- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's not a confession it says it on my profile for f sake.
lol, 'your just so ignorant', its like an atheist mantra, shave your head, put on an
orange smock and start pinging your triangle! You have no proof that there is no God,
you cannot prove that there is no God, yet you believe it, as religious as the meanest
medieval monk!
And yes ALL atheism is the absence of [b]belief in a god,
a confession, at last![/b]
I say that I don't believe that god exists,
You then claim that I have a belief that god doesn't exist and that therefore I have a religion.
You don't get to declare what I believe, or don't believe.
I don't believe that god/s exist.
I have an absence of religious belief.
Thus I DON'T have a religion.
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeping ping, tring tring! belief without empirical data is just that, a belief. Indeed, we
It's not a confession it says it on my profile for f sake.
I say that I don't believe that god exists,
You then claim that I have a belief that god doesn't exist and that therefore I have a religion.
You don't get to declare what I believe, or don't believe.
I don't believe that god/s exist.
I have an absence of religious belief.
Thus I DON'T have a religion.
have discovered not a few elements that were not thought of to exist, did that mean
that in the absence of empirical evidence that they did not exist, no? well dont be silly!
Your as religious as the a total theist!
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNeither do I understand your reasoning, robbie.
ping ping, tring tring! belief without empirical data is just that, a belief. Indeed, we
have discovered not a few elements that were not thought of to exist, did that mean
that in the absence of empirical evidence that they did not exist, no? well dont be silly!
Your as religious as the a total theist!
Do you try to prove that his religion is that he doesn't have a religion? That his god is a non-god? I don't get it.
Or are you just twisting words for fun?
03 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell it's kind of interesting wordplay I suppose, robbie, and certainly a novel entry point for a comparison of 'competing spiritualities', perhaps, but it simply doesn't work without your tongue in cheek redefinition of "religion". Religion is a belief or set of codified beliefs in a supernatural or divine power that controls human destiny. So, clearly, the atheists among us do not subscribe to a "religion" in any conventional sense of the word. Your assertion about atheism being a religion because "it relies upon unobserved phenomena and beliefs" is a red herring. Unless atheists attribute these unobserved phenomena to a divine power that controls humans, then they are not subscribers to a "religion".
That is why the theists call atheism a religion,
no its not, its because it relies upon unobserved phenomena and beliefs.
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFNo, the power is not divine. It is satanic.
Well it's kind of interesting wordplay I suppose, robbie, and certainly a novel entry point for a comparison of 'competing spiritualities', perhaps, but it simply doesn't work without your tongue in cheek redefinition of "religion". Religion is a belief or set of codified beliefs in a supernatural or divine power that controls human destiny. So, clearly, the ath ...[text shortened]... a divine power that controls humans, then they are not subscribers to a "religion".
03 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouse
Actually, the truth of the situation is we brought it on ourselves since your god was just another invention of people of the time to control their tribes so of course your god gets anthropomorphic attributes because the common folk would not be able to understand abstract thought
The time has come to chuck such anthropomorphic gods and allow the human race to grow up finally.
Actually, the truth of the situation is we brought it on ourselves since your god was just another invention of people of the time to control their tribes so of course your god gets anthropomorphic attributes because the common folk would not be able to understand abstract thought
The time has come to chuck such anthropomorphic gods and allow the human race to grow up finally.
Assertions like this, though elequently written, don't do much for you atheistic case.
I can assert just as well - Since in your spiritual blindness and rebellion, you just probably transfer your psychological problems with your own father and project them against God. Never having grown up to realize your dad was just human and you've made plenty of the same mistakes, you continue your resentment on a cosmic level.
And of course ignoring the presence of Christ in human history is just your ostrich act of burying your head in the sand hoping such history will just go away. But the power of such a personality as Jesus doesn't just go away for you.
See sonhouse? I can make blanket assertions just as eloquently as you can.
03 Jan 12
9 edits
Okay where were we? Sceptics playing the "Slavery Card" against Christians. Fine, let me allow you to do some homework.
In the oldest book of the Bible, the book of Job we have this utterance about God's attitude towards the slave and master. This post assumes the scholarship acceptance of the writing of the book of Job around 2000 BC, some five hundred years before Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
Your job, Mr. Skeptic, should you put your money where your big mouth is, is to provide another ancient quotation pre-dating this one which expresses such a divine sense of equity towards someone in slavery:
JOB 31:13-15 - " If I have denied justice to my menservants and maidservants when they had a grievance against me, what will I do when God confronts me? What will I answer when called to account ? Did not He who made me in the womb make them ? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers ?"
PRODUCE for us an ancient citation of ANY kind, pre-dating this writing, and expressing a Divine sense of the dignity of a human being in servitude.
This is not a question about whether there is a God or not. That is not the point. The limb that I am out on is the challenge that you cannot provide to this Forum an Ancient writing expressing a God ordained view or Divine attitude of the dignity and human worth of a another person in servitude (slave).
