26 Jul 09
Originally posted by DoctorScribbleslike I said christianity also teaches that people will suffer in hell if they dont believe.
Could you give some examples of beliefs that you would characterize as foul?
Teaching that some people ought to be charred and tormented in fire sure seems foul enough to me. What more do you think is required of a teaching to characterize it as foul rather than misguided? For example, if "Disbelievers will have their faces blackened on ...[text shortened]... an iron, and a hot piece of coal will be inserted into their rectum," would that be foul?
As regards to what I think is foul I wouldn't think that anything is. (yes in my weaker moments I probably act like something may be foul)
But I wouldn't label 1.5 billions peoples view as foul.
I believe the language is changing and we are changing it. In the interests of being positive for the future I am trying to use less negative words.(except when they are trying to say something positive)
So how is it with you then? Are you the type to sit on the fence and criticize or are you going to do something positive about it?
(I would suggest the former on the strength of this thread title, but I am open to being refuted)
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelHow is a foul situation supposed to change unless it is criticized? If everyone were as positive as you, one would surely conclude that no change was necessary.
like I said christianity also teaches that people will suffer in hell if they dont believe.
As regards to what I think is foul I wouldn't think that anything is. (yes in my weaker moments I probably act like something may be foul)
But I wouldn't label 1.5 billions peoples view as foul.
I believe the language is changing and we are changing it. In ...[text shortened]... would suggest the former on the strength of this thread title, but I am open to being refuted)
26 Jul 09
Originally posted by rwingettPlease read my posts more carefully. I said the language,hence the thinking, should be more positive when criticizing.
How is a foul situation supposed to change unless it is criticized? If everyone were as positive as you, one would surely conclude that no change was necessary.
In fact the most 'foul' things in this world should be handled with the greatest of care, lest the arguement turn into war.
27 Jul 09
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesyes, but not in the same sense of the slavery that was perpetrated on the African nation. for there were rules governing slavery, and conditions that must be met, something quite different from that which wrought such havoc and pain in the economic legacy of imperialism. I can do some research for you if you like, and it would be interesting to note the differences.
Um, there was slavery in Leviticus.
27 Jul 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI would concur on this point. Slavery in the Bible is very different from slavery that we witnessed in Africa and later in the states. Slavery during Biblical times was nothing more than a means for those down and out to survive. In comparison, slavery in Africa was often brought about by people kidnapping others and selling them off into slavery for material gain. In addition, slaves in the Bible had rights and were set free after so many years as where slaves in Africa had no rights and later when sold to the States were not even considered to be as equals to whites.
yes, but not in the same sense of the slavery that was perpetrated on the African nation. for there were rules governing slavery, and conditions that must be met, something quite different from that which wrought such havoc and pain in the economic legacy of imperialism. I can do some research for you if you like, and it would be interesting to note the differences.
You could even make the arguement that slaves duing Biblical times had it better than slaves today who make a minimum wage. At least the slaves during Biblical times were provided a safe place to live and often even became intergrated within a family/tribe.
27 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelThat is true, however, not all would concur. I think robbie is one of them.
[b]like I said christianity also teaches that people will suffer in hell if they dont believe.
Of course, just because you believe something that is considered "foul" in no way negates it as truth. I think we can all agree, for example, that the thought of dying of cancer is foul yet we all know this to be the case. In fact, human suffering in general is foul yet it is a reality nonetheless. So if we see suffering today why are we so sure there is none to be had in the next life if there is a next life? The Christian message is that sin has brought us suffering and such suffering will not end until it is laid at the foot of the cross.
27 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyyeah,ok.
That is true, however, not all would concur. I think robbie is one of them.
Of course, just because you believe something that is considered "foul" in no way negates it as truth. I think we can all agree, for example, that the thought of dying of cancer is foul yet we all know this to be the case. In fact, human suffering in general is foul yet it is ...[text shortened]... rought us suffering and such suffering will not end until it is laid at the foot of the cross.
But you have taken my post out of context . I believe I was trying to get away from using negative language like 'foul'. Especially when refferring to someones faith.
27 Jul 09
Originally posted by karoly aczelSome people are simply bigoted when it comes to religoin just like some are to a persons race or gender. People like Rwingett are what I am talking about who think that the religious check their brains in the garage before entering a church. He thinks they are unable to think critically and that faith is 100% blind.
yeah,ok.
But you have taken my post out of context . I believe I was trying to get away from using negative language like 'foul'. Especially when refferring to someones faith.
27 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI know. For example, a master was permitted to beat his slave within an inch of his life as long as he didn't die on the spot, merely in virtue of the master/slave relationship between two human beings.
there were rules governing slavery
If being a slave was such a good gig, why was Moses so intent on getting his people out of Egypt?
27 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyYou are making the error of assuming that all slavery in biblical times followed the laws regarding slaves listed in some parts of the Bible. And why do you make such an obvious error? Is it because you want (as Robbie does) to pin more recent slavery on Darwin or is it because you feel the need to exonerate the Jews?
I would concur on this point. Slavery in the Bible is very different from slavery that we witnessed in Africa and later in the states.
27 Jul 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy only point here is that the laws were put in place to help keep a civil society. You can't then help the fact that society at some point chooses not to become civil. For example, is the society in the states civil? The laws are set in place to make it so, however, our jails are overflowing as people spend less and less time in jail for their crimes.
You are making the error of assuming that all slavery in biblical times followed the laws regarding slaves listed in some parts of the Bible. And why do you make such an obvious error? Is it because you want (as Robbie does) to pin more recent slavery on Darwin or is it because you feel the need to exonerate the Jews?