What the extremist-fundamentalists ignore

[Guest Guest]

Paul is set to commit yet another fallacy of equivocation, based on his apparent lack of knowledge of the Ancient Near East.

There are two main kinds of "slavery".

One is chattel slavery, which is the type practices in the American South leading up to the Civil War.  Chattel slavery means that the person is property.

Chattel slavery existed here and there over time in the ANE, but the slavery referred to as an institution in Israel was an entirely different animal.

So what was it?

The slavery that the Israelites were allowed to employ was the sale of labor.  Israel's laws allowed a person to sell himself into "slavery" if he needed money--or a family could "sell" the work of a son or daughter.

We do much the same thing today when we take out loans.  For most, the ability to repay is connected to their labor.  They're still selling their labor; there are just more middle men than there were in ancient times.

Ex. 13:3

Then Moses said to the people, "Commemorate this day, the day you came out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery, because the Lord brought you out of it with a mighty hand. Eat nothing containing yeast

Ex. 20:2

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Ex. 22:21

"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.

Leviticus 25 is usually though of as the most extensive description of slavery in Israel, but the whole of the chapter is actually focused on the year of Jubilee provision in Israel's laws.  Those who would read chattel slavery into that chapter have been forewarned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The slaves who built the pyramids sure seem like real slaves to me. In any case, white Southerners in the ante-bellum USA understood the Bible to condone their kind of slavery.

[Guest bewildered]

Paul is set to commit yet another fallacy of equivocation, based on his apparent lack of knowledge of the Ancient Near East.

There are two main kinds of "slavery".

One is chattel slavery, which is the type practices in the American South leading up to the Civil War.  Chattel slavery means that the person is property.

Chattel slavery existed here and there over time in the ANE, but the slavery referred to as an institution in Israel was an entirely different animal.

So what was it?

The slavery that the Israelites were allowed to employ was the sale of labor.  Israel's laws allowed a person to sell himself into "slavery" if he needed money--or a family could "sell" the work of a son or daughter.

We do much the same thing today when we take out loans.  For most, the ability to repay is connected to their labor.  They're still selling their labor; there are just more middle men than there were in ancient times.

Ex. 13:3

Then Moses said to the people, "Commemorate this day, the day you came out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery, because the Lord brought you out of it with a mighty hand. Eat nothing containing yeast

Ex. 20:2

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Ex. 22:21

"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.

Leviticus 25 is usually though of as the most extensive description of slavery in Israel, but the whole of the chapter is actually focused on the year of Jubilee provision in Israel's laws.  Those who would read chattel slavery into that chapter have been forewarned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another selective reading from Bryan. Lev. 25:44-46

44: As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45: You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46: You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

Exodus 21:2 When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year he shall go out a free person, without debt. 3: If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4: If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone.

Exodus 21:20 When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.

[Strife767]

An (actual) infinity has no beginning or end.

Any length of time that has no end (read: endless) is infinite.

The fact that you're even attempting to argue that endless punishment is not infinite really shows that you're grabbing desperately at straws. It would be comical if I didn't know exactly what it takes to warp one's mind so.

A pardon most certainly has to be accepted to be valid:

"A pardon is a piece of paper, the value of which depends on its acceptance by the person implicated."  Chief Justice John Marshall 1829

Concerning who goes to Hell.  Those that reject salvation in Christ go to hell.  In the OT times, believers looked forward to the coming redeemer.

And what about all the people who lived and died without ever having heard of your precious redeemer? You still haven't answered that question.

Since the coming of Christ, belivers trust on the finished work of Jesus on the cross to pay for their sins.  Throughout the ages God's grace has been accesed by faith.

Even today there are millions of people who live and die with no inkling of your beliefs. Just give me a straight answer: what is the fate of people who die without ever having the chance to accept or reject your beliefs?

By the way Strife, you can't make the choice after you die:

Okay, then my hypothetical sinner will make it on his deathbed, hours before he dies. He'll choose not to go to Hell, and that'll be that, according to what you said earlier.

concerning your quote "anyone could sin his/her *** off and then after they die decide, Nope, I think I'll go to Heaven."  It doesn't work that way.

Then don't state it that way, doofus. You said that only people who choose to go to Hell go to Hell.

And you still haven't explained how eternal punishment is ever justified for a mere lifetime (100 paltry years, if one is lucky) of sinning, even if the person is sinning constantly from the moment of birth to the moment of death.

There is nothing and no amount of sin one could commit in the teeny tiny blip of time that is a human lifetime, even if one was really trying, that would justify being punished f-o-r-e-v-e-r. Face it--the concept of Hell is unjust, and by extension, any omnipotent god that would allow it is also unjust. This isn't my religion, it's yours. You worship an unjust god you yourself have defined, so don't get sore with me when I point it out.

[Bryan]

Another selective reading from Bryan.

Lev. 25:44-46

I specifically pointed out Leviticus 25. So explain how it's selective reading.

44:  As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves.  45:  You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46:  You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.  These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

Oh, so "bewildered" just wanted to show me how selective reading is done through his own example.

You were forewarned.

