28 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfWhy is it that when a Christian engages in reasoned, thoughtful and constrained comversation, people in opposition trot out some petty passive pejorative, in this case, the dreaded "pseudo-intellectual."
Your 'banter' is - to use the word you yourself attempted to use - pseudo-intellectual. You don't have any 'special knowledge' other than an ancient mythology you have rote-learned and that you like to regurgitate along with a convoluted dogma attached to it. It's just stuff you think. It's just stuff in your head. As for our hearts, they pump blood around our bodies.
As though the person attempting to affix the label is completely ignorant of the voluminous scholarship which has been accumulated on the topics discussed, and they are left with no other counter than something which sounds like the person using it knows what they're talking about.
Almost as though they're feigning an interest in intellectual matters for reason of status, since they themselves pretentious and without any solid scholarship to support their charges.
Weird.
28 Mar 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @secondsonThis is an example of what I had in mind when I wrote:
Every true believer who has studied the Bible knows there are those that torture the scriptures to make them say whatever they want.
By saying God condones slavery, when we know slavery isn't God's will for man, you are misrepresenting the character and nature of God in a disingenuous way. You are blaspheming a holy God.
<<Though most refuse to admit it, they pick and choose the verses and passages that support their beliefs and dismiss those that don't and often do so in a most disingenuous manner... Those who claim that they do not pick and choose are disingenuous at best. >>
Secondson has clearly demonstrated that when faced with scripture that goes against his beliefs, he dismisses it in a most disingenuous manner. The only rationale he has offered for dismissing it boils down to the fact that it goes against his beliefs as to "God's will for man". Yet Leviticus 25:44-46 says what it says. Evidently Secondson cannot rationally discuss this topic.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
28 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @rajk999"God tolerates many things that he does not support. and does not like. Gods original laws are perfection but because of man's fallen nature God has put certain rules and guidelines in place in order to accommodate the failings of the flesh."
I have not been following this thread but I suppose I can comment on this particular point, and maybe someone has already done it. God tolerates many things that he does not support. and does not like. Gods original laws are perfection but because of mans fallen nature God has put certain rules and guidelines in place in order to accommodate the failings ...[text shortened]...
Its the same with many of these departures from perfection.
Slavery is another such example.
Yep, I can understand that part, and if God stopped as just 'tolerating' slavery (due to it being a corruption by fallen man) I wouldn't have such an issue. Nor would I if God went a step further than tolerance and gave some moral guidance. - My issue lies with the nature of that guidance, that it's okay to beat a slave if they recover after a day or two. That doesn't sit comfortably with me with the notion of a perfectly loving deity.
28 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWell how I come to grips with that is to first recognize who God is. This is a God of vengeance, a God that supports corporal punishment. A God that stipulates an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.
"God tolerates many things that he does not support. and does not like. Gods original laws are perfection but because of man's fallen nature God has put certain rules and guidelines in place in order to accommodate the failings of the flesh."
Yep, I can understand that part, and if God stopped as just 'tolerating' slavery (due to it being a cor ...[text shortened]... a day or two. That doesn't sit comfortably with me with the notion of a perfectly loving deity.
In no way is God saying to go beat slaves as long as he does not die. The guideline is that IF you have to strike a slave with a rod ensure that the punishment is not fatal. God likewise stipulates beating with the rod children who are going astray. Im pretty sure that slaves were often disobedient, trying to revolt or escape etc. I cannot see a problem with striking a few bad slaves if and when the need arises.
Bear in mind [I know you are a atheist], IF there is a God, these slave owners who ill-treat slaves will be punished. There is no escape from the day of judgment which all men face.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
28 Mar 18
Originally posted by @rajk999Not a bad answer, though we diverge on a couple of points. You say you, 'cannot see a problem with striking a few bad slaves if and when the need arises.' I would question your grounds for considering them 'bad'. If I were a slave I too would be disobedient and try to revolt or escape. (As no man is another man's property).
Well how I come to grips with that is to first recognize who God is. This is a God of vengeance, a God that supports corporal punishment. A God that stipulates an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.
In no way is God saying to go beat slaves as long as he does not die. The guideline is that IF you have to strike a slave with a rod ensure that the punish ...[text shortened]... l-treat slaves will be punished. There is no escape from the day of judgment which all men face.
Also, when you say, 'IF there is a God, these slave owners who ill-treat slaves will be punished,' surely would not apply if God has already told them they will 'not' be punished for beating slaves (if they survive the beating).
