Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Former Nazi speaks out against gays

brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2008 8:29:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
As you may have seen in the news, fascist boot boy turned pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, has used his end of year address to target gays* and transsexuals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

The Church's official condemnation of homosexuals will, no doubt, incite gay-bashing Catholics, who believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth and that there is no higher authority than His, to perpetrate violent attacks on homosexuals.

Is it right that minority groups such as gays should live in fear of being beaten up by religious thugs that have been indoctrinated by the homophobic fervour the goose-stepping, Bible-thumping Pope has whipped up?

* Before you reach a conclusion, please consider the Pope was also having a dig at lesbians and bi-sexual women, not just the likes of Sir Elton John, George Michael, Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Cristiano Ronaldo.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2008 8:30:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
* Before you reach a conclusion, please consider the Pope was also having a dig at lesbians and bi-sexual women, not just the likes of Sir Elton John, George Michael, Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Cristiano Ronaldo.

And Jason Donovan.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2008 8:43:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yes, I has it on the news. The Pope is wasting his time.

There will always be gay and bi-sexual people. You can't eradicate the problem. Especially not through prayer. I prefer 'ole John Paul II.

I'm not sure if it will encourage the killing or attacking of gays, but I hope not. They still haven't copped on why the bible is so big (well if it's not for reading, and it does say a man who lies with another man should be thumped on the head with a large stack of sheets of paper...).

Comparing saving the rainforest with saving the human (via eradicating homosexuality) is capitalizing on the issues. Where is there a large percentage of Catholics? Ireland. What country believes in global warming and teaches it to the youth? Ireland. Who do as the pope say? Ireland. If he tries to visit Ireland like Pope John Paul II I'll give him some Nazi style loving with a Mauser 98!
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Spaghettim0nst3r
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2008 10:07:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
It's a positive thing -in a way- because it will work much the same way it did for slavery in the 19th and 20th century, and womens rights in the 20th century... to be another blemish of intolerance on the face of Christian History.

During the era leading up to the American Civil War, during the Civil War, and for many years after... the Pulpit was used as an ideological vehicle to further anti-abolition propoganda using "Gods Word".
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

To be fair, there were some Christian sects that were anti-slavery, like the Quakers... but the vast majority were pro-slavery. There are many biblical quotes that promote slavery, and even though today they are swept under the rug and ignored or apologetically dismissed... they are still there, and that Pro-Slavery blemish will never be washed from Christianity (thankfully).

Similarly, in the 20th century Women's rights movement... who do you think lead the charge against Womens rights? You guessed it... Christianity. It provided the ideological soil from which to root an attack against the movement.
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

Now, in the years to come Homosexuality will become widely accepted... and be as insignificant in the public eye now as women showing their ankles (which was thought of as extremely revealing and socially taboo not so long ago). The reason that human homosexuality will become accepted is because we're learning more about homosexuality in other species throughout the animal kingdom (which we are apart of).
Article from 2006
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
http://www.news-medical.net...

I'm sure there is some more recent info, I just did a quick google search.

Anyway, when the time comes that homosexuality is no-biggie (and it will, very soon) Christianity will always have that stain of an intolerant history to carry with it. We will always be able to state, factually... that Christianity is historically a religion of intolerance and hatred... being pro-slavery, anti-woman (demanding their unquestioned subbordination to their male husbands), and being anti-homosexual.

It's a good thing that Pope is so honest in accurately portraying the ~real~ beliefs of the religion, because it exposes it for being the poison that it truly is.
jjmd280
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2008 6:45:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/23/2008 10:07:01 AM, Spaghettim0nst3r wrote:
It's a positive thing -in a way- because it will work much the same way it did for slavery in the 19th and 20th century, and womens rights in the 20th century... to be another blemish of intolerance on the face of Christian History.

During the era leading up to the American Civil War, during the Civil War, and for many years after... the Pulpit was used as an ideological vehicle to further anti-abolition propoganda using "Gods Word".
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

To be fair, there were some Christian sects that were anti-slavery, like the Quakers... but the vast majority were pro-slavery. There are many biblical quotes that promote slavery, and even though today they are swept under the rug and ignored or apologetically dismissed... they are still there, and that Pro-Slavery blemish will never be washed from Christianity (thankfully).