He takes verses 44 and 46 out of their context which describes the Jubilee provisions in Israelite law (and it's application to the slavery convention of the time).

1) The chapter already stipulated that Israelites could purchase "slaves" from among their own number. The difference in this passage is that "slaves" of this type (still non-chattel slaves) were not to be freed during the regularly occurring year of Jubilee.

Exodus 21:2  When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year he shall go out a free person, without debt.  3:  If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.  4:  If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone.

Ever wonder what the "go out" "without debt" part meant? It's explained in the part of Leviticus 25 that you ignored.

Exodus 21:20 When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished.  21  But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you look at the context, you'll see that it isn't claiming that the "slave" is property as with a chattel-slave.

Check verse 19. It gives the same scenario for a non-"slave." In the former instance, the one who injured the other is responsible to pay for his lost time, and isn't punished otherwise (not so if the person is killed immediately--same with the slave). In the latter instance, the person doing the injuring owns the time of the injured. He would be paying himself for the lost time, so there's no point in the transaction.

Thanks for the lesson in selective reading, "bewildered."

[Bryan]

I've addressed this many times, and will address it here again not for Bryan who isn't listening but for anyone who might otherwise get the wrong impression. Our common humanity is the objective and universal foundation for all human values.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Beats me how Paul can trot this out as an answer without blushing.

Paul doesn't define "humanity"--as I've pointed out elsewhere, he tries to play on the logical strength of a tautology (all humans are human) to give the appearance of a logical foundation. What does it mean that all humans are human? It means that all humans are human--nothing more. Tautologies are thus called "vacuous" truth, but apparently Paul never got the memo (not for my lack of trying).

The crucial phrase of natural selection means no more than "the survival of those who survive"—a vacuous tautology. (A tautology is a phrase—like "my father is a man"—contain no information in the predicate ("a man") not inherent in the subject my ("my father"). Tautologies are fine as definitions, but not as testable scientific statements—there can be nothing to test in a statement true by definition.)

--Stephen Jay Gould

I listened, I refuted.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=57253

Paul's tautology offers no foundation for values. A tautology can never do that.

Paul responded with his customary cowardly silence on the issue. He just pipes up to repeat the empty claim that he's answered the question.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=57336

That's exactly what a windbag would do, come to think of it.

[Guest Paul]

Any length of time that has no end (read: endless) is infinite.

The fact that you're even attempting to argue that endless punishment is not infinite really shows that you're grabbing desperately at straws. It would be comical if I didn't know exactly what it takes to warp one's mind so.

And what about all the people who lived and died without ever having heard of your precious redeemer? You still haven't answered that question.

Even today there are millions of people who live and die with no inkling of your beliefs. Just give me a straight answer: what is the fate of people who die without ever having the chance to accept or reject your beliefs?

Okay, then my hypothetical sinner will make it on his deathbed, hours before he dies. He'll choose not to go to Hell, and that'll be that, according to what you said earlier.

Then don't state it that way, doofus. You said that only people who choose to go to Hell go to Hell.

And you still haven't explained how eternal punishment is ever justified for a mere lifetime (100 paltry years, if one is lucky) of sinning, even if the person is sinning constantly from the moment of birth to the moment of death.

There is nothing and no amount of sin one could commit in the teeny tiny blip of time that is a human lifetime, even if one was really trying, that would justify being punished f-o-r-e-v-e-r. Face it--the concept of Hell is unjust, and by extension, any omnipotent god that would allow it is also unjust. This isn't my religion, it's yours. You worship an unjust god you yourself have defined, so don't get sore with me when I point it out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can't talk to these people, Strife. They don't care about anything except comforting themselves with their beliefs, even if it means that in their minds you're going to burn and suffer and cry out in agony in hell forever. That's fine with them as long as they don't have to think about or change their beliefs.

They'll justify it any way they have to. It's only infinity in the future, so hey it's not such a big deal. "You can't change your mind after you're dead." Why not? Because those are their rules and that's what they believe, and the whole universe and every person who has ever lived or ever will live, all the people added together, are less important than their opinions and their little security blanket, and it makes no difference at all that it makes absolutely no sense logically or morally or spiritually (something they seem to have lost sight of completely). It's that way because they think they need it to be that way, and don't confuse them with reason or the facts or what human suffering would really mean to anyone who loves us. They don't care. The whole universe bows to their beliefs. The sun rises and sets on their beliefs. "God said it, I believe it, end of story." What they're really saying is "I believe God said it and that's the end of the story." And for them it is because what they believe is what determines and controls everything. That is why you can't reason with them.

They don't respect your opinion, Strife, or mine either, or anyone else's who disagrees with them and threatens to take away their pacifier. If you don't agree with them, you're asking to suffer in hell forever, even though obviously that's not what you're doing. They don't even respect you enough to accord you what you really believe. They don't want the guilt of acknowledging that their belief has God throwing you into hell forever, so they say you choose it. Dodging their moral responsibility for what they believe is more important to them than respecting your dignity as a human being, because it allows them to keep their pacifier and their security blanket and not think about it.

