a similar fashion.
24 Mar 18
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke"You blind guides!
"And the command from the law of God was not to go out and beat the servant. It was provision for the event that a beating occurred."
Indeed, and it was God's view that no punishment was due if the slave recovered in a day or two (Due to being the property of the owner). Do you truly not glean the abhorrence in that?!
You filter out a gnat, yet swallow a camel!"
The camel in this telling is the insistence, informed by ignorance, arrogance or both--- and you've taken pains to inform any and all regarding your 'successful' theological studies--- is the idea that God is inexplicably evil, not good.
What a wildly weird position you find yourself in!
Beginning with an absolute and utter conviction of God's immutable and unquestioned representation of all that is good, to where you are now, wholly convinced that He is actually evil personified.
How could you have been so thoroughly and completely wrong?
It's almost as though you can't trust your take on anything, huh.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
24 Mar 18
Originally posted by @freakykbhSorry, all I hear when you speak is 'flat Earth,' 'acts of terrorism are fake." It contaminates everything you post.
"You blind guides!
You filter out a gnat, yet swallow a camel!"
The camel in this telling is the insistence, informed by ignorance, arrogance or both--- and you've taken pains to inform any and all regarding your 'successful' theological studies--- is the idea that God is inexplicably evil, not good.
What a wildly weird position you find yours ...[text shortened]... ughly and completely wrong?
It's almost as though you can't trust your take on anything, huh.