Originally posted by FMFOkay.
I have been measured and polite with you all along and not exhibited "a knee jerk emotional reaction" of any kind.
You and VoidSpirit I think got on the slavery matter.
The impression I get when skeptics play the slavery card on me is that they brush aside nuances of the different types of servitude and exploit the emotional content of the word to modern humanitarian ears.
"Your God commanded slavery. You, Mr. Christian, are for slavery. You defend slavery ...etc."
Sorry if that complaint sounded like an ad hom. I think skeptics exploit the emotion content of the word to score points against the Christian Gospel.
Doesn't seem to matter that I point out to them that both in OT and NT Kidnapping was a crime spoken against. In Israel - punishable by death.
You can't exploit the word to draw parellel between the millions of slaves KIDNAPPED from thier homeland in the Atlantic Slave Trade with the slavery mentioned in the Old Testament practiced by Israel.
Was it a cakewalk ? No. I wouldn't have wanted to have been a dept slave or a alien slave.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFFMF HAS BEEN VERY POLITE.
I have been measured and polite with you all along and not exhibited "a knee jerk emotional reaction" of any kind.
Thanks FMF. You have been constructive as a conversationalist.
Treat this guy right my fellow Christian brothers and sisters. He's friendly.
But WATCH HIM! WATCH HIM !! LOL!
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI haven't mentioned the "Atlantic Slave Trade", jaywill. Not even once. So how is it you think I am "exploit[ing] the word to draw parellel between the millions of slaves kidnapped from thier homeland in the Atlantic Slave Trade"? You have moved the goalposts so many times, I'm wondering if your playing a sport with me here that doesn't actually have any goalposts - like cricket or dodgeball! 😀
You can't exploit the word to draw parellel between the millions of slaves KIDNAPPED from thier homeland in the Atlantic Slave Trade with the slavery mentioned in the Old Testament practiced by Israel.
If God "accommodated" slavery because it was customary at that time, why doesn't Christianity "accommodate" homosexuals marrying and living together, as that is now customary at this time? I mean, slavery was worse than homosexuality, right?
Originally posted by jaywillSo two almost identical posts one after the other from you asking me about the ad hominem, where you tried to put my disagreement with you down to 'emotionalism', and - what? - all of a sudden it's off the radar.
FMF HAS BEEN VERY POLITE.
[b]Thanks FMF. You have been constructive as a conversationalist.
Treat this guy right my fellow Christian brothers and sisters. He's friendly.
But WATCH HIM! WATCH HIM !! LOL![/b]
Originally posted by FMF
Your vanity aside, I come here because I am a spiritual person and a theist. 🙂
Your vanity aside, I come here because I am a spiritual person and a theist.
Okay. Got it. I remember that you were a theist.
Was the ad hom that I said some people were on the Forum trying to get rid of God ?
I apologize.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI think there is a problem with assuming too close a link (specifically, an identity) between what "God" said and what, for example, Moses said on any topic. If the Bible includes a version of history and gives an (inspired if you like) account of what (supposedly) happened, then it cannot at the same time be said to provide the dictated thoughts of God on the moral issues even of the day, let along a definitive final ruling on - say - the worth of the individual. Indeed I wonder how many would consider it heretical or blasphemous to assert that God holds any specific opinion whatever. It might seem logical and consistent for the Bible to give an account of the moral evolution of Jewish thinking over a long time period, with quite significant developments at important moments such as (say) the return from Babylon, without implying of necessity that this is an evolution in the way God thinks about those matters. So when people want to debate what the Bible has to say it is going to be quite a struggle to establish a common language even if the argument is based on readings from the Bible itself!
...You have moved the goalposts so many times, I'm wondering if your playing a sport with me here that doesn't actually have any goalposts ...[text shortened]
I think Jaywill has defended his corner very well using his chosen terms of reference in a consistent way. I disagree with him on lots of levels but it has made interesting reading and he has certainly gone the extra mile here. Trying to nudge him into treating the Bible as a different kind of book to his view of it will not work.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMF
I haven't mentioned the "Atlantic Slave Trade", jaywill. Not even once. So how is it you think I am "exploit[ing] the word to draw parellel between the millions of slaves kidnapped from thier homeland in the Atlantic Slave Trade"? You have moved the goalposts so many times, I'm wondering if your playing a sport with me here that doesn't actually have any goalpos is now customary at this time? I mean, slavery was worse than homosexuality, right?
