Atheists what is your proof?

You think this is what those who had printed "In God we trust" on their money had in mind when they were composing various constitution documents?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The thing is, Birch, that nobody is arguing that. This is simply the twist that your camp has put on the objections that some of us were making.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since you're not getting it, let me be crystal clear.
I DO NOT CONDONE SLAVERY.

Now, moving on. What makes slavery immoral? Beyond subjective feelings (which seems to be the only reason given so far). Or is that the only reason?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SolusCado,

Right you don't know and haven't given it any thought. Why is that ?

Because you know it shouldn't be there. As to your assertion that slavery, oppression is of value to advance us that is nonsense, nicely summarized by Ophiolite here.

"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once.

Cooperation is arguably as important as competition as a component of evolutionary mechanisms. It is certainly right up there in the same order of magnitude. In humans cooperation has enabled the development of the civilisation we enjoy today. One way in which evolution has fostered that cooperation is to create a moral sense within individuals that stems in part from empathy for the condition of others.

The Golden Rule emerges as a neat executive summary of the range of behaviours and instinctual tendencies that evolution has developed to promote cooperation. It is on that basis that slavery is wrong. It is not the result of subjective thinking. It is the objective observation that we are hardwired to want to cooeparate and it is a further objective observation that it bloody well works, so lets climb on the bandwagon and work at it consciously as well.

Clear? "

In fact many of our current problems are because we are not cooperating and working together toward a common goal.

Why is that ?

One of the problems is the conflict of the religious which we are all, whether we like it or not are caught up in.

I also realize that you are trying to be part of the solution within your religion and all I can say is good luck with that.

Slavery is wrong. We know that now. We did not know it then. It doesn't matter whether it is subjective or not. We understand it is, so unless you want to claim otherwise then we should address the question.

Which is why is it allowed by the god of the bible ?

I have your answer.

Let's.

Yes, I would agree. Which is my purpose here. I am asking you to scrutinize your positions and beliefs to see if there is something that doesn't fit.

You are the only one who can do that in the end. If you are unwilling to challenge yourself then it doesn't matter.

The discussion of god is a mute point, the discussion of religion is not. Which is why we want you to continually define this god of yours.

I am still confused by the statement that god is not concerned with our physical suffering. Doesn't god command war and death, would this not include physical suffering.

Is this not also the god of the bible ?

I am pointing it out. Slavery. You don't have an answer to this and should question it further.

Can you not think of any others to question ?

Really. God wouldn't know that the righteous path was to fight against slavery. Again, it appears that we have outgrown the biblical god.

If we mere humans can see a more righteous way then god then it isn't worth my time. He can do with me what he wants I guess.

And again the arrogance statement. I am saying and have been saying that god should have known and thus instructed us that it was wrong. I am not claiming infinite knowledge, you are claiming your god has infinite knowledge.

Think about it.

 

It's not merely about accepting a code of ethics from a third party, but accepting a code of ethics from a superior party - ie. someone who can actually sanction the transgressions of the code.

 

I'm starting to think Birch just wants to argue for the helluva it.

 

I think his/her intelligence is clouded by his/her emotions. So seems to be many others'.

 

you sure do leave yourself a lot of comfortable room by playing both sides of the fence, dontcha? it has been answered why many times. slavery violates others, is inhumane and uses them for unfair gain. those damaging and ill consequences are not just subjective but real which you continously ignore.

why do you not condone slavery? you have not given any reasons except because you follow christ.

yet, you want to argue that slavery is just based on subjective feelings so not really about morality.

that way, one can employ slavery when it suits them and not when it doesn't.

and you have the nerve to say i'm the one who would be waffling.

you're a good example of why many find religionists like you corrupt.

 

Don't know what they had in mind. But seeing as how "In God We Trust" did not appear on US money until circa The Civil War, it's fairly irrelevant.

But the Declaration of Independance (NOT the Constitution) says the "Laws of Nature and of nature's God". (Don't forget, most of the founding fathers were deists.)

So, yes, I'd have to say that is what the founding fathers had in mind.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Did you forget?
Inquisition, missionaries, holy wars, jihad ... etc.

 

Money is not a binding document. In those days, one couldn't get away with admitting they didn't believe in God.

 

the difference that your extremely feeble mind can't figure out is that some people are just more honest. slavery is real with real consequences and not an issue that one can wax on about so clinically and detachedly such as yourself, unless you ignore that.

 

Gday,

Nearly all of us have already agreed that slavery is immoral.
It is one of the most well-defined evil on the whole planet.

But
for some reason the THEISTS insist it is not.

Believers preaching that slavery is OK !

Shameful
Disgusting.


K.

 

Gday,

Reasons have been given on THIS thread many many many times.

Why do the theists IGNORE them?