FMF ?
VoidSpirit ??
sonhouse ??
"We have in the Bible the FIRST appeals in world liturature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters." - Anchor Bible Dictionary (my emphasis)
03 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudge
Atheism is not beyond falsifiability.
If you have evidence for the existence of a god then that falsifies Atheism.
Atheism is the position of waiting till such evidence exists before believing in something.
And yes atheism is beyond reasonable criticism.
It is the ONLY rational and defensible position until evidence comes to light that supports ...[text shortened]... eliefs that an atheist may hold fall under different labels. (like secular humanism for example)
Atheism is not beyond falsifiability.
But if what you say is true - Atheism consists of exactly NO beliefs whatsoeever - then what is there demonstrate is false ?
You have jury rigged the definition to place your philosophy in some citadel of untouchability. No beliefs leaves NOTHING to show as a true belief or a false belief.
"I have no belief. Show that it is wrong ? But you cannot, because I have no belief. I am an Atheist and lack belief of any kind pertaining to theism."
Have it your way. You want a jellyfish definition that no one can pin down as committed to anything ? Suite yourself.
I think I have more respect for the older school Betrand Russell or Voltaire flavor of atheism. They believed that a God does not exist and had the courage to commit to that belief.
03 Jan 12
1 edit
Okay where were we? Sceptics playing the "Slavery Card" against Christians. Fine, let me allow you to do some homework.
In the oldest book of the Bible, the book of Job we have this utterance about God's attitude towards the slave and master. This post assumes the scholarship acceptance of the writing of the book of Job around 2000 BC, some five hundred years before Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
Your job, Mr. Skeptic, should you put your money where your big mouth is, is to provide another ancient quotation pre-dating this one which expresses such a divine sense of equity towards someone in slavery:
JOB 31:13-15 - " If I have denied justice to my menservants and maidservants when they had a grievance against me, what will I do when God confronts me? What will I answer when called to account ? Did not He who made me in the womb make them ? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers ?"
PRODUCE for us an ancient citation of ANY kind, pre-dating this writing, and expressing a Divine sense of the dignity of a human being in servitude.
This is not a question about whether there is a God or not. That is not the point. The limb that I am out on is the challenge that you cannot provide to this Forum an Ancient writing expressing a God ordained view or Divine attitude of the dignity and human worth of a another person in servitude (slave).
FMF ?
VoidSpirit ??
sonhouse ??
"We have in the Bible the FIRST appeals in world liturature to treat slaves as human beings for their own sake and not just in the interests of their masters." - Anchor Bible Dictionary (my emphasis)
If I only hear crickets chirping in the night in response to this challenge, then I'll know SOMEBODY was full of empty bluster.
To you who play the slavery card against us Christians - The basis of the beyond property worth of the servant was founded in the Bible upon the concept that man was created in the image of God.
Other ancient cultures believed that only the KING was in a god's image. The Holy Bible (then the Hebrew Bible) was unique that it was not just a monarch who bore a god's image - it was every person born who was created in the image of God.
While there was accomodation for slavery and indentured servitude in the Mosiac law, the underlining basis of such a one's non-property human worth was the belief that all MEN were created in God's image.
Match that with other Ancient Near Eastern cultures which had slavery.
The matter was made central - that of treating slaves as human beings rather than just property in the 21th chapter of Exodus. There the slave was defended against inhuman and intolerable acts. And its attitude finds little if any correspondence in other ANE cultures.
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywillThe Israelites should have been especially sensitive to the slave issue
[quote] Okay where were we? Sceptics playing the "Slavery Card" against Christians. Fine, let me allow you to do some homework.
In the oldest book of the Bible, the book of Job we have this utterance about God's attitude towards the slave and master. This post assumes the scholarship acceptance of the writing of the book of Job around 2000 BC, some five ...[text shortened]... ble acts. And its attitude finds little if any correspondence in other ANE cultures.
because they had been slaves in Eqypt.
03 Jan 12
3 edits
Originally posted by FMF
Was this an abomination, jaywill?
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Was this an abomination, jaywill?
"And as for your male slaves and female slaves whom you may have, [they shall come] from the nations that are around you; from them you may buy male slaves and female slaves. ( v.44)
Moreover from the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, from them you may buy; and from their families whjo are with you, which they have begotten in your land; they also may be your possession. (v.45)
And you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to receive as a possession; you may use them as permanent slaves. But you shall not rule over your brothers the children of Israel, one over another, with severity." (v.46) ( Leviticus 25:44-46 )
No FMF, I do not consider this law "abominable" all things in context considered.
When what precedes the text is considered and other scriptural considerations -
1.) These foreigners after the conquest still had a slavery experience far better than the chattel slaves of the antebellum American South.
2.) Since the land was now given to Israel foreigners consisted of two catagories:
a.) resentful foreigners
b.) cooperative aliens
The former required stricter measures because they may not have been willing to follow Israel's laws. Whereas the cooperative alien may have been more willing to assimilate into Hebrew society and follow Israel's laws.
