I don't have to understand the "context" of the story.
Only enough to know it didn't say slavery is bad.
That is all it would have taken.
"Slavery is bad"
Three.
Little.
Words.
Didn't see them put together. All your dissembling and deflection cannot put them there, that is why you scream "context". You know it is wrong. You know it would be easy for the creator of the universe, who divinely inspired the writers of the bible sections to put them there. Yet there they are NOT. WHY IS THAT, SOPHIST?
(sighs) Ok, fine. Let's worry about the semantics, sophist.soph·ism
ˈsäfˌizəm/
noun
a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive.
"JESUS talks plenty about slavery."
Just take your lies elsewhere.
JESUS talks about slavery.
That is the truth.
Jesus did not say "slavery is a bad thing".
That is the truth.
See any lies there?
so as long as the slave has a roof over his head it's all good?
How? If right off the bat you've discounted my use of Scripture.
Happens all the time.
Airplane pilots make mistakes that cost others their lives.
Military leaders make mistakes that cost others their lives.
It happens in most walks of life.
Ultimately however, your argument is moot. 'Original sin' isn't what keeps anyone from entering heaven (attaining salvation). For that to happen they would need to live PERFECT lives (with original sin as the only blemish). YET NO ONE meets that standard.
In other words, they will be judged on whether or not they've REJECTED JESUS' offer of Grace. If they haven't then their own works condemn them (as revealed by the law). In other words, accountable for THEIR OWN ACTIONS.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-21-2016 at 05:32 PM.
Just the convenience of somehow wanting JESUS to explicitly state anything in a certain manner for the sake of your argument.
HE said it plenty. You've skirted the question on 4 occasions now.
How can anyone possibly be a cruel slave master IF:
They love their neighbor as thyself.
or
They treat others the way they would like to be treated themselves.
THE ANSWER which you've clearly avoided is that they wouldn't be.
God murdered innocent people and condoned slavery.
Perfect.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Yes.
Because you make unprovable claims about the nature of the universe and humanity based on a book that proclaims its own truth.
5 Sacred texts of various religions
5.1 Adidam
5.2 Aetherius Society
5.3 Ásatrú
5.4 Atenism
5.5 Ayyavazhi
5.6 Aztec religion
5.7 Bahá'í Faith
5.8 Bön
5.9 Buddhism
5.10 Caodaism
5.11 Cheondoism
5.12 Christianity
5.13 Confucianism
5.14 Discordianism
5.15 Druidism
5.16 Druze
5.17 Ancient Egyptian religion
5.18 Etruscan religion
5.19 Ancient Greece
5.20 Hermeticism
5.21 Hinduism
5.22 Islam
5.23 Jainism
5.24 Judaism
5.25 Konkokyo
5.26 Mandaeanism
5.27 Manichaeism
5.28 Maya religion
5.29 Meher Baba
5.30 Native American Church
5.31 New Age religions
5.32 Orphism
5.33 Raëlism
5.34 Rastafari movement
5.35 Ravidassia
5.36 Samaritanism
5.37 Satanism
5.38 Science of Mind
5.39 Scientology
5.40 Shinto
5.41 Sikhism
5.42 Spiritism
5.43 Sumerian
5.44 Swedenborgianism
5.45 Taoism
5.46 Tenrikyo
5.47 Thelema
5.48 Unarius Academy of Science
5.49 Unification Church
5.50 Urantianism
5.51 Wicca
5.52 Yârsân
5.53 Yazidi
5.54 Yorůbá
5.55 Zoroastrianism
Scientology has a book that does the same.
Why is yours better?
So, no, I didn't lie.
Thank you for your direct honest answer to my question.
Oh wait, you didn't directly or honestly answer my question.
Why is that?
You didn't understand the nature of my statement.
HOW do you want me to prove any of my arguments if you are dismissing the context of the very Scriptures which provide the basis for my belief?