There was a time when the world could live with this, when the only cost to that kind of thinking was an "occasional" war or Crusade or Inquisition. The stakes have changed. There are now seven billion people on planet Earth, and we are right on top of each other. Our cultures are no longer religiously isolated, but religiously diverse. This way of thinking must be opposed and rooted out culturally, because the last thing we need is for government to get into the religion business on either side. Thank you for being a voice for reason and sanity.

[Guest Guest]

Those that go to hell go by their own chosing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian, the Romans' prisoners are lined up to be sent to their punishment. One after another steps up to the Roman guard who is checking off names. "Crucifixion," says each prisoner, calmly announcing his own sentence. After a few of these, one prisoner steps up and the guard asks "Crucifixion?" The prisoner says something like "Oh no, I get to go free and take the emperor's daughter with me." "Really?!" says the startled guard, "well, alright then." At which point the prisoner gives the guard an aw-shucks look and says, smiling "no, not really. Crucifixion."

Do people who believe what Red Letter posted here ever actually think about what they are saying?

[Guest Guest]

An (actual) infinity has no beginning or end.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An "actual infinity" is a misnomer. It's a purely hypothetical concept, which has never been observed and may not exist.

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

Any length of time that has no end (read: endless) is infinite.

The fact that you're even attempting to argue that endless punishment is not infinite really shows that you're grabbing desperately at straws. It would be comical if I didn't know exactly what it takes to warp one's mind so.

And what about all the people who lived and died without ever having heard of your precious redeemer? You still haven't answered that question.

Even today there are millions of people who live and die with no inkling of your beliefs. Just give me a straight answer: what is the fate of people who die without ever having the chance to accept or reject your beliefs?

Okay, then my hypothetical sinner will make it on his deathbed, hours before he dies. He'll choose not to go to Hell, and that'll be that, according to what you said earlier.

Then don't state it that way, doofus. You said that only people who choose to go to Hell go to Hell.

And you still haven't explained how eternal punishment is ever justified for a mere lifetime (100 paltry years, if one is lucky) of sinning, even if the person is sinning constantly from the moment of birth to the moment of death.

There is nothing and no amount of sin one could commit in the teeny tiny blip of time that is a human lifetime, even if one was really trying, that would justify being punished f-o-r-e-v-e-r. Face it--the concept of Hell is unjust, and by extension, any omnipotent god that would allow it is also unjust. This isn't my religion, it's yours. You worship an unjust god you yourself have defined, so don't get sore with me when I point it out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Concerning infinity, I was merely distinguishing between the two types Aristotle distinguished, "actual" and "potential" infinities. The later has a starting point, the former does not. In no way was I retreating from the fact that Hell goes on forever.

2. Concerning all those people who have never heard of "my precious redeemer."

I have responded, they are without excuse. See: Right-Wing Fundamentalist Dilemma posts #75 and #85. See also Acts 4:12.

3. Concerning your Hypothetical sinner who accepts Christ on His deathbed, if his faith is sincere, of course he will go to Heaven. Remember the thief on the cross who was crucified with Jesus. He was converted on the cross. At first he insulted Jesus but later came to faith:

"We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:41-43.

3. Finally, Hell is justified given the following:

A-God is the Creator of man.

B-God is the Sustainer man.

C- God is the Redeemer man

A. As our Creator, God is our owner. He created the very materials we are made of. He fashioned those materials into man and woman. He gave us life. He owns us. As man's rightful owner, God can do with us as he wills.

B. Not only did God create man and woman, but He created a perfect environment for them to provide for their needs.

C. When man rebelled against God, God redeemed him by His own blood.

God would have been perfectly justified in not providing for man's redemption because He has legitimate ownership of mankind. The fact that He redeemed man at great cost to Himself, proves in real time and space that God does, in fact, love mankind.

Again, my simple definition of justice is fairness. Strife, you have still failed to demonstrate how the above is not "fair." You may not like it or believe it, but you can't just cry fowl without demonstrating how it is not fair.

5. About me being "sore" Strife, thats your attempt to get others who might be reading to think I am angry at you. I am not and I don't think that that can be demonstrated by my replies. Angry people tend to engage in name calling like "doofus."

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

The slaves who built the pyramids sure seem like real slaves to me. In any case, white Southerners in the ante-bellum USA understood the Bible to condone their kind of slavery.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course the slaves that built the pyramids were slaves. They were enslaved in Egypt by the Pharoah. However, Egyptian slavery was not restricted by the Mosaic Law for two reasons:

1. it wasn't written yet.

2. the Egyptians were not the Israelites and were less inclined to follow the "Hebrew" Scriptures on the subject.

* As a side note, remember, God judged the Egyptians for their "racial" slavery didn't He. He sent 10 plagues which devastated their nation. I also believe that the US paid for racial slavery as well. It cost the lives of 600,000 white Americans to end the practice. That national sin was paid for in blood.

The Bible, in no way condones racial slavery. Slavery for the Hebrews was restricted and slaves were protected under the law. The term of service was usually seven years and slaves were freed from service at the end of the term. In addition, every 50 years was a year of "Jubillee" and all slaves were freed. The only life-long slaves were bond-servants. Those that were so devoted and loyal to their master that they "chose" to be servants for life. The symbol of this kind of servitude was an earing. Again, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is an excellent source for looking into the justifications for slavery by some southern clergy and rebuttals to them by abolitionists using the Scriptures.