3.) In the conquest the Land had been given to Israel. So this is not the instruction of the Jews all over the world but in the promised land at that time.
Israelites were the only ones allowed to own land (which ultimately belonged to Yahweh). Unless the foreigners chose to live elsewhere or were in Israel strictly for business they were typically incorporated into Israelite homes to serve them.
For poor foreigners who lived in Israel, voluntary servitude was pretty much their only option.
I have to consider Leviticus 19:33-34 which commanded the Israelites to love the stranger in the land -
"When a stranger [ger] resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God."
This command is reinforced in Deuteronomy 10:19 - "So show your love for the alien [ger], for you were aliens in the land of Egypt."
Before jumping to conclusions that foreign slaves had it much worse in Israel, I have to consider seriously these passages of instruction also.
The total picture is that the LAND belonged to God, to Yahweh (Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19). God graciously loaned it out to the families of Israel. Foreign settlers could not acquire it. But a foreigner [nokri] could become an alien [ger] if he embraced Israel's ways fully. Such a one as Ruth then was no longera permanent outsider.
Furthermore allowances were made for aliens in terms of gleaning laws and other provisions. The foreigner did not need to feel excluded in the host country. We can presume that the foreigner was not FORCED to remain in Israel either.
The foreigner was without ownership of the land though. But he could share in the community life and religious celebrations of Israel with many improved economic benefits. And this fact is testified to in the lives of Rahab and Ruth.
.
03 Jan 12
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI would also like to add that atheists have used abortions to kill babies. 46 Million a year know world wide.
[quote] "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the p nd this fact is testified to in the lives of [b]Rahab and Ruth.
.[/b]
Every 21 years and about 9 months that is 1 Billion people.
03 Jan 12
Originally posted by jaywill"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
[quote] Okay where were we? Sceptics playing the "Slavery Card" against Christians. Fine, let me allow you to do some homework.
In the oldest book of the Bible, the book of Job we have this utterance about God's attitude towards the slave and master. This post assumes the scholarship acceptance of the writing of the book of Job around 2000 BC, some five ...[text shortened]... ble acts. And its attitude finds little if any correspondence in other ANE cultures.
OK, so you don't want to condemn- unequivocally - slavery as an abomination. And you want us to find "other ancient quotations" when you won't address the ones already on the table. If God didn't want slavery why didn't He just forbid it? Why didn't He punish those who practiced it? It's got something to do with how Hebrew slavery was relatively humane and not as bad as other people practising it etc. etc. I think you've have laid your case out pretty well. I can see where you stand on this.
04 Jan 12
4 edits
Originally posted by FMF[/b]
[b]"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of think you've have laid your case out pretty well. I can see where you stand on this.
OK, so you don't want to condemn- unequivocally - slavery as an abomination.
I would not want to be under servitude of this type. I don't think it sinks to the level of a moral and social abomination. The caveats that exist along with it simply don't encourage me to see it as negatively as the more recent kinds of slavery in US history.
And you want us to find "other ancient quotations" when you won't address the ones already on the table.
I have addressed the ones in the Old Testament. At present I am convinced that what God through Moses prescribed for different forms of slavery was an improvement of that of other ANE cultures.
Face it. The Hebrew Bible was unique in assigning men and women the dignity of having been created in God's image. That was not that only Jews were in His image, but all men. This effected how mankind in general should be treated by Israel.
In the American South the theologians were forced by their own bigotry to attack the humanity of the black African. He was without a SOUL. He was a beast of burden designed for servitude. Those bigots trying to justify slavery had to attack the very Judeo/Christian concept of all men created in the image of God.
By teaching that the black African was absent of a human soul, some theologians negated the Bible to sooth the conscience of the slave masters. But as someone said "No lie can live forever."
If God didn't want slavery why didn't He just forbid it? Why didn't He punish those who practiced it? It's got something to do with how Hebrew slavery was relatively humane and not as bad as other people practising it etc. etc. I think you've have laid your case out pretty well. I can see where you stand on this.
I can see your point in that things like fornication, idolatry, contacting the dead, foretune telling, etc are specifically forbidden. Why is there at least some accomodation for slavery when these others crimes were forbidden outright ?
I will study on that some more.
One thing doesn't make any sense is that God Who created us endowed His creatures with a moral sensibility superior to His own. How could the effect be greater than the cause ? How could God bestow upon His creation that which He did not have within Himself to give?
The whole idea of the Creator having to sit at my feet while I gently bring Him up to speed on the wrongs of slavery, makes no sense to me.
I have to give room for the possibility that what I do not fully comprehend now, at some time in the future I will comprehend more.
Maybe when we get our chance to talk mouth to mouth with our Creator God may say.
"In some things I was right and you were completely wrong. But in some other things I was right. But you were right also."