622 replies to this topic

[Rlyeh]

_Only, on 12 May 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

No, that's not logical. Detaching from something (or not letting it affect your mental well-being) does not equate to enjoying it. I can't understand why you would even make that statement. :/

Then you're denying that suffering is to experience something unwanted.

Quote

Again, suffering has multiple meanings (hence the physical vs. mental reference).

And your continue use of the dichotomy to change the meaning.

[ShadowSot]

dside, on 12 May 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

Israel made a BINDING covenant with God that has stipulations to follow, homosexuality and rape was outlawed, mixed fibers was to remind Israel never to intermarry with other tribes, because God did not make a binding covenant with the heathens nor mongrels (mamzers), Israelites were required to keep their bloodlines pure. Mixed fibers symbolized intermarriages they werent allowed to wear mixed fibers so that they would remember their binding covenant with God in the very fibers they wore, like a second skin as a rigid discipline against intermarriage. In fact, mongrels (mamzers) werent permited to enter the congregation of God until the tenth generation. Ten generations of zero intermarriage. Shaving separation laws were instilled so that Israel would not follow or adopt any of the religious customs of the heathen ... another rigid discipline.

Well, when you put it like that it seems sane and logical. Of course. Not.

[Likely Guy]

_Only, on 01 April 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

I'm going to shamefully bare myself here and say that I am that type of atheist that Parsip describes. I was completely fine with not believing there is some sort of something more. But the more I think and listen, the more empty I realize I feel. I still have trouble wanting to blindly pass my life over to some deity, maybe I never will. But after a certain point, I came to the realization that there is indeed something more, and I want to find out what that is. I am currently an atheist. But am attempting a process of opening my mind. Maybe it's a process we all (the atheist, the religious, the spiritual) will come across sometime in our lives in some way, I don't know.

Either that, or I'm just making it up.

No. You're just getting older and feeling mortal.

/but then again, that's better than the alternative.

Edited by Likely Guy, 13 May 2012 - 02:33 AM.

[B Jenkins]

ShadowSot, on 13 May 2012 - 01:59 AM, said:

Well, when you put it like that it seems sane and logical. Of course. Not.

No, these are tools to re-enforce the mind and the will, mixed fibers = no intermarriage or mixed peoples.

God did not permit the Israelites to marry or have intercourse with other tribes. Even the very clothes they wore were to reflect that. When they got out of bed in the morning ... "dont mix the fibers", after they bathed "dont mix the fibers", when they went to the market or into the assembly of God they looked around "dont mix the fibers", and when they went back to bed "dont mix the fibers". Especially with the whole community participating, it must have been like roadside bulletin board right between the eyes.

Same with the other separation laws.

[Arbitran]

dside, on 14 May 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

No, these are tools to re-enforce the mind and the will, mixed fibers = no intermarriage or mixed peoples.

God did not permit the Israelites to marry or have intercourse with other tribes. Even the very clothes they wore were to reflect that. When they got out of bed in the morning ... "dont mix the fibers", after they bathed "dont mix the fibers", when they went to the market or into the assembly of God they looked around "dont mix the fibers", and when they went back to bed "dont mix the fibers". Especially with the whole community participating, it must have been like roadside bulletin board right between the eyes.

Same with the other separation laws.

Separation which includes ethnic cleansing and exterminating homosexuals? All it would have taken to make the Israelites different would have been a simple: "Thou shalt not practice slavery." But instead, they decided to just have complex laws about just how badly you could beat your slave.

[B Jenkins]

Arbitran, on 14 May 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

Separation which includes ethnic cleansing and exterminating homosexuals? All it would have taken to make the Israelites different would have been a simple: "Thou shalt not practice slavery." But instead, they decided to just have complex laws about just how badly you could beat your slave.

And can you cite these laws?

[Arbitran]

dside, on 14 May 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

And can you cite these laws?

You mean you haven't read them? I'm hardly surprised. There are different passages in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. You can start with Exodus 21:2-6, 20-21; Leviticus 25:44-46.

You might want to read your Bible before declaring that you believe what it says. I have enough trust in your humanity that you don't think that slavery is permissible.

[B Jenkins]

Arbitran, on 14 May 2012 - 04:06 AM, said:

You mean you haven't read them? I'm hardly surprised. There are different passages in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. You can start with Exodus 21:2-6, 20-21; Leviticus 25:44-46.

You might want to read your Bible before declaring that you believe what it says. I have enough trust in your humanity that you don't think that slavery is permissible.

Yes, but these slaves were indebt or too poor to care for themselves and willing became an indentured servents OR they broke the law and were unable to restitute the victims and/or the courts.

[ShadowSot]

dside, on 14 May 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

No, these are tools to re-enforce the mind and the will, mixed fibers = no intermarriage or mixed peoples.

God did not permit the Israelites to marry or have intercourse with other tribes. Even the very clothes they wore were to reflect that. When they got out of bed in the morning ... "dont mix the fibers", after they bathed "dont mix the fibers", when they went to the market or into the assembly of God they looked around "dont mix the fibers", and when they went back to bed "dont mix the fibers". Especially with the whole community participating, it must have been like roadside bulletin board right between the eyes.