Similarly, in the 20th century Women's rights movement... who do you think lead the charge against Womens rights? You guessed it... Christianity. It provided the ideological soil from which to root an attack against the movement.
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

Now, in the years to come Homosexuality will become widely accepted... and be as insignificant in the public eye now as women showing their ankles (which was thought of as extremely revealing and socially taboo not so long ago). The reason that human homosexuality will become accepted is because we're learning more about homosexuality in other species throughout the animal kingdom (which we are apart of).
Article from 2006
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
http://www.news-medical.net...

I'm sure there is some more recent info, I just did a quick google search.

Anyway, when the time comes that homosexuality is no-biggie (and it will, very soon) Christianity will always have that stain of an intolerant history to carry with it. We will always be able to state, factually... that Christianity is historically a religion of intolerance and hatred... being pro-slavery, anti-woman (demanding their unquestioned subbordination to their male husbands), and being anti-homosexual.

It's a good thing that Pope is so honest in accurately portraying the ~real~ beliefs of the religion, because it exposes it for being the poison that it truly is.

What a great post.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2008 3:10:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/24/2008 6:45:41 PM, jjmd280 wrote:
At 12/23/2008 10:07:01 AM, Spaghettim0nst3r wrote:
It's a positive thing -in a way- because it will work much the same way it did for slavery in the 19th and 20th century, and womens rights in the 20th century... to be another blemish of intolerance on the face of Christian History.

During the era leading up to the American Civil War, during the Civil War, and for many years after... the Pulpit was used as an ideological vehicle to further anti-abolition propoganda using "Gods Word".
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

To be fair, there were some Christian sects that were anti-slavery, like the Quakers... but the vast majority were pro-slavery. There are many biblical quotes that promote slavery, and even though today they are swept under the rug and ignored or apologetically dismissed... they are still there, and that Pro-Slavery blemish will never be washed from Christianity (thankfully).

Similarly, in the 20th century Women's rights movement... who do you think lead the charge against Womens rights? You guessed it... Christianity. It provided the ideological soil from which to root an attack against the movement.
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

Now, in the years to come Homosexuality will become widely accepted... and be as insignificant in the public eye now as women showing their ankles (which was thought of as extremely revealing and socially taboo not so long ago). The reason that human homosexuality will become accepted is because we're learning more about homosexuality in other species throughout the animal kingdom (which we are apart of).
Article from 2006
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
http://www.news-medical.net...

I'm sure there is some more recent info, I just did a quick google search.

Anyway, when the time comes that homosexuality is no-biggie (and it will, very soon) Christianity will always have that stain of an intolerant history to carry with it. We will always be able to state, factually... that Christianity is historically a religion of intolerance and hatred... being pro-slavery, anti-woman (demanding their unquestioned subbordination to their male husbands), and being anti-homosexual.

It's a good thing that Pope is so honest in accurately portraying the ~real~ beliefs of the religion, because it exposes it for being the poison that it truly is.

What a great post.

Agreed
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2008 12:28:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Introduction:
The claim that God of the Bible approves of slavery is made frequently, since rules governing slavery can be found in the both the Old and New Testament.
Since almost everyone agrees that forced, involuntary servitude is morally wrong, how can Christians justify the Bible's apparent support of slavery?

What the Old Testament says about slavery:
First of all, we must recognize that the Bible does not state that God supports slavery. In fact, the slavery described in the Old Testament differs enormously from the kind of slavery we think of today - in which people are captured and sold as slaves. According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)

Surely you can see that slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery, such as that practiced in the 17th century Americas, when Africans were captured and forcibly brought to work on plantations.

So, although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable - up to death of the offending party.

Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath, slander a slave have sex with another man's slave, or return an escaped slave. A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in the year of jubilee (which occurred every seven years). In fact, the slave owner was encouraged to "pamper his slave".

What the New Testament says about slavery:
The Roman empire practiced involuntary slavery, so rules were established for Christians who were subject to this slavery or held slaves prior to becoming Christians. The rules established for slaves were similar to those established for other Christians with regard to being subject to governing authorities. Slaves were told to be obedient to their master and serve them sincerely, as if serving the Lord Himself.

