the bible is immoral

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Geez really? Being homeless aint so bad in the warmer climes.
At least you can be free.

well i have been with out a job before so i would rather be doing something for someone then setting on my butt aldeay stressing on what i am going to eat next.

Originally posted by theblackprawn
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 NAB)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years a ...[text shortened]... may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

please explain ?

What didn't you understand?
Kelly

Originally posted by theblackprawn
Our morailty evolves from human understanding of the universe , ie ...slavery is endorsed in the bible and perfectly acceptable 2000 yrs ago .It is only through education and knowledge that we know now just how wicked it really is.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a pet ...[text shortened]... ilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
— Richard Dawkins

if that's your best argument, quoting a rant from Dawkins and arguing that a 1400 year old book is immoral by todays standards, then you have already lost the debate.

Theist's won this argument already in the forums.

Originally posted by RBHILL
well i have been with out a job before so i would rather be doing something for someone then setting on my butt aldeay stressing on what i am going to eat next.

I guess the word "slave" is a pretty politically incorrect word to be using in these times.
I can see your point of view, but really its a pretty limited interpretation of the potential scenario that you painted.

I really thought that we would come to a place where we would not need to use money anymore and that everyone could just work for eachother for the betterment of everyone.
Societies seem to sink to the lowest common denominator, so basically as long as there are people who aren't willing to clean their own mess and would rather pay someone to do it, (and there are people who are willing to work for a slave wage because of whatever circumstances they think they are in (victim conciousness)), our societies will remain essentially lop-sided.
As long as the U.S. can just print cash to fix up their problems..... (someone please shoot me😀 )... tell you stuff like you live in a country that is free and not in one of those backward 2nd or 3rd world countries, you'll be right even if those other guys suffer.... (quick!!) ... you know, this is the way of the world, and if you dont like it you are free to object, but basically it wont make a lick of difference.
Heres you lifetime worth of democracy [ 28 general elections, 10 federal elections] , dont go off the deep end now with all that freedom😛 [AAARRRGH!!!!]





Basically we have enough food to feed the world. And if we dont, or we need a bit more money for toilets or houses or wells, we can probably spare a couple of percent of a our military budgets and fix those things up literally overnight.
But now who would that help? Not the people in power. They need the Taliban. They need those crazy Muslims. They needed the twin towers to go down. How else would you justify having such a crap country? (When I say "crap country", I dont mean you who are the "little people" doing your own thing, the ones usually being used by the big fatcats).
How else would you justify that military spending?
Freedom? Yes you are free to spend money, make money, or partake in ventures/interests/hobbies that revolve around paying taxes,etc.

I assume you live in the U.S. , RBHILL. Sorry if you dont. But I think this is an issue that should be apparent to people from all over the world, not just americans.(Especially people into spirituality)
The issue being the massive ineqaulities between the rich and the poor.

Originally posted by Doward
if that's your best argument, quoting a rant from Dawkins and arguing that a 1400 year old book is immoral by todays standards, then you have already lost the debate.

Theist's won this argument already in the forums.

i don't belive you can find many theists out there that will justify the genocide in the bible. or that a god that commands "thou shall not kill" can command the next day "thou shall kill a bunch of this or that kind of people"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't belive you can find many theists out there that will justify the genocide in the bible. or that a god that commands "thou shall not kill" can command the next day "thou shall kill a bunch of this or that kind of people"

It's interesting studying the first recorded murder. You have Cain who murdered Abel, yet Cain was spared by God. Thne later on you have the Mosaic law that changed all that.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't belive you can find many theists out there that will justify the genocide in the bible. or that a god that commands "thou shall not kill" can command the next day "thou shall kill a bunch of this or that kind of people"

Not true. Any one who is able to defend their confidence in the Bible is also able to explain the actions of God as described throughout the OT. As an interesting aside, it's somewhat humorous to see the ignorant decry the OT while leaving the NT nestling securely in the soft-lens dreaminess of their acceptance. After all, Jesus held sheep over His shoulders and smiled a lot, right? If a person was looking for brutality at its nadir, one need look no further than what occurred on Golgotha.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not true. Any one who is able to defend their confidence in the Bible is also able to explain the actions of God as described throughout the OT. As an interesting aside, it's somewhat humorous to see the ignorant decry the OT while leaving the NT nestling securely in the soft-lens dreaminess of their acceptance. After all, Jesus held sheep over His shou ...[text shortened]... as looking for brutality at its nadir, one need look no further than what occurred on Golgotha.