[Strife767]

In no way was I retreating from the fact that Hell goes on forever.

"Infinity has no beginning Strife, your stay in Hell does."

That sure sounds like you're saying that one's 'stay' in Hell is not infinite.

2.  Concerning all those people who have never heard of "my precious redeemer."

I have responded, they are without excuse.  See: Right-Wing Fundamentalist Dilemma posts #75 and #85.  See also Acts 4:12.

So you take the 'malicious' option. I must say I'm surprised, that's usually not the answer I get. However, now you've painted your faith as even more unsavory. According to the above, you apparently honestly believe that someone who lives and dies without ever having heard of your religion, and therefore hasn't joined it by virtue of never having even the opportunity, gets a one-way ticket straight to eternal damnation and torment. By your 'logic,' a child born in a village that has never heard of the Christian god, who dies of SIDS, is going straight to Hell. Oh yeah, I'm sure you'll have people lining up to convert after they hear that.

3.  Concerning your Hypothetical sinner who accepts Christ on His deathbed, if his faith is sincere, of course he will go to Heaven.

You're moving the goalposts. You said that no one goes to Hell except by his own choosing. Now you're adding more conditions ("faith is sincere"). Face it--your initial argument was completely bogus. It takes more than "choice" to avoid Hell according to your beliefs. You have to do what your god wants you to do (have 'sincere faith' in him), or else you burn. That is what you believe; admit it.

Hell is justified given the following:

A-God is the Creator of man.

B-God is the Sustainer man.

C- God is the Redeemer man

A.  As our Creator, God is our owner.  He created the very materials we are made of.  He fashioned those materials into man and woman.  He gave us life.  He owns us.  As man's rightful owner, God can do with us as he wills.

B.  Not only did God create man and woman, but He created a perfect environment for them to provide for their needs.

...wow, man. Just wow. It is absolutely insane that you're arguing that God can do whatever he wants with us because he made us. Not that that doesn't make sense, the insane part is that by your logic, whatever a slaveowner does to his slaves is just, because they are his slaves. That is an appalling mindset--it's disturbing just to read it.

C.  When man rebelled against God, God redeemed him by His own blood.

God would have been perfectly justified in not providing for man's redemption because He has legitimate ownership of mankind.  The fact that He redeemed man at great cost to Himself, proves in real time and space that God does, in fact, love mankind.

Actually, it proves he enjoys doing things in a needless, roundabout way. He's supposed to be omnipotent, isn't he? If God wanted to "redeem" everyone, couldn't he have just snapped his heavenly fingers, and it would be done? It worked for the trillions of stars (), why not us? Or better yet, why didn't he create us without the potential to fall out of favor with him, ESPECIALLY when the price for not doing exactly as he wants is to suffer for eternity? Gene Roddenberry said it well: it doesn't make sense for a god to create imperfect humans and them blame/punish them for their own mistakes.

Again, my simple definition of justice is fairness.  Strife, you have still failed to demonstrate how the above is not "fair."

Only in your own imagination. "God owns us so whatever he does to us is fair" is an astonishingly bad attempt at justifying Hell--the logic itself is horrifying.

5.  About me being "sore" Strife, thats your attempt to get others who might be reading to think I am angry at you.

No, you can be sore without being angry. That's your implication, not mine.

I am not and I don't think that that can be demonstrated by my replies.  Angry people tend to engage in name calling like "doofus." 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I won't deny that it's truly frustrating to see the kinds of destructive ideals people like you dress up with soft words like "beliefs," "faith," etc. Your reply and the kind of reasoning within it gave me a look into your thought process that only made me pity you more--whoever taught you these horrible things really did a number on you.

[Strife767]

In a scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian, the Romans' prisoners are lined up to be sent to their punishment. One after another steps up to the Roman guard who is checking off names. "Crucifixion," says each prisoner, calmly announcing his own sentence. After a few of these, one prisoner steps up and the guard asks "Crucifixion?" The prisoner says something like "Oh no, I get to go free and take the emperor's daughter with me." "Really?!" says the startled guard, "well, alright then." At which point the prisoner gives the guard an aw-shucks look and says, smiling "no, not really. Crucifixion."

I loved that scene.

Do people who believe what Red Letter posted here ever actually think about what they are saying?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apparently not...

[Guest Guest]

Beats me how Paul can trot this out as an answer without blushing.

Paul doesn't define "humanity"--as I've pointed out elsewhere, he tries to play on the logical strength of a tautology (all humans are human) to give the appearance of a logical foundation.  What does it mean that all humans are human?  It means that all humans are human--nothing more.  Tautologies are thus called "vacuous" truth, but apparently Paul never got the memo (not for my lack of trying).

The crucial phrase of natural selection means no more than "the survival of those who survive"—a vacuous tautology. (A tautology is a phrase—like "my father is a man"—contain no information in the predicate ("a man") not inherent in the subject my ("my father"). Tautologies are fine as definitions, but not as testable scientific statements—there can be nothing to test in a statement true by definition.)