As with slaves, instructions were given to their masters as to how they were to treat their slaves. For example, they were not to be threatened, but treated with justice and fairness.

God does not distinguish between slaves and freemen:
The New Testament proclaims that all people are equal in the eyes of God - even slaves:
* There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
* knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. (Ephesians 6:8)
* And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)
*a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11)

Conclusion:
The idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is shown to be false. In fact, anybody who was caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed. However, since voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the Bible proscribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves. Paul, the author of many of the New Testament writings, virtually ordered the Christian Philemon to release his Christian slave from his service to "do what is proper". In addition, numerous verses from the New Testament show that God values slaves as much as any free person and is not partial to anyone's standing before other people.
Spaghettim0nst3r
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2008 3:54:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Diablos would like to offer an apology for the scripture, in an attempt to make it seem like less of a barbaric book than it really is.

In reality, Christianity has changed because the culture of the times has changed... and not the other way around. It is no longer acceptable in society for slavery to exist... and no amount of faith could bring it back. It has nothing to do with what the book actually says, and everything to do with how things change. Reinterpreting a book (or re-writing it in some cases) doesn't change what it says.

It was believed then that the proper interpretation of scripture lended favor to anti-abolitionists.

A few quotations from the men of the Era.

The Reverend Alexander Campbell
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral."

The Reverend E.D. Simms, professor, Randolph-Macon College
"The extracts from Holy Writ unequivocally assert the right of property in slaves."

The Reverend R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."

The Reverend Thomas Witherspoon, Presbyterian, of Alabama
"I draw my warrant from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to hold the slave in bondage."

The Reverend Nathan Lord, president of Dartmouth College
"Slavery was incorporated into the civil institutions of Moses; it was recognized accordingly by Christ and his apostles. They condemned all intermeddlers with it."

The Reverend Taylor, principal of the Theological Department of Yale College
"I have no doubt that if Jesus Christ were on earth, he would, under certain circumstances, become a slaveholder."

Abraham Lincoln
"All the powers of the earth seem rapidly combining against the slave, Mammon is after him -- and the theology of the day is fast joining in the cry."

Now... to address some of Diablos' claims directly.

[quote]According to Old Testament law, anyone caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed:

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)[/quote]

This is an intentional misrepresentation of what the scripture says.
The passage you quoted is not placing the emphasis on slavery, it is calling kidnapping (of only a man!) a criminal act... not slavery.

As you can see below, the act was well regulated for purchasing and holding slaves... and it was even regulated how and when ought to let them go.

"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6)"

So, basically... slave masters can hold a recently freed Hebrew slaves family hostage until the man makes himself a slave forever. It gets better. Exodus (since you're quoting from exodus here) even regulates how a father can sell his own daughter into slaver.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)"

It gets better.
Exodus explains how much physical violence your slave is allowed to endure before the slave owner gets into trouble. Essentially, you could beat the slave to death... as long as he lived for a few days after the beating and then died.

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)"

[quote]Surely you can see that slavery during Old Testament times was not what we commonly recognize as slavery[/quote]

No sir, I cannot.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2008 4:04:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2008 3:54:52 PM, Spaghettim0nst3r wrote:
Diablos would like to offer an apology for the scripture, in an attempt to make it seem like less of a barbaric book than it really is.
Really?
It is no longer acceptable in society for slavery to exist... and no amount of faith could bring it back.
Depends on what slavery you're talking about: voluntary slavery or involuntary slavery

The thing is: there are laws in the Bible to protect slaves from harm. I wonder which slaveholders listed to the Bible.

Another thing: To force people into slavery is against the law in the Bible.