Whatever I say of original sin for example is addressed in Scripture. The concept and therefore the answer to any question of original sin ARE addressed there.
But not for you.
You've tossed it out from the get-go...
YOU ARE the one that says JESUS endorsed Slavery.
YOU said He talked about it 'plenty'
YOU really are stretching the TRUTH for me to believe that. IN other words YOU are lying.
so now there are qualifiers? as long as you are not a cruel slave master you can own other people?
If you can get God to say o, that would be a start.
A strange cold front while trying to exorcize demons doesn't cut it.
LOL
YOU wanting to construct Scriptural language to your liking.
Slavery was a construct of man, due to his corrupted nature.
The excerpt from Romans 1 I referenced earlier (the one that calls you a 'fool' for saying HE doesn't exist) also says that "GOD let man follow the desires of his heart"
specifically,
"every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
In other words,
Slavery was constructed by man, not GOD...
much like tyranny...
I'm pretty sure that describes many employers out there today... even if they aren't officially termed 'slave owners'...
YOU don't have to own someone to 'own' them.
"Oh no, but what a cruel Centurion - he wanted to rescue his servant from the grips of death..!"
Iirc, God instructed Israelites to enslave enemies.
I know he instructed them to murder them.
.
Last edited by Blake; 01-21-2016 at 06:56 PM. Reason: dp
Lol what a spin
Exodus 21
20 *“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.
21*But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the*slave is his money.
I've heard Walmart employees talk about it being just like that
A LOL was required.
BECAUSE YOU literally referenced phenomena that occurs within the framework of the established laws of the physical universe and then suggested that they apply to a period or an instant (take your pick) where those laws couldn’t be applied.
In fact, allow me to laugh again at the ridiculous nature of your assertion (“it works in atomics and telecom…”). The big-bang singularity being defined as having infinite density suggests that if the energy of the universe is finite (inclusive of all of the mass) THEN the volumetric parameter, i.e. space, is zero. If it is zero, and density is infinite THEN mathematically NOTHING is there.
Hence prior to t=0, nothing existed.
Shortly after t=0 everything existing.
It helps to illustrate (for the nay sayers in this board). The traditional big bang can be graphically illustrated with a cone, which comes to the singularity at the sharp edge where time moves forward towards the open end…
Yes, there are alternative theories which mathematically avoid this ratio… The alternative theories can be graphically illustrated with a badminton birdie, which avoids the sharp edge – if you were to start at the mouth of the cone and go backwards in time you would not come back to a beginning point, you would simply follow the curve and suddenly you would find yourself heading forward in time again...
The problem with these alternative theories however is that they are EVEN LESS provable with the Scientific Method (mathematically, an eternal timeline for our universe IS absurd due to the “Impossibility of Traversing the Infinite” paradox).
Believing such theories only to avoid the implications of a creatio ex-nihilo paradox only suggests that folks that believe such alternate theories feel compelled to believe in something else to ensure that the answer is never “GOD”. WHEN they do that, they are doing so on grounds of faith, BECAUSE their theories are completely umprovable.
You all called me condescending for attributing intent to you all or even the scientists pursuing these alternate theories but even Hawking addresses the matter by saying, “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?” (from a book in my collection, “A Brief History in Time”)… In other words, even Hawking knows what the implications are - his equations are just more palatable to him the way he’s chosen to define them.
Folks here continually scoff with indignity at the mere suggestion that you all couldn't possibly claim any more proof about the cause of 'big bang' singularity as anything I or anyone else can provide. While it’s true that I attribute the creation of the universe to the GOD of the Bible, and I believe so on grounds of faith – I take confidence in the fact that the creation narrative jives with the description of the big-bang singularity. That the universe was birthed into existence by the power of GOD’s WORD. That physical time had a discrete beginning. That the probability that all of the physical constants which govern our universe would have the value they currently have being for all practical purposes zero points toward Creation (even if such scant probabilities alone don’t prove it).