1 man, the son of god, dying as a sort of sacrifice for the sins of many, to teach humility to humanity, may be questionable and immoral and slightly unnecessary (jesus, i think we would have gotten the be nice message without you dieing, thnx anyway though).

that however is 1 instance of violence sanctioned by god in the new testament. i am confident that i can find 5 acts of violence in the ot for every one you can find in the new.

that in relation to you claiming the nt is as violent as the old. how brain dead can you be to claim it is "humorous" to claim the genocide at jericho or the torture of job as a bet between god and satan is a bad thing but not mention the "evils" of the nt. in one book, peoples were slaughtered, in another book paul mention women should stay in the kitchen. you are so right, it is totally the same thing. next you will be saying nazi germany is equally evil as the us invading irak.

another reason you are brain dead is the fact you somehow think we are not allowed to point a thing is evil unless we point all the other things that are evil.

and also, anyone who is able to defend their confidence in the bible CANNOT explain the immoral stuff god supposedly do. not properly explain it anyway. "god did what he did because he has a plan and knows better" is not a valid explanation.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
1 man, the son of god, dying as a sort of sacrifice for the sins of many, to teach humility to humanity, may be questionable and immoral and slightly unnecessary (jesus, i think we would have gotten the be nice message without you dieing, thnx anyway though).

that however is 1 instance of violence sanctioned by god in the new testament. i am confident th ...[text shortened]... . "god did what he did because he has a plan and knows better" is not a valid explanation.

It's clear you haven't a clue regarding the content, context or purpose of the Bible. Such ignorance doesn't warrant a response, so you're on your own trying to figure everything out. Rail away.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It's clear you haven't a clue regarding the content, context or purpose of the Bible. Such ignorance doesn't warrant a response, so you're on your own trying to figure everything out. Rail away.

if me thinking the people of jericho getting all murdered except one traitorous cowardly whore is a bad thing constitutes as "not getting the bible", i can live with that.

Originally posted by Doward
if that's your best argument, quoting a rant from Dawkins and arguing that a 1400 year old book is immoral by todays standards, then you have already lost the debate.

Theist's won this argument already in the forums.

Firstly, if you don't know how to use the apostrophe, why not just refrain from using it?

Secondly, please be so kind as to point out a thread in which 'theists' won this argument.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Firstly, if you don't know how to use the apostrophe, why not just refrain from using it?

Secondly, please be so kind as to point out a thread in which 'theists' won this argument.

it's obvious from your childish ad hominem attack, and lack of any real content or argument here that you concede that I am correct.

Originally posted by theblackprawn
Our morailty evolves from human understanding of the universe , ie ...slavery is endorsed in the bible and perfectly acceptable 2000 yrs ago .It is only through education and knowledge that we know now just how wicked it really is.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a pet ...[text shortened]... ilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
— Richard Dawkins

John 3:16

Try to include all the facts, it's makes your rant so much more..effective.

Originally posted by Doward
if that's your best argument, quoting a rant from Dawkins and arguing that a 1400 year old book is immoral by todays standards, then you have already lost the debate.

Theist's won this argument already in the forums.

If it was written in 1400 BC that would make it 3400 years old not 1400 years. old.😉

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I guess the word "slave" is a pretty politically incorrect word to be using in these times.
I can see your point of view, but really its a pretty limited interpretation of the potential scenario that you painted.

I really thought that we would come to a place where we would not need to use money anymore and that everyone could just work for eachothe ...[text shortened]... spirituality)
The issue being the massive ineqaulities between the rich and the poor.

when we get to a one world Govt. we will trade with food, bullets, guns, and gold.