Voluntary slaver =/= involuntary slavery.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2008 4:09:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)"

Just look FOUR verses *after* 21:22:

"Whenever an owner hits his male or female slave in the eye and the
slave is blinded, he must let the slave go free to make up for the
loss of the eye."

and at the next verse:

"If the owner knocks out the tooth of his male or female slave, he
must let the slave go free to make up for the loss of the tooth."
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2008 4:11:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
God permitted slavery to exist in both Old and New Testament times. But this does not mean that slavery was a God-ordained system. Slavery was an invention of fallen man, not of God. Nevertheless, God allowed it to exist the way He allows other things to exist that He does not approve of: murder, lying, rape, theft, etc.
God also works within the system of fallen man and makes allowances for the freedom and failures of mankind within that system. We see this, for example, in Jesus saying that God allowed divorce because of the hardness of peoples' hearts (Matt. 19:8). The fact is, people are sinners and do things contrary to the will of God. But, even though people have murdered, lied, raped, and stolen, God has still used people who've committed these sins to accomplish His divine will. Moses murdered an Egyptian but was used by God to deliver Israel. David committed adultery but was promised to have the Messiah descend from his seed. This is proof that though God desires that people not do much of what they do, He permits them their freedom, yet uses the system and the people according to His divine will.
In the case of a slave being property, that is simply the way things were done back then. As I said, God worked within the fallen system of man and put limits and guidelines concerning the treatment of slaves.
Spaghettim0nst3r
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2008 4:19:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Really?

Yes, that is what you're attempting to do.
Show that all of the bible verses that regulate and permit slavery don't exist, and ignore that there are no explicit (or even implicit) denunciations of the practice anywhere in the book.

In a word... Cherry-picking

voluntary slavery

Voluntary Slavery is a contradiction in terms, it doesn't exist.
Slavery, by definition, is being held against ones will.

The thing is: there are laws in the Bible to protect slaves from harm. I wonder which slaveholders listed to the Bible.

It's not really "protection" if you only get into trouble if you beat your slave to death and he dies immediately... instead of after a few days.

It's not really "protection" if you can hold a mans wife and kids hostage from him until he "volunteers" to be a slave permanently.

It's not really "protection" if you can kill a mans daughter after he sold her to you and she didn't sexually satisfy you.

Another thing: To force people into slavery is against the law in the Bible.

1) Show me where it says that in the bible, because after over a decade of having this same conversation with dozens of different species of Christians... none have produced a single bible verse demonstrating this to be true.

2) It's like saying "It's not good to buy or sell meth, but if you so happen to find some... have at it!" It's beyond missing the point.
Spaghettim0nst3r
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2008 4:21:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2008 4:09:23 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)"

Just look FOUR verses *after* 21:22:

"Whenever an owner hits his male or female slave in the eye and the
slave is blinded, he must let the slave go free to make up for the
loss of the eye."

and at the next verse:

"If the owner knocks out the tooth of his male or female slave, he
must let the slave go free to make up for the loss of the tooth."

1) Why would an owner beat his slave blind, but not dead? Torture.
"Here, live this way the rest of your life!" It isn't a "protection."

2) Owners will simply not punch their slaves in the face, for fear of breaking a tooth. Instead they have plenty of backside they're free to tare into.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2008 4:24:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2008 4:19:36 PM, Spaghettim0nst3r wrote:
voluntary slavery

Voluntary Slavery is a contradiction in terms, it doesn't exist.
Slavery, by definition, is being held against ones will.

In fact, the slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today - in which people are captured and sold as slaves

Another thing: To force people into slavery is against the law in the Bible.

In ancient Israel, people who could not provide for themselves or their families sold them into slavery so they would not die of starvation or exposure. In this way, a person would receive food and housing in exchange for labor.

1) Show me where it says that in the bible, because after over a decade of having this same conversation with dozens of different species of Christians... none have produced a single bible verse demonstrating this to be true.

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2008 4:29:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2008 4:21:49 PM, Spaghettim0nst3r wrote:
At 12/25/2008 4:09:23 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)"

Just look FOUR verses *after* 21:22:

"Whenever an owner hits his male or female slave in the eye and the
slave is blinded, he must let the slave go free to make up for the
loss of the eye."

and at the next verse:

"If the owner knocks out the tooth of his male or female slave, he
must let the slave go free to make up for the loss of the tooth."

1) Why would an owner beat his slave blind, but not dead? Torture.
"Here, live this way the rest of your life!" It isn't a "protection."