--Stephen Jay Gould

I listened, I refuted.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=57253

Paul's tautology offers no foundation for values.  A tautology can never do that.

Paul responded with his customary cowardly silence on the issue.  He just pipes up to repeat the empty claim that he's answered the question.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=57336

That's exactly what a windbag would do, come to think of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What

an

ass.

[Guest Guest]

1.  Concerning infinity, I was merely distinguishing between the two types Aristotle distinguished, "actual" and "potential" infinities.  The later has a starting point, the former does not. In no way was I retreating from the fact that Hell goes on forever.   

2.  Concerning all those people who have never heard of "my precious redeemer."

I have responded, they are without excuse.  See: Right-Wing Fundamentalist Dilemma posts #75 and #85.  See also Acts 4:12.

3.  Concerning your Hypothetical sinner who accepts Christ on His deathbed, if his faith is sincere, of course he will go to Heaven.  Remember the thief on the cross who was crucified with Jesus.  He was converted on the cross.  At first he insulted Jesus but later came to faith:

"We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve.  But this man has done nothing wrong." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."  Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."  Luke 23:41-43.

3.  Finally, Hell is justified given the following:

A-God is the Creator of man.

B-God is the Sustainer man.

C- God is the Redeemer man

A.  As our Creator, God is our owner.  He created the very materials we are made of.  He fashioned those materials into man and woman.  He gave us life.  He owns us.  As man's rightful owner, God can do with us as he wills.

B.  Not only did God create man and woman, but He created a perfect environment for them to provide for their needs.

C.  When man rebelled against God, God redeemed him by His own blood.

God would have been perfectly justified in not providing for man's redemption because He has legitimate ownership of mankind.  The fact that He redeemed man at great cost to Himself, proves in real time and space that God does, in fact, love mankind.

Again, my simple definition of justice is fairness.  Strife, you have still failed to demonstrate how the above is not "fair."  You may not like it or believe it, but you can't just cry fowl without demonstrating how it is not fair.

5.  About me being "sore" Strife, thats your attempt to get others who might be reading to think I am angry at you.  I am not and I don't think that that can be demonstrated by my replies.  Angry people tend to engage in name calling like "doofus." 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Who cares? According to you the stakes are eternal torment. Who cares about philosophical distinctions?

2. Then you don’t give a damn about people. All you care about is what you believe.

3. How generous of you.

3A-C. Are you a parent? Is that how you treat your children?

Strife told you how it is not fair, over and over again. You just refuse to hear it. It’s not fair because eternal torment is not a fair punishment for anything, certainly not for guessing the wrong religion. Besides, what makes you think that Almighty God would care more about what you think is fair than about what serves him and his precious children? You keep insisting that your sorely limited concept of justice is the best one, but mere mortals have come up with far better. On what basis do you assume that Almighty God would be limited by your shortcomings?

5. When you don’t respect other people’s opinions, that does tend to invite angry responses. Not to mention the damage you and others who believe as you do are doing to the world.

I have a question for you. Why do you refuse even to try to see things from the other person’s perspective? Why do you refuse to address the idea of justice as what is best under the circumstances? Why?

[Guest Guest]

Of course the slaves that built the pyramids were slaves.  They were enslaved in Egypt by the Pharoah. However, Egyptian slavery was not restricted by the Mosaic Law for two reasons:

1.  it wasn't written yet.

2.  the Egyptians were not the Israelites and were less inclined to follow the "Hebrew" Scriptures on the subject.

*  As a side note, remember, God judged the Egyptians for their "racial" slavery didn't He.  He sent 10 plagues which devastated their nation.  I also believe that the US paid for racial slavery as well.  It cost the lives of 600,000 white Americans to end the practice.  That national sin was paid for in blood.

The Bible, in no way condones racial slavery.  Slavery for the Hebrews was restricted and slaves were protected under the law.  The term of service was usually seven years and slaves were freed from service at the end of the term.  In addition, every 50 years was a year of "Jubillee" and all slaves were freed. The only life-long slaves were bond-servants.  Those that were so devoted and loyal to their master that they "chose" to be servants for life.  The symbol of this kind of servitude was an earing.  Again, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is an excellent source for looking into the justifications for slavery by some southern clergy and rebuttals to them by abolitionists using the Scriptures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is not how white Southerners understood it, and the problem comes from relying on a collection of old books for truth instead of looking within and around. Even if you were right, it wouldn't change the damage done when people act according to ancient writings of primitive men instead of thinking and acting intelligently and compassionately toward the real people in their world.

[Guest Red-Letter Edition]

That is not how white Southerners understood it, and the problem comes from relying on a collection of old books for truth instead of looking within and around. Even if you were right, it wouldn't change the damage done when people act according to ancient writings of primitive men instead of thinking and acting intelligently and compassionately toward the real people in their world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am right concerning biblical slavery, it is very easily verified by both the Scriptures and other historical sources, however, problems occur when interpreters of the text abandon context and impose their own meaning on it. For example, because the Bible records occurances of rape, does that mean it condones it? Of course not. Likewise, the Bible does record the use of slaves. It is more than a stretch to use this to justify racial slavery in the US however. The evil of slavery was corrected in the US when Americans in the North were challenged concerning their complacency to slavery in the South. As a result of abolitionist preachers, speakers and writers (all using Scripture references condemning racial slavery) the people of the North became more willing to fight a war over the practice. Again, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is considered one of the most influential books in History for that very reason. I don't see the damage you speak of as a result of appealing to the Scriptures for guidance in morality.