I haven't mentioned the "Atlantic Slave Trade", jaywill. Not even once. So how is it you think I am "exploit[ing] the word to draw parellel between the millions of slaves kidnapped from thier homeland in the Atlantic Slave Trade"? You have moved the goalposts so many times, I'm wondering if your playing a sport with me here that doesn't actually have any goalposts - like cricket or dodgeball!
If God "accommodated" slavery because it was customary at that time, why doesn't Christianity "accommodate" homosexuals marrying and living together, as that is now customary at this time? I mean, slavery was worse than homosexuality, right?
My answers are often tailored to a "team" of objectors when I feel that more than one person is driving an objection.
You were not alone in raising the matter. And rightly or wrongly I get groups of posters utilizing a point mixed together sometimes in my replies.
I don't think I will read over the entire series of exchanges and try to sort it out, which applied more to you and which more to another poster making generally the same argument.
As to your other question about accomodation and homosexuality ? With all this about moving goal posts, shifting games, etc. I think I will just say, at this time things are confused enough in the discussion that I will just withhold comment for now.
Originally posted by jaywillDon't be silly. Your speculation about what other people's attitude to "God" may signify in terms of their motivations is not an ad hominem. If trying to dismiss disagreement with you as "a knee jerk emotional reaction" is not an attempted (and rather lame) ad hominem in your book, then so be it.
Was the ad hom that I said some people were on the Forum trying to get rid of God ?
Originally posted by jaywillWell then, please do not respond to me again if you feel - when you are talking to me - you are talking to a "team". Seriously. To think that I sit here bothering to type messages specifically to you. And you now say your answers are often actually tailored for someone else or some other people. If that's how it works, I will not bother you about anything anymore.
My answers are often tailored to a "team" of objectors when I feel that more than one person is driving an objection.
You were not alone in raising the matter. And rightly or wrongly I get groups of posters utilizing a point mixed together sometimes in my replies.
Originally posted by FMFI think that sounds like a good idea and, while you are at it, don't bother
Well then, please do not respond to me again if you feel - when you are talking to me - you are talking to a "team". Seriously. To think that I sit here bothering to type messages specifically to you. And you now say your answers are often actually tailored for someone else or some other people. If that's how it works, I will not bother you about anything anymore.
me either. 😉
Good thread, very interesting. Led me back to Genesis again to try to understand the Curse of Ham (sometimes quoted as justification for early biblical slavery). No illumination however.
Kudos to FMF and Jaywill for a very edifying debate though. I think I now actually understand how it is possible to not view slavery as an abomination.
Originally posted by jaywillYou keep making the same typing error. It should be "debt" slave not "dept".
Okay.
You and VoidSpirit I think got on the slavery matter.
The impression I get when skeptics play the slavery card on me is that they brush aside nuances of the different types of servitude and exploit the emotional content of the word to modern humanitarian ears.
"Your God commanded [b]slavery. You, Mr. Christian, are for slavery[/ ...[text shortened]... Was it a cakewalk ? No. I wouldn't have wanted to have been a dept slave or a alien slave.
Not trying to be critical, just thought I would make you aware of what you
were typing.
Originally posted by FMFYou should take jaywell up on the chess games. He says he is easy to
Well then, please do not respond to me again if you feel - when you are talking to me - you are talking to a "team". Seriously. To think that I sit here bothering to type messages specifically to you. And you now say your answers are often actually tailored for someone else or some other people. If that's how it works, I will not bother you about anything anymore.
beat in chess. I'm sure you would enjoy beating him at something.
Good luck to both of you. 😉
Originally posted by RJHindsExactly. This is why defence of the genocide using the literature of its perpetrators is unconscionable. It's like relying only on the Hutu newspaper 'Kangura' or RTLM radio for information on the Tutsis.
What other literature do you have to rely on?