2) Owners will simply not punch their slaves in the face, for fear of breaking a tooth. Instead they have plenty of backside they're free to tare into.

"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished." (Exodus 21:20)
"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. "And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth." (Exodus 21:26-27)
"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:12)
# And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)
# Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)
Spaghettim0nst3r
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2008 4:42:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
God permitted slavery to exist in both Old and New Testament times. But this
does not mean that slavery was a God-ordained system.

According to Christianity, god willed it to be as he willed everything else to be.
Slavery was God's Will. He doesn't need to "ordain" it (whatever that magical word means) or create some special exception to the rule. He willed it...

Slavery was an invention of fallen man, not of God.

So you're saying that "fallen man" can will against God?
What of "Thy will be done!" then?

God allowed it to exist the way He allows other things to exist that He does not
approve of: murder, lying, rape, theft, etc.

Actually, I don't see any of "gods revelation" delivering us protocols on how we might manage our Murdering, Lying, Raping, and Theft... so it's obviously different since we find inside the Bible (gods revelation) protocols for how we can continue on holding slaves in a godly way.

Jesus saying that God allowed divorce because of the hardness of peoples' hearts
(Matt. 19:8).

It was actually Moses who was doing the permitting,

"He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

One verse later Jesus goes on to disagree with Moses and say..."nope... unless she's been "sexually immoral" you're committing adultery no matter how hard your heart is.

God didn't make any such allowance, his puppet Moses was just overstepping his authority... and Jesus came along and set the record straight. (which says all kinds of things about the validity of what Moses said about anything).

The fact is, people are sinners and do things contrary to the will of God.

Well, it's not a "fact" that people are "sinners" because "sin" is a Christian fabricated concept that doesn't actually map onto reality when removed from your religion. It's determined, again... largely by cultural norms (only that which is slightly taboo) and the whims of those behind the pulpits. Careful with your "facts."

As I said, God worked within the fallen system of man and put limits and
guidelines concerning the treatment of slaves.

Then why should we care about anything the bible has to say in todays day?
Since most of what was written there we might as well assume was only god working within that fallen system. This system is vastly different... living in the information age.. than the system them. Who is to decide which bits apply to today and which bits only apply to the old system? Again... door is wide open for endless cherry-picking.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2008 6:38:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2008 4:42:38 PM, Spaghettim0nst3r wrote:
God permitted slavery to exist in both Old and New Testament times. But this
does not mean that slavery was a God-ordained system.

According to Christianity, god willed it to be as he willed everything else to be.
Slavery was God's Will. He doesn't need to "ordain" it (whatever that magical word means) or create some special exception to the rule. He willed it...

Free will lets you do anything you choose. That doesn't mean God approved of it.

Slavery was an invention of fallen man, not of God.

So you're saying that "fallen man" can will against God?
What of "Thy will be done!" then?
What?

One verse later Jesus goes on to disagree with Moses and say..."nope... unless she's been "sexually immoral" you're committing adultery no matter how hard your heart is.
What???

Sin is not a fabricated concept. Consider the mortality values. Why is murder, genocide, incest, forced slavery, etc. are frowned upon? That's because mortality is dependent on God and if not mortality is arbitrary.
Spaghettim0nst3r
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2008 7:00:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Free will lets you do anything you choose. That doesn't mean God approved of it.

It doesn't need is stamp of explicit approval, he ~Allows~ it to occur, which means he obviously doesn't see anything wrong with it. We could tangent off into the problem of evil if we wanted to at this point.

Sin is not a fabricated concept. Consider the mortality values. Why is murder,
genocide, incest, forced slavery, etc. are frowned upon?

---Commandments are not Morals.
Forget about the obvious ones, against murder and stealing... those are gimmes.
Lets look at the first one...

The first commandment is: "I am the Lord thy God."

As first, it is the fundamental. Its point is the assertion that the individual is not an independent being with a right to live his own life but the vassal of an invisible Lord. It says, in effect, "I own you; you must obey me."

"Christian Morality" is no different than if I command a dog to "sit" and it obeys. There were no choices involved, the dog has been conditioned through subjegation to react when verbal commands are issued.