Random Guy and Blake finally arrived to the point of semi-admission that their disbelief in a Creator (not necessarily the GOD of the Bible) is not belief that can be supported scientifically. They said, "Science doesn't know." Which is fine by me.
They won't admit, however, that Science cannot answer the origins of the cosmos riddle because t=0 is neither observable, repeatable, and offers only limited measurability (for the nth time - the Scientific Method cannot be applied because it is wholly ill-equipped to tackle the origins question).
You however are pressing further.
Empirical basis indeed…! You couldn’t even understand the meaning of the phrase "infinitesimally smaller THAN…" AND went on a derisive diatribe about your alleged unhinging of my position. THEN you suggested the use of imaginary numbers, negative numbers, Euler topology (kicking and screaming, I would add). I’ve already explained the problem with the use of negative numbers. AND here is my problem with a basis that proposes the use of imaginary numbers... In Hawking’s model or any variant quantum loop model, imaginary numbers have the effect of turning time into a dimension of space… The issue is that when imaginary numbers are employed, they’re just ‘computational devices’ used to grease the equations and get the result the mathematician wants... That’s fine, but when you want to get a real, physical result, you have to convert the imaginary numbers into real ones. Hawking simply refuses to convert them. He just keeps everything in the imaginary realm. When you convert the numbers into real ones, HOWEVER… Voila..! The singularity reappears… In fact, the singularity is really there the whole time - it’s just hidden behind the device of so-called ‘imaginary time’. Hawking even concedes this in a another book from my collection that he co-authored with Roger Penrose. He said he doesn’t pretend to be describing reality, because he says he doesn’t know what reality is… So Hawking himself recognizes that this is not a realistic description of the universe or its origin… it’s merely a mathematical way of modeling the beginning of the universe in such a manner that the singularity doesn’t appear…
I’ve said this on many occasions; the situation is reversed from say, a hundred years ago… Back then, Christians had to maintain by faith in the Bible that despite all appearances to the contrary, the universe was not eternal but was created out of nothing a finite time ago. Now, the situation is exactly the opposite… IT is the atheist who has to maintain, by faith, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that the universe did not have a beginning a finite time ago but is in some inexplicable way eternal after all.
My professor, Dr. Alan Guth (one of the most staunch proponents for naturalistic cosmological origins – yet far more civil than anyone on this board) used to say, that our universe was essentially a “free lunch”. HE knew the implications too, which is why he tried to suggest - “it just happened”.
What?? You think this is grade school...?
Yeah, I don't know the exact origin of the universe but I've ruled out bible god.
That evil er is a myth. Anyone that doesn't get how ridiculous the bible is, is an ignorant boob
c'mon man, really?
The language of Luke Chapter 7 CANNOT in any sane way be taken as an approval of slavery - it merely states a fact: Romans had servants and slaves. The Roman government allowed it and it was legal. The whole point of the narrative was to reveal the Centurion's faith and the love he had for his servants. Only someone as dense and skeptical as you all would view this as an endorsement of slavery because JESUS didn't explicitly confront the Roman authorities about it. JESUS accepted dinner invitations from all manner of "sinners", from tax collectors, talked with lepers and pros utes. The people of His time actually thought He condoned their immoral practices. At every turn and corner, however, His emphasis was geared towards the repentance of the heart of most of the people He met. The fact is, JESUS never owned any slaves, and He certainly did not back out from the opportunity of healing one... It's highly disingenuous to then suggests He condones slavery. Again, the passage from Luke tells us how JESUS praised the faith of this Gentile because, among his many virtues he took good care of his slaves. He was not there to sermon social justice the way we do in our society today, He was there to sermon a spiritual awakening.
Earlier folks like Fuzzy tried to suggest that JESUS' actions at the temple when He drove out the thieves with a cord whip were punishable, and YET no one brought this up at His trial? "None could accuse Him of anything..."
lol
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