It was a moral crusade from a biblical worldview which ended slavery in the US.

Caution. Just a side note, you suggested abandoning following the teachings of the ancient Scriptures and replacing them with thinking and acting intelligently. There was a modern nation that tried that and it led to the Holocaust. The people of Germany relied on intelligent, charismatic men for hope. They abandoned the moral absolutes of Scripture. They were the most technologically advanced nation of Europe and were at the height of their cultural development. Without a moral compass however, they were merely intelligent, systematic mass murderers.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline." Proverbs 1:7

[Guest Guest]

A.  As our Creator, God is our owner.  He created the very materials we are made of.  He fashioned those materials into man and woman.  He gave us life.  He owns us.  As man's rightful owner, God can do with us as he wills.

Again, my simple definition of justice is fairness.  Strife, you have still failed to demonstrate how the above is not "fair."  You may not like it or believe it, but you can't just cry fowl without demonstrating how it is not fair.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is amazing that a seemingly good person who can construct a complete sentence can make a statement so completely without any moral understanding whatsoever. What would you say, Red, of people who produced children for the purpose of selling them into slavery? Are you really that ignorant of the responsibilities of parenthood? I find that hard to believe. And can you really, seriously think that a morally superior being would think like that?

[Guest Guest]

Of course the slaves that built the pyramids were slaves.  They were enslaved in Egypt by the Pharoah. However, Egyptian slavery was not restricted by the Mosaic Law for two reasons:

1.  it wasn't written yet.

2.  the Egyptians were not the Israelites and were less inclined to follow the "Hebrew" Scriptures on the subject.

*  As a side note, remember, God judged the Egyptians for their "racial" slavery didn't He.  He sent 10 plagues which devastated their nation.  I also believe that the US paid for racial slavery as well.  It cost the lives of 600,000 white Americans to end the practice.  That national sin was paid for in blood.

The Bible, in no way condones racial slavery.  Slavery for the Hebrews was restricted and slaves were protected under the law.  The term of service was usually seven years and slaves were freed from service at the end of the term.  In addition, every 50 years was a year of "Jubillee" and all slaves were freed. The only life-long slaves were bond-servants.  Those that were so devoted and loyal to their master that they "chose" to be servants for life.  The symbol of this kind of servitude was an earing.  Again, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is an excellent source for looking into the justifications for slavery by some southern clergy and rebuttals to them by abolitionists using the Scriptures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bunk. God's so-called chosen people were robbing and pillaging other tribes all over the place. They had the same concept of slavery as everyone else, and the mere fact that they treated their own more kindly doesn't diminish or negate the fact that they were a brutal warring tribe just like all the others at that time and in that place. That is the ethic that "informed" the Bible, including the so-called ten commandments.

[Guest bewildered]

I specifically pointed out Leviticus 25.  So explain how it's selective reading.

Oh, so "bewildered" just wanted to show me how selective reading is done through his own example.

You were forewarned.

He takes verses 44 and 46 out of their context which describes the Jubilee provisions in Israelite law (and it's application to the slavery convention of the time).

1)  The chapter already stipulated that Israelites could purchase "slaves" from among their own number.  The difference in this passage is that "slaves" of this type (still non-chattel slaves) were not to be freed during the regularly occurring year of Jubilee.

Ever wonder what the "go out" "without debt" part meant?  It's explained in the part of Leviticus 25 that you ignored.

If you look at the context, you'll see that it isn't claiming that the "slave" is property as with a chattel-slave.

Check verse 19.  It gives the same scenario for a non-"slave."  In the former instance, the one who injured the other is responsible to pay for his lost time, and isn't punished otherwise (not so if the person is killed immediately--same with the slave).  In the latter instance, the person doing the injuring owns the time of the injured.  He would be paying himself for the lost time, so there's no point in the transaction.

Thanks for the lesson in selective reading, "bewildered."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, where do I begin. I am not questioning the state of slavery between one Israelite and another. The slave is to be freed in the seventh year. Not in doubt.

However, verses 45 and 46 refer to non-Hebrew slaves that the Israelites obtained from other countries. Here are the two verses: You may also acquire them (slaves) from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

My dictionary (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) defines chattel as 1. an article or personal, movable property. 2. a slave.

Deuteronomy 15:12-17 says that a Hebrew slave is to be released in the seventh year. He or she is also to be given a portion of the slaveowners's property. Are you still with me?

Exodus 1:3 says that if he came in with a wife and children, they shall go out with him. Verse 4 says If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, she and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. The wife and her children belong to the master. They are chattel. There is no regulations concerning their release.

Exodus 21:12 Whoever strikes a person mortally he shall be put to death. 13 If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee. 14 But if someone willfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution.