For christians, tons of psychological guilt induced by inhereted "sin" subjegates the minds of believers into reacting to the commandments written in the text. A real test of ~Your~ moral fabric would be how you handled yourself if you didn't have any Commands to follow, and you had to think for yourself and make your own choices... like Atheists do every day. A 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed.

Where choice doesn't exist, morality doesn't exist... and Commands leave no room for choice.
It's either...
A) Obey
B) Disobey and be Punished.

It's an Amoral framework for controlling behavior, by just placing some consequences and threatening the subjects with it if they disobey.

Example:
Not stealing something is Amoral, but if I ~Choose~ to not steal something then it is Moral. Where commandments exist, choices do not, and thus morality cannot.

Sin is not a fabricated concept.

Sin is intirely fabricated.
Inherited guilt (sin) is an impossible and degrading concept. How can you be guilty for something you didn't do? In philosophic terms, it represents the doctrine of determinism, the idea that your choices count for nothing, that factors beyond your control govern your "destiny." This is the denial of free will and therefore of self-responsibility. Again, Amorality.

Consider the mortality values. Why is murder,
genocide, incest, forced slavery, etc. are frowned upon? That's because mortality
is dependent on God and if not mortality is arbitrary.

In the bible, Slavery isn't frowned upon... as I've already proven in another thread (which marks another situation in which, even presented with evidence, you're unwilling to accept reality), God himself engages in Genocide, and Murder... even though it's a "commandment" can be ignored if God himself whispers in your ear and tells you to kill someone.

They aren't even solid commandments. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" should have a post-script attached to it that says "unless I expressly give my permission!" which he often does apparently.
Spaghettim0nst3r
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2008 7:08:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Another point I want to make (sorry for double post).

Since you agree that the human species is at least as old as 100k years (in some variation or another)... since you believe in "Creationist Evolution" don't you find it completely odd that the species was able to survive for ~98,000 years without any book that said "Don't kill" and "don't steal" etc... without killing itself off?

conclusion: Morality existed before organized religion, and certainly before Christians came along with their book that packaged "don't kill" with "obey god" as "moral commandments." It's just another parlor trick that modern marketing teams use to peddle garbage products.

Example:
Buy this brand new super-awesome thing that you've always had, and get a 10 months subscription to X magazine that no one likes for free... then the hidden charges at the end of the 10 months get billed for another year!
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2008 7:13:23 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/26/2008 7:00:13 AM, Spaghettim0nst3r wrote:
Free will lets you do anything you choose. That doesn't mean God approved of it.

It doesn't need is stamp of explicit approval, he ~Allows~ it to occur, which means he obviously doesn't see anything wrong with it. We could tangent off into the problem of evil if we wanted to at this point.

Allowing does not mean approving. The choice: to obey or to disobey. God allows murder, death, destruction: that doesn't mean he approves it.

---Commandments are not Morals.
Forget about the obvious ones, against murder and stealing... those are gimmes.
Lets look at the first one...

The first commandment is: "I am the Lord thy God."

As first, it is the fundamental. Its point is the assertion that the individual is not an independent being with a right to live his own life but the vassal of an invisible Lord. It says, in effect, "I own you; you must obey me."

It's like saying to your sons and daughters: I am your parent; you must obey me.
It's a choice whether to obey your parents or not.

A 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed.

Looks like the moral values of most people frown upon geonocide, murder, incest, etc.

Example:
Not stealing something is Amoral, but if I ~Choose~ to not steal something then it is Moral. Where commandments exist, choices do not, and thus morality cannot.

It's a choice to follow that commandment. I'm not saying that commandments are morals. I'm saying that mortality is taken from those commandments.

Sin is intirely fabricated.
Inherited guilt (sin) is an impossible and degrading concept.

How? You murder. That's a sin. You commit incest. That's a sin.

In the bible, Slavery isn't frowned upon...

Forced slavery is frowned upon. I provided you with a verse that tells you that God doesn't approve of forced slavery. Yet since people are willing to do voluntary slavery, there are rules to protect the slave.