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeOk, I can see where we diverge. Deciding what a bad slave is, is up the owners discretion. The man owns the slave. The slave is property. That concept does not exist in developed societies. Man is changing that and becoming more sympathetic. Im sure God smiles at these developments.
Not a bad answer, though we diverge on a couple of points. You say you, 'cannot see a problem with striking a few bad slaves if and when the need arises.' I would question your grounds for considering them 'bad'. If I were a slave I too would be disobedient and try to revolt or escape. (As no man is another man's property).
Also, when you say, ' ...[text shortened]... already told them they will 'not' be punished for beating slaves (if they survive the beating).
I know you have a problem with that but in those days it was a way of life.It was become a slave or be killed. In those days slaves came about because of conquering nations who destroyed every man and child and thy often only kept the women. Now keeping slaves was a way of getting the conquered to live and work under their new masters. Indeed God did not spare his own people from this fate when they themselves became slaves in Egypt for hundreds of years.
God said they would not be punished unless the slave dies. Killing the slave is wrong. Beating is not. Another example of God tolerating and accepting what a fallen man needs to do. In the context of life in those days, the guideline was treat slaves well and do not beat them to kill them. Its not good advice now in these times, as as you said no man owns another man. A time progresses we get closer to the Kingdom of God.
Life in 500 BC v Life in 2018. Would you say that God is pleased with some aspects of how mankind has developed and matured? I would say yes of course. The angels rejoice when atheists show love and concern for their fellow human beings... especially when the ones who are supposed to, don't.
28 Mar 18
Slavery is wrong. Slavery has always been wrong. Slavery will always be wrong.
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,..
In the above passage God is depicted as clearly and unambiguously condoning chattel slavery.
What's interesting is the number of Christians who feel compelled to defend God condoning chattel slavery when faced with this.
Why not simply assert that the depiction of God condoning chattel slavery by the Jews was wrong since it is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus?
28 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @thinkofoneSlavery is wrong.
Slavery is wrong. Slavery has always been wrong. Slavery will always be wrong.
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. 46 ...[text shortened]... doning chattel slavery by the Jews was wrong since it is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus?
Divorce is wrong.
Having many wives is wrong.
Beating your kids is wrong
Fallen man does a lot of wrong things.
But God in his wisdom knew that forcing perfect laws was going to be pointless.
So guidelines in areas where man failed had to be implemented.
28 Mar 18
Originally posted by @rajk999This rationale doesn't really make any sense.
Slavery is wrong.
Divorce is wrong.
Having many wives is wrong.
Beating your kids is wrong
Fallen man does a lot of wrong things.
But God in his wisdom knew that forcing perfect laws was going to be pointless.
So guidelines in areas where man failed had to be implemented.
Take murder for instance. Man failed there also. And continues to fail. How wasn't it also "pointless" for God to condemn murder?
28 Mar 18
Originally posted by @romans1009So now YOU know the mind of god. Good to know. Now I can ask you about god and get true answers.
Why don’t you just come out and admit you’re an atheist?
God was working within a system set up by man, to whom He gave free will.
28 Mar 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneI disagree with putting offences like owning slaves on the same level with murder.
This rationale doesn't really make any sense.
Take murder for instance. Man failed there also. And continues to fail. How wasn't it also "pointless" for God to condemn murder?
All sins and offences are not the same.
28 Mar 18
6 edits
Originally posted by @rajk999Never said they were.
I disagree with putting offences like owning slaves on the same level with murder.
All sins and offences are not the same.
"Murder" was just an example from the myriad things that God saw fit to condemn.
Take your pick from the following (or anywhere else):
Leviticus 19
11‘You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another
13‘You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him.
19‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.
35‘You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measurement of weight, or capacity.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Mar 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneDo you believe in the existence of moral absolutes?
Never said they were.
"Murder" was just an example from the myriad things that God saw fit to condemn.
Take your pick from the following (or anywhere else):
Leviticus 19
11‘You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another
13‘You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him.
19‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed toget ...[text shortened]... al mixed together.
35‘You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measurement of weight, or capacity.
28 Mar 18
Originally posted by @dj2beckerIf you have a point to make, then plainly state it.
Do you believe in the existence of moral absolutes?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Mar 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneYes or No? It’s a simple question. Dodge it again and my point is made.
If you have a point to make, then plainly state it.