Exodus 21:18 When individuals quarrel and one strikes another with a stone or fist so that the injured party, though not dead, is confined to bed 19 but recovers and walks around outside with the help of a staff, the assailant shall be free of liability, except to pay for the loss of time, and to arrange for a full recovery.

Exodus 21:20 When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner's property.

Exodus 21:21 does not say anything about recovery. If the slave lingers for a day or two, it's not the same (for some strange reason) as if he were killed immediately. Verse 12 says nothing about dying immediately, so slaves are treated differently. They are his property. That is clearly what it says.

Verse 18 talks about injury but not mortal injury. Verses 21-22 refer to death.

The owner does not own the time of the person, he owns the person.

How much clearer can it get?

[Guest bewildered]

Of course the slaves that built the pyramids were slaves.  They were enslaved in Egypt by the Pharoah. However, Egyptian slavery was not restricted by the Mosaic Law for two reasons:

1.  it wasn't written yet.

2.  the Egyptians were not the Israelites and were less inclined to follow the "Hebrew" Scriptures on the subject.

*  As a side note, remember, God judged the Egyptians for their "racial" slavery didn't He.  He sent 10 plagues which devastated their nation.  I also believe that the US paid for racial slavery as well.  It cost the lives of 600,000 white Americans to end the practice.  That national sin was paid for in blood.

The Bible, in no way condones racial slavery.  Slavery for the Hebrews was restricted and slaves were protected under the law.  The term of service was usually seven years and slaves were freed from service at the end of the term.  In addition, every 50 years was a year of "Jubillee" and all slaves were freed. The only life-long slaves were bond-servants.  Those that were so devoted and loyal to their master that they "chose" to be servants for life.  The symbol of this kind of servitude was an earing.  Again, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is an excellent source for looking into the justifications for slavery by some southern clergy and rebuttals to them by abolitionists using the Scriptures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please see my last two replies to Bryan. The Bible, in fact, does condone racial slavery. The Hebrew slaves could be released after seven years. The non-Hebrew slaves could not. They were not bond-servants. They were slaves and, except for when they beat a slave and he died immediately, they were not punished.

[Guest Paul]

Beats me how Paul can trot this out as an answer without blushing.

Paul doesn't define "humanity"--as I've pointed out elsewhere, he tries to play on the logical strength of a tautology (all humans are human) to give the appearance of a logical foundation.  What does it mean that all humans are human?  It means that all humans are human--nothing more.  Tautologies are thus called "vacuous" truth, but apparently Paul never got the memo (not for my lack of trying).

The crucial phrase of natural selection means no more than "the survival of those who survive"—a vacuous tautology. (A tautology is a phrase—like "my father is a man"—contain no information in the predicate ("a man") not inherent in the subject my ("my father"). Tautologies are fine as definitions, but not as testable scientific statements—there can be nothing to test in a statement true by definition.)

--Stephen Jay Gould

I listened, I refuted.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=57253

Paul's tautology offers no foundation for values.  A tautology can never do that.

Paul responded with his customary cowardly silence on the issue.  He just pipes up to repeat the empty claim that he's answered the question.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=57336

That's exactly what a windbag would do, come to think of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Beats me how Bryan can keep asking the same question without really paying attention to the answer. Being human implies certain things. Among them is a set of preferences, including a preference for health, satisfaction of essential needs, pleasure, longevity and happiness. That is the foundation for the Golden Rule, and everything in ethics and morality. If we leave the guesswork out of it, it is also the foundation for religion. It is the foundation for everything that is good in religion, and when someone loses sight of those fundamental values, they make themselves vulnerable to anti-religions of the kind that would promote eternal torment in a fiery hell as justice.

[Guest Paul]

I am right concerning biblical slavery, it is very easily verified by both the Scriptures and other historical sources, however, problems occur when interpreters of the text abandon context and impose their own meaning on it.  For example, because the Bible records occurances of rape, does that mean it condones it?  Of course not.  Likewise, the Bible does record the use of slaves.  It is more than a stretch to use this to justify racial slavery in the US however.  The evil of slavery was corrected in the US when Americans in the North were challenged concerning their complacency to slavery in the South.  As a result of abolitionist preachers, speakers and writers (all using Scripture references condemning racial slavery) the people of the North became more willing to fight a war over the practice.  Again, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is considered one of the most influential books in History for that very reason.  I don't see the damage you speak of as a result of appealing to the Scriptures for guidance in morality.

It was a moral crusade from a biblical worldview which ended slavery in the US.

Caution. Just a side note, you suggested abandoning following the teachings of the ancient Scriptures and replacing them with thinking and acting intelligently.  There was a modern nation that tried that and it led to the Holocaust.  The people of Germany relied on intelligent, charismatic men for hope.  They abandoned the moral absolutes of Scripture.  They were the most technologically advanced nation of Europe and were at the height of their cultural development.  Without a moral compass however, they were merely intelligent, systematic mass murderers. 

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."  Proverbs 1:7

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can reinterpret the biblical comments on slavery all you like. All you're doing is stretching them as far as possible to put them in the most favorable light. That is not how the text is written, and it is not how it has often been interpreted. The problem isn't so much what the text "says." The problem is in trying to draw unassailable truths from the writings of primitive men who lived in a brutal culture 2000 to 3,500 years ago. You keep trying to push up the (very large) corners of the rug where it doesn't fit, but no matter how much you push it still doesn't fit.

