11 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by gtbiking4lifeWell kid, it's no surprise that you've chosen to just make vague accusations and snide comments rather than directly address the germane points of my post. I directly addressed yours in detail -twice even. Evidently you aren't mature enough to do the same.
Just learning to read? I already explained why I said what I did which you continue to ignore and cherry pick what you want. I take it you are very young which your posts tell me. I'll leave you alone in your own little imaginary world since you never understood anything I said.
11 Oct 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Nobody's that dim.
It is not MY definition. It is from merriam-webster. Once again:from http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/endorse<endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely
a : [b]to approve openly
It is not MY premise. It is clearly stated in Leviticus 25:44-46:
[quote]you ...[text shortened]... learn to just absurdly deny anything that goes against what the Watchtower Society tells you?[/b]we are taught to use our own minds and discern for ourselves what is indeed good and proper, endorse is your term, not mine, i reject it, God has not actively supported slavery he has merely allowed its practice, it was never his intention that persons should be subject to slavery, you have provided no reasonable basis to the contrary and i reject the premise entirely, to permit is hardly to approve of, unless of course you are willing to state that Gods allowance of suffering carries his approval. You silly person, give yourself a wedgie in honour of your stupidity!
11 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe word 'mad' was not used in the article, therefore your 'contextual deduction' that he meant angry is simply false. Your simply projecting your own prejudices onto the artcile without even reading it. That is, what you would call, sensationalistic jingoism.
well he endorsed the idea by hosting it on his personal web-site did he not, and as i have not read the article, i have simply deduced contextually from the article title that 'mad' must have meant 'angry', and no amount of 'have you been on the scotch', and other vain accusations can diminish the fact! Not to mention that whoever posted it has infringed upon the copyright! criminals!
I asked you whether you had been on the scotch as i refuse to believe you could be that daft. Evidently i am wrong.
11 Oct 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnethe last line should be "Are there any fundamental Christians who will condemn God's endorsement of slavery?"
There has been some discussion about this spread across multiple threads. Let's centralize those discussions here.
Cassiad4 issued this challenge:
"Do any of these followers of this god dare to say that their god is WRONG and that god endorses something which is evil?"
So far as I know, none have stepped forward though several have made claims they ...[text shortened]... mned?
Are there any Christians who will condemn God's endorsement of slavery?
i am a christian and i don't believe god necessarily dictated all the wonderful stuff in the OT like genocide and etc.
11 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobit was used in the title of the article, i did not make that up dear Noobster, therefore you shall be pleased to state indeed what they did mean, is it either that we are mentally deranged? or that we are angry? or that our anger has driven us to mental derangement? i refuse to believe that you would be so obtuse as to defend the undefendable! actually i have read it, its double ultra concentrated tosh! you should not be feeding your mind on such tabloid presentations! a very poor and biased presentation it was dear Noobster, i am surprised at the atheistic community for this! constructive criticism i do not mind, but sensationalistic journalism, well well . . . who would have thought the gods of reason and logic would stoop so low.
The word 'mad' was not used in the article, therefore your 'contextual deduction' that he meant angry is simply false. Your simply projecting your own prejudices onto the artcile without even reading it. That is, what you would call, sensationalistic jingoism.
I asked you whether you had been on the scotch as i refuse to believe you could be that daft. Evidently i am wrong.
11 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLol so it is.
it was used in the title of the article, i did not make that up dear Noobster, therefore you shall be pleased to state indeed what they did mean, is it either that we are mentally deranged? or that we are angry? i refuse to believe that you would be so obtuse as to defend the undefendable! actually i have read it, its double ultra concentrated tosh! you should not be feeding your mind on such tabloid presentations!
I didn't even look at the title. My apologies. Time for an eye test i feel.
But the article does have a very good point when the first paragraph or so states -
A new group of atheists has arisen in society. Called the new atheists, they are not content to keep their views to themselves.
Coming from a JW article the irony is overwhemling.
11 Oct 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobLol, yes i know, we have been rumbled again! although i reject the articles mocking of our ministry, stating that we are scared to call on atheists, this is simply not true. Indeed i would rather talk with many an atheist than some of those mental born again Christians.
Lol so it is.
I didn't even look at the title. My apologies. Time for an eye test i feel.
But the article does have a very good point when the first paragraph or so states -
A new group of atheists has arisen in society. Called the new atheists, they are not content to keep their views to themselves.
Coming from a JW article the irony is overwhemling.
11 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou may not be scared to talk to atheists, but the writer of the article has obviously found that JW's don't wish to talk to him anymore once he has revealed himself as an atheist. You i feel are not representative of the whole organisation. The authour of the article PZ Myers, an esteemed biology professor, is from the US. Atheists are looked upon slightly differently 'over the pond' than they are here in the UK i think.