"Thou Shalt Not Murder" would be a better wording.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2008 7:15:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Since you agree that the human species is at least as old as 100k years (in some variation or another)... since you believe in "Creationist Evolution" don't you find it completely odd that the species was able to survive for ~98,000 years without any book that said "Don't kill" and "don't steal" etc... without killing itself off?

Which species are you talking about in particular? Animals? These laws apply to humans.
Spaghettim0nst3r
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2008 8:05:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Allowing does not mean approving. The choice: to obey or to disobey. God allows
murder, death, destruction: that doesn't mean he approves it.

Then god isn't omnibeneficient.

It's like saying to your sons and daughters: I am your parent; you must obey me.
It's a choice whether to obey your parents or not.

It's not like that at all, because your sons and daughters are their own people and you recognize their individuality (I hope). You can't make their choices for them. You present them with consequences and guidance, but they make their own choices and suffer their own consequences.

In Christianity you are owned by god and there is no independance.
There is only 1 alternative and no choices are involved.
The alternative is: "Obey god or else."

Looks like the moral values of most people frown upon geonocide, murder, incest, etc.

"Frowning" on something isn't a Moral stance.

It's a choice to follow that commandment. I'm not saying that commandments are morals. I'm saying that mortality is taken from those commandments.

i.e., you make it up as you go, and reinterpret it however you like depending on the pop-culture of the decade.

How? You murder. That's a sin. You commit incest. That's a sin.

I understand that in your christian mind you're incapable of seperating the word "sin" from something like "immoral" and "wrong" but try for a moment and just look at it from a linguistic standpoint. It's Christian syntax to label "immoral behavior" as "sinful" it's just the word you use. It's like when conservatives on the television use the word "traditional values", that is just fabricated politically correct jargon for mascquerading around campaigning for "christian values."

"Sin" is just christian jargon.

So Christianity creates this concept of "sin" which is really just the same as most "immoral behaviors" but then attaches lots of other junk onto the concept (trojan horse fashion) as well... like "worshiping false idols" and "Not obeying god" or "being gay" etc...

Now, it works like this.
-people agree that murder is wrong.
-people do not agree that being a homosexual is wrong.
-...but you label homosexuality as a sin, and expect everyone to just accept it.

It's a way of meeting on common ground "hey we both think murder is wrong, we must have a similar concept of immoral behavior" and then mounting a conceptual offensive to establish homosexuality as a "sin" even though it has nothing to do with Morality.

Understand:
People do not read the bible and then realize that Murder is wrong.
It's a completely unecessary text, everybody already knows (aside from sociopaths, in which case they'll never know). People automatically know that murder is wrong because (to use economic jargon) they understand mortality is a scarce resource (people know that they will die someday), and we run out one day. This shortage creates a very precious value, and indeed the ultimate value... because without it, no other values can exist (i.e., you can't be dead really like the Red Sox at the same time). So it is that the precondition for all values is implicitly and automatically recognized as the supreme value in our ~default~ understanding that murder is wrong.

Forced slavery is frowned upon. I provided you with a verse that tells you that God
doesn't approve of forced slavery. Yet since people are willing to do voluntary
slavery, there are rules to protect the slave.

Wrong, you linked me a verse that shows that God doesn't approve of abductions.
I linked you several other verses and quotations that show god approves of and regulates slavery.

This whole concept of voluntary slavery is insanity.
When a father sells his daughter into slavery I'm sure it was "voluntary."
You're just being dishonest now.

Which species are you talking about in particular? Animals? These laws apply to humans.

Are you trying to say that 2000 years ago we magically made a transition from "animal" to "humans" ???

...humans are animals, I know that offends your pios sense of importance in gods eyes, being a humble christian and all.

Irony too thick to cut.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 3:36:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2008 8:43:10 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Yes, I has it on the news. The Pope is wasting his time.

There will always be gay and bi-sexual people. You can't eradicate the problem. Especially not through prayer.

Not true, bro. http://www.amazon.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 11:01:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 3:36:15 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/23/2008 8:43:10 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Yes, I has it on the news. The Pope is wasting his time.

There will always be gay and bi-sexual people. You can't eradicate the problem. Especially not through prayer.

Not true, bro. http://www.amazon.com...

It's good to see all these old faces that have given up in the face of the Truth..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)