You are correct about the need for a moral compass, but we need nothing more than an abiding respect for the worth and dignity of every human being. Hitler did not have that. Neither did the Christians who conducted the Inquisitions. You may not like it, but the fact is that cultures live peacefully and well without your concept of God, or without any concept of a god at all. That is a fact.

As for moral absolutes: like what? Can you give us an example?

[Guest Paul]

Bryan, where do I begin.  I am not questioning the state of slavery between one Israelite and another.  The slave is to be freed in the seventh year.  Not in doubt.

However, verses 45 and 46 refer to non-Hebrew slaves that the Israelites obtained from other countries.  Here are the two verses:  You may also acquire them (slaves) from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.  These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

My dictionary (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) defines chattel as 1. an article or personal, movable property. 2. a slave.

Deuteronomy 15:12-17 says that a Hebrew slave is to be released in the seventh year.  He or she is also to be given a portion of the slaveowners's property.  Are you still with me?

Exodus 1:3 says that if he came in with a wife and children, they shall go out with him.  Verse 4 says If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, she and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone.  The wife and her children belong to the master.  They are chattel.  There is no regulations concerning their release.

Exodus 21:12  Whoever strikes a person mortally he shall be put to death. 13 If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee. 14  But if someone willfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution.

Exodus 21:18  When individuals quarrel and one strikes another with a stone or fist so that the injured party, though not dead, is confined to bed 19 but recovers and walks around outside with the help of a staff, the assailant shall be free of liability, except to pay for the loss of time, and to arrange for a full recovery.

Exodus 21:20  When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner's property.

Exodus 21:21 does not say anything about recovery.  If the slave lingers for a day or two, it's not the same (for some strange reason) as if he were killed immediately.  Verse 12 says nothing about dying immediately, so slaves are treated differently.  They are his property.  That is clearly what it says.

Verse 18 talks about injury but not mortal injury.  Verses 21-22 refer to death.

The owner does not own the time of the person, he owns the person.

How much clearer can it get?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That depends on whether the reader is willing to see it for what it is. You're right, though. There's no escaping what this says --- except in the minds of those who insist on escaping it. They will escape the truth no matter what because they define truth as whatever allows them to hold on to their current beliefs.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Beats me how Bryan can keep asking the same question without really paying attention to the answer. Being human implies certain things. Among them is a set of preferences, including a preference for health, satisfaction of essential needs, pleasure, longevity and happiness. That is the foundation for the Golden Rule, and everything in ethics and morality. If we leave the guesswork out of it, it is also the foundation for religion. It is the foundation for everything that is good in religion, and when someone loses sight of those fundamental values, they make themselves vulnerable to anti-religions of the kind that would promote eternal torment in a fiery hell as justice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm never quite sure which Paul is posting. The atheist Paul or this Paul, posting "everything that is good in religion". Maybe it's an duel-personality thing.

[Bryan]

Beats me how Bryan can keep asking the same question without really paying attention to the answer.

Beats me how Paul can suppose that I don't really pay attention to the answer when I address his supposed answer every time, and then he bugs out of the conversation.

Being human implies certain things. Among them is a set of preferences, including a preference for health, satisfaction of essential needs, pleasure, longevity and happiness.

Yet Paul has explicitly claimed that his recommended values are "universal"--yet his system appears to automatically break down on that point when we encounter people who self-mutilate or take the path of the ascetic.

When we get to this stage of the justification, Paul's argument begins to melt faster than the polar icecap during one of Al Gore's nightmares.

That is the foundation for the Golden Rule, and everything in ethics and morality.

Again, it is apparent that Paul has utterly dismissed respected views on ethics such as Kant's moral imperative without argument.

Shared human values, even if they were supposedly universal (and Paul hasn't come anywhere close to arguing that with any degree of success), only addresses the issue of descriptive morality. It would not, on the face of it, address the issue of whether that morality is objectively true in terms of its moral propositions.

Paul's argument for morality, at its foundation, is a fallacious appeal to the people.

Paul's inability or unwillingness to address that issue is most charitably explained by his intellectual inability to address the issue. Otherwise it could be concluded that the claims his argument hasn't been paid proper attention stem from dishonesty.

If we leave the guesswork out of it, it is also the foundation for religion.

It is the foundation for everything that is good in religion, and when someone loses sight of those fundamental values, they make themselves vulnerable to anti-religions of the kind that would promote eternal torment in a fiery hell as justice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If there are any blind folks in the audience intent on being led by the blind, simply follow the sound of Paul's voice.

Here's a blog by an atheist ethicist that underscores precisely the arguments I've been making against Paul's position:

http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/0...y-delusion.html

The problem isn't that Paul's argument isn't understood and addressed.

The problem isn't that Paul either fails to realize that his argument has been understood and addressed, or that Paul dishonestly denies that it has been understood and addressed.

Perhaps it's time that Paul simply admitted that he doesn't know what he's talking about instead of continuing this charade?