Lol, yes i know, we have been rumbled again! although i reject the articles mocking of our ministry, stating that we are scared to call on atheists, this is simply not true. Indeed i would rather talk with many an atheist than some of those mental born again Christians.
Edit - Rob, you are one fo those mental born again Christians.
11 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAfter our little JW/atheist side track back to the question at hand.
firstly it is relatively easy to state that Gods original purpose was for man to have dominion of the earth, to cultivate and look after it and to expand the borders of paradise throughout the entire earth. Since moral independence from God has resulted in all manner of ills, man came to dominate man to his injury, thus we see that tyranny and corru ...[text shortened]... emselves, it is of course tosh that we are angry that you should express your point of view.
If it wasn't God's intention that persons be subjected to slavery as you cliamed, it begs the question, why was it permitted in the first place?
The Bible has quite clear guidelines on the practise of slavery, Leviticus 44 onwards. I can't see how that can be reconciled with your claim that it wasn't God's intention persons be subjected to slavery.
11 Oct 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou should read a little bit more the context in which you are referencing, you have taken it out of it. Taking only a section out of an entire book, it becomes easy to do that. Someone has also commented on slaves back then and the slave times that we have more knowledge on (more up to date slavery). That person was right slavery back then, and the treatment was was different. Thats not without saying their were exceptions. Will I say God is wrong No.I am more than just a regular church goer as well. I have went to college for this. To explain it will take to much time.
Since you don't seem to understand the meaning of "endorse":from http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/endorse
a : to approve openly <endorse an idea>; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely
Why don't you stop all this dancing around and engage in an honest discussion?
Once again:
Can there really ...[text shortened]... s not condemned?
Are there any Christians who will condemn God's endorsement of slavery?
On the flip side non believers too owned slaves so should I say All non believers are wrong? Evolution, or the Universe (basically what you believe in) is evil?
Can there really be any circumstance under which slavery is not condemned?
Yes, when working off your debt. Just treat the person (slave) as a person or equal.
11 Oct 10
Originally posted by Proper Knobit is reconcilable for as i stated it was a system that was present already, God did not create it, he simply permitted the practice to continue. The surrounding nations already bought and sold slaves. Secondly the Law itself was never meant to be a permanent feature, it was temporary, a tutor leading towards the Christ, whence eventually rather than rules and ordinances, the conscience would rule supreme.
After our little JW/atheist side track back to the question at hand.
If it wasn't God's intention that persons be subjected to slavery as you cliamed, it begs the question, why was it permitted in the first place?
The Bible has quite clear guidelines on the practise of slavery, Leviticus 44 onwards. I can't see how that can be reconciled with your claim that it wasn't God's intention persons be subjected to slavery.
11 Oct 10
To try and put an end to this, allow me to say that God sis NOT "endorse" slavery, any more than he endorsed divorce or any other sin. He did however, put restrictions and made rules regarding man, based on man's sinful nature. God worked with what He had. Once sin entered the world, things went downhill and have been so ever since. Jesus came into the picture and, as we Christians believe, is our only hope for salvation. Even He addressed questions similar to these when he told the questioners that divirce was NOT part of God's plan, but their own wickedness required His actions. The same could be said of slavery.
11 Oct 10
Originally posted by PinkFloydthe accusations i think are two fold, in that because God permitted slavery in the past, we, because we uphold the integrity of Gods word and consider it inspired are somehow also implicated in supporting slavery, which of course is a nonsense, for we are not under Law, and secondly that through the practice of slavery, it somehow cannot be the word of a loving and merciful God, when in fact he has permitted all manner of ill to exist until such times as he sees fit.
To try and put an end to this, allow me to say that God sis NOT "endorse" slavery, any more than he endorsed divorce or any other sin. He did however, put restrictions and made rules regarding man, based on man's sinful nature. God worked with what He had. Once sin entered the world, things went downhill and have been so ever since. Jesus came into the ...[text shortened]... d's plan, but their own wickedness required His actions. The same could be said of slavery.
11 Oct 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat's a bit wishy-washy Rob.
it is reconcilable for as i stated it was a system that was present already, God did not create it, he simply permitted the practice to continue. The surrounding nations already bought and sold slaves. Secondly the Law itself was never meant to be a permanent feature, it was temporary, a tutor leading towards the Christ, whence eventually rather than rules and ordinances, the conscience would rule supreme.
He did more than permit the practise to continue, he gave guidelines on to how carry out the practise. If as you say he didn't want people to be subjected to slavery, why didn't he outlaw the practise instead of giving guidelines? He is supposedly God after all, the omnipotent creator.