Then ask AGAIN for them?
Then IGNORE them again?
Then ask AGAIN for them?
Then IGNORE them again?
Then ask AGAIN for them?
Then IGNORE them again?
...


Why?


K.

 

Because I'm not that concerned with it. The same reason I haven't given thought to what color hair Christ may have had. It doesn't matter to me.

Because I know what shouldn't be where? Incidentally, I didn't assert that slavery/oppression IS of value to advance us, but rather I provided a number of hypothetical reasons to the hypothetical question of why would God not have "spoken against it" at the time of Levitical law. He did eventually speak out against it (in a form) through Christ, so the question you are really grappling with is why didn't God just hand everything out at once, and the answer to that is because that isn't the way God operates. He gives us what we need when we need it.

All true, though to be fair, slavery played a role in that as well.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's fine, though the golden rule originated in the Bible... Sooo, you're really just agreeing with us theists on that one.

Agreed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm glad you made that statement so that I didn't have to. I agree that the conflict between beliefs that cannot be proven one way or another is a useless expense of our thoughts and energies, and I think that getting people to be tolerant of each other's beliefs is a more effective approach than trying to wipe out other's beliefs.

I agree that slavery is wrong, though I do not agree that subjectivity is irrelevant (in the bigger scheme of things). However, since we are all agreed that slavery is wrong, you are correct that it is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

No, you have YOUR answer. Mine is that (again) God gives us what we need when we need it. As I stated before, Christ's teachings (which I also believe to be of divine inspiration) DO stand in opposition to slavery, so you cannot say that it is allowed by the God of the Bible. You can only say that it WAS allowed at one time.

Thank you, but at times it DOES seem that you are scrutinizing what you BELIEVE my positions are based on conversations with others rather than what I have said, but ... that isn't terribly relevant either. Moving on...

It is through challenging myself and the beliefs with which I have been raised that I have come to the positions I have.

If by commanding war, you are referring to the initial settling of the "Holy Land, I would point out that this is an example of my statement. God wanted to provide a place for "His People" to prosper and grow, and the physical sufferings of those who were conquered wasn't terribly relevant. After all, we have all "sinned and come short of the glory of God," so we all deserve death anyway. Any life we have is a gift from God.

If by commanding death you are referring to sacrifices, it is actually taught now in Jewish synagogues (some at least), and backed up by evolutionary psychology (recent theories at least), that the purpose of sacrifices was to provide a means for one to absolve themselves of guilt. Back then (and even today for many), if people did something that was wrong, they knew it and would be riddled with guilt. Guilt and shame do have a negative effect on our health (again, this is modern medicine speaking, not theological belief), and sacrificing something that had value to the tribes basically just made them feel better. It absolved their guilt, and THAT would have been what God was concerned about - not whether or not something died.

If those were NOT the things to which you were referring when you noted that God commanded war and death, I will need you to be more specific for me to comment further.

Again, all you have pointed out is that God did not forbid slavery at one point in time. That he later did doesn't mean he contradicted himself. That is why the point regarding allowing equalling condoning was so relevant.

I have never come across any contradictions, only misunderstandings, incomplete quotes, and flawed logic that led people to THINK they had uncovered a contradiction.

I never suggested anything close to the notion that God wouldn't know, but rather that God had reason to not tell us at that particular point in time.

Frankly, this too is in alignment with my position (and basically the same thing you will learn in modern Christian Theology) - which is to say that it wasn't until the coming of Christ that "we mere humans " COULD "see a more righteous way". IOW, whether you realize it or not, it is quite possibly God talking to you that makes you so certain of things such as "slavery is wrong". (Of course, there is cultural reference that comes into play as well, so it was more likely God talking to the first people who fought to end slavery than you - but perhaps not. I am not God and don't know what he says to whom.)

And I am saying that God not telling us something at a specific point in time does not justify you saying "God should have known and thus instructed us". Of course God would have known - but it may not have been the best time to tell us. Kind of how you don't teach a five year old about sex.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

they want to leave room to use or allow slavery. it's pretty clear that is what the jist of it is including condoning the slavery of the past and as stated in the bible etc.

as for here and at this time, they state they do not "personally" condone slavery probably because it's not popular or not desired at this time.

 

Just point me to a post number if you like. As I've said over and over again, I haven't seen a post yet that addresses these points/questions. Some people don't quote me when they post something, and their statements aren't exactly well-formed, so perhaps someone thought they were answering and I just couldn't tell.

 

You CLEARLY don't understand the points I have been making. Have you been reading my posts, and they aren't clear to you, or are you just not reading the entire post?

 

I won't disagree with that.

 

Gday,

A few posts up, birch said :

"slavery violates others, is inhumane and uses them for unfair gain."

A reasonable short answer.
Many other posts have given similar reasons.
But you ignore them and insists no answers have been given.
Why?


K.