Same with the other separation laws.

Uh huh.

And the similar forbiddings for tattoos, shellfish, pork, ect.

And lets not forget, God orders the tribes to attack cities, simply because they're on the land he's promised the Israelites. Yet, he doesn't warn them that they are on land proised to others. He alllows the men to pillage and enslave those lands, taking the female children for their use.

Let me ask you, how does this rank morally for you? It disgusts me, personally.

[Arbitran]

dside, on 14 May 2012 - 04:14 AM, said:

Yes, but these slaves were indebt or too poor to care for themselves and willing became an indentured servents OR they broke the law and were unable to restitute the victims and/or the courts.

Um, no. http://etori.tripod....ave-verses.html

Not the best site perhaps, but the list is excellent. Again, you might want to read your Bible first. The answer you gave is clearly being repeated from another Christian who told you that (or your own ignorance of the Bible). It's a totally invalid response. The Bible never states that slaves were in debt, or too poor. Yes, there is a verse which discusses a slave who is willing, however this is, in context, clearly only because the master has underhandedly enticed him with a wife. In any case, it's simply immoral to mark another human being's ear with an awl, like cattle, or to own another human being as property.

[B Jenkins]

ShadowSot, on 14 May 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

Uh huh.

And the similar forbiddings for tattoos, shellfish, pork, ect.

And lets not forget, God orders the tribes to attack cities, simply because they're on the land he's promised the Israelites. Yet, he doesn't warn them that they are on land proised to others. He alllows the men to pillage and enslave those lands, taking the female children for their use.

Let me ask you, how does this rank morally for you? It disgusts me, personally.

Those peoples were aggressive towards Israel first when Israel asked for safe passages, and yes, God wanted those peoples erased from the Earth for they propagated and promoted wickedness in their lands, the young maidens were spared as a direct response to Balaam planning to seduce Israelite men with strange flesh (foreigners) thus overturning and revoking God's plan if he had succeeded.

[B Jenkins]

Arbitran, on 14 May 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

Um, no. http://etori.tripod....ave-verses.html

Not the best site perhaps, but the list is excellent. Again, you might want to read your Bible first. The answer you gave is clearly being repeated from another Christian who told you that (or your own ignorance of the Bible). It's a totally invalid response. The Bible never states that slaves were in debt, or too poor. Yes, there is a verse which discusses a slave who is willing, however this is, in context, clearly only because the master has underhandedly enticed him with a wife. In any case, it's simply immoral to mark another human being's ear with an awl, like cattle, or to own another human being as property.

That site has it so misconstrued. And awl is for indentured servants who chose to be indentured servants for life, and they are to be given a piece of the master's inheritance when he dies too.

Read the whole complete chapter of Leviticus 25.

And having sexual relations with a foreign slave constitutes MARRIAGE also  after ritual cleansing.

[Arbitran]

dside, on 14 May 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:

That site has it so misconstrued. And awl is for indentured servants who chose to be indentured servants for life, and they are to be given a piece of the master's inheritance when he dies too.

Read the whole complete chapter of Leviticus 25.

And having sexual relations with a foreign slave constitutes MARRIAGE also  after ritual cleansing.

I admit, the site isn't the best, but it's points on biblical slavery were fully accurate. I suggest that you read Leviticus 25; hell, all of Leviticus. I have, in the Hebrew, and it's abominable. No there is no debt ever mentioned in the text. And, no. Merely having sex with a foreign slave does not constitute marriage, in any way. I suggest you read up on biblical marriage rituals (hint: having sex isn't enough to be considered married to someone). Yes, it does discuss a slave willingly becoming a life-long slave. But you're dodging the point: do you find it morally-acceptable to drive a cattle-marking implement through the ear of another human being, to mark them as your property?

Edited by Arbitran, 14 May 2012 - 04:50 AM.

[B Jenkins]

Arbitran, on 14 May 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

I admit, the site isn't the best, but it's points on biblical slavery were fully accurate. I suggest that you read Leviticus 25; hell, all of Leviticus. I have, in the Hebrew, and it's abominable. No there is no debt ever mentioned in the text. Yes, it does discuss a slave willingly becoming a life-long slave. But you're dodging the point: do you find it morally-acceptable to drive a cattle-marking implement through the ear of another human being, to mark them as your property?

Do you find it morally-acceptable if an indentured servant serves his master for six years and fears attempting to make it on his own? To struggle? To starve? To even be homeless? I believe there is an issue of mutually love, respect, and trust behind the notions of the awl

Edited by dside, 14 May 2012 - 04:52 AM.

[Arbitran]

dside, on 14 May 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

Do you find it morally-acceptable if an indentured servant serves his master for six years and fears attempting to make it on his own? To struggle? To starve? To even be homeless? I believe there is an issue of mutually love, respect, and trust behind the notions of the awl

Except... it is not a matter of debt!

I don't find it even remotely loving or respectful to drive a spike through someone's earlobe in order to mark them as your property: which you are free to treat however you like, so long as they don't die within three days.