Communism , Totalitarianism & Atheism

[Rlyeh 16,654]

1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

Not hand waving but hand-holding.  Our morals have not changed.

"Today, we consider slavery as immoral and since Jesus, the Letter of the Law no longer applies.  So of course, slavery is not acceptable today even though it is still practiced."

Just stop before you end up contradicting yourself even more.

 

1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

As I said, because of Jesus, he refocused the Law as respect.  Back then, slaves where to be shown respect, today slavery is showing a lack of respect.  The Law remains intact.  Times change, morals do not.  Not GODly morals.

Jesus did not oppose slavery under the Romans either.  No matter how hard you Christian apologists try there is nothing respectable about slavery for the slave.

Are you going to pretend that owning someone and beating them is respectable?  You're as morally repulsive as your God.

[danydandan 13,922]

6 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I didn’t make it personal, you made it personal.  Stating that you have a closed mind is a direct observation.  If I said “no, you didn’t get it” or “no, that’s wrong”, etc., is not making it personal.  That’s a clue that you need to change your thinking, ask questions.  Don’t ignore or ridicule.

 

 

 

 

 

I’m just defending myself.  Perhaps you should go back and try to understand what I wrote, then maybe we could move on??  What I wanted was to answer your questions, not get insulted.

 

What exactly are you defending? 

[danydandan 13,922]

13 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

"Today, we consider slavery as immoral and since Jesus, the Letter of the Law no longer applies.  So of course, slavery is not acceptable today even though it is still practiced."

Just stop before you end up contradicting yourself even more.

 

Jesus did not oppose slavery under the Romans either.  No matter how hard you Christian apologists try there is nothing respectable about slavery for the slave.

Are you going to pretend that owning someone and beating them is respectable?  You're as morally repulsive as your God.

I'm not sure there is any passages that openly condemn nor condone slavery in the Bible. There are many passages that describe how a slave should be treated and how a slave should act. 

It was a way of life, but that doesn't make it correct and right then or now. What is more worrisome is the obvious lack of condemnation of slavery in the Bible.

[RavenHawk 10,379]

5 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Just stop before you end up contradicting yourself even more.

Sigh!?  And just how am I contradicting myself?

 

Jesus did not oppose slavery under the Romans either. 

That’s right.  He didn’t come to set the slave free.

 

No matter how hard you Christian apologists try there is nothing respectable about slavery for the slave.

Back then it was very respectable.  It was a way of life, but since the Industrial Revolution, it is not needed.  But the Mosaic law gave rules in treating the slave well (or not abusing them).  That would be different with a disobedient slave.

 

Are you going to pretend that owning someone and beating them is respectable? 

I’m not pretending with anything.  But I do understand what changed from then and now and it’s not morals.  You are trying to use a very poor example.

 

You're as morally repulsive as your God.

So you don’t want to learn something new anyway, just attack.

[Doug1029 7,390]

39 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

"Today, we consider slavery as immoral and since Jesus, the Letter of the Law no longer applies.  So of course, slavery is not acceptable today even though it is still practiced."

Just stop before you end up contradicting yourself even more.

 

Jesus did not oppose slavery under the Romans either.  No matter how hard you Christian apologists try there is nothing respectable about slavery for the slave.

Are you going to pretend that owning someone and beating them is respectable?  You're as morally repulsive as your God.

There have been different kinds of slavery in the world.  The Roman and American models were much the same and quite brutal. In America, once a slave, always a slave unless freed by your master.  The Romans allowed some slaves their freedom.  These usually took their masters names and stayed around as members of the family.  In America they used the Bible to justify slavery, but conveniently forgot about the Jubilee when all slaves were to be freed.  This would have happened on the new moon of October in 1780 and 1830 had the Jubilee Calendar still been running.

The Egyptian model was less restrictive.  Slaves often owned other slaves and even supervised free men.  In Egypt, slavery mostly determined who was entitled to the fruits of the slave's labor.  In Egypt, slavery was usually reserved for criminals and prisoners-of-war.  Sometimes a person would sell himself into slavery to pay a debt.  After a specified period of time, he was free.  There was little difference between a slave and any other workman on the temple-owned farms.  This is the Jewish model.

The Irish captured slaves and were themselves captured.  Slaves usually got jobs like sheep herding where they were alone for days at a time.  St. Patrick came to Ireland as a slave of Nial of the Nine Hostages.

The first two Europeans ashore in the New World were Scottish slaves of the Vikings.  The Vikings feared the local Indians, so sent the slaves ashore to search for food and scout the land.

In American Indian society, slaves often became full-fledged members of the tribe.  There is still an on-going "war" between "Indian" and "black" Cherokees.

Doug

Edited March 15, 2019 by Doug1029

[Rlyeh 16,654]

1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

Sigh!?  And just how am I contradicting myself?

I just quoted you contradicting yourself.  Keep up.

 

1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

Back then it was very respectable.  It was a way of life, but since the Industrial Revolution, it is not needed.  But the Mosaic law gave rules in treating the slave well (or not abusing them).  That would be different with a disobedient slave.

You're in denial.  Being owned as property is not respectable.  Would you let someone own and beat you?

And no, the Mosaic law didn't prevent abuse only limited it, you could still beat your slave provided they didn't die in the first two days.

 

1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

I’m not pretending with anything.  But I do understand what changed from then and now and it’s not morals.  You are trying to use a very poor example.

Oh you're pretending all right, reality doesn't support your delusional beliefs.  You can deny as much as you like, but the fact remains slavery as practiced by the Hebrews would be immoral in today's society.

Clearly you've invested so much time and energy into your beliefs and you can't stand the thought they are immoral.

[Aquila King 22,624]

12 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Sigh!?  And just how am I contradicting myself?

That’s right.  He didn’t come to set the slave free.

Back then it was very respectable.  It was a way of life, but since the Industrial Revolution, it is not needed.  But the Mosaic law gave rules in treating the slave well (or not abusing them).  That would be different with a disobedient slave.

I'd say the fact that you constantly rant about "Constitutionally protected individual freedoms and liberties" while trying to justify slavery in any capacity is the most blatant of your contradictions here.

[Doug1029 7,390]

Just so we don't start thinking we're too holy:  the Czars freed the serfs a year before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

Slavery was going out of style because mechanization rendered slaves unprofitable.  You could turn off the machine, but you had to feed the slave.  If Lincoln and the Union hadn't intervened, the south would have ended slavery in a few decades simply because they couldn't make enough money with slaves.

Doug

[RavenHawk 10,379]

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

I'm not sure there is any passages that openly condemn nor condone slavery in the Bible.

There aren’t any openly condemning it, but there are places where it does condone.

 

There are many passages that describe how a slave should be treated and how a slave should act. 

Correct.

 

It was a way of life, but that doesn't make it correct and right then or now.

It was a long established and accepted institution.  It is perhaps the second oldest profession.  It wasn’t until the early 19^th Century that it began to go out of favor.

 

What is more worrisome is the obvious lack of condemnation of slavery in the Bible.

It wouldn’t make too much sense for it to.  That is not worrisome in the least.  There is slavery today.  We should be concerned in eradicating it completely.  But in a way, are we not slaves to our jobs, family, bank, credit cards, etc.?

[Rlyeh 16,654]

16 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm not sure there is any passages that openly condemn nor condone slavery in the Bible. There are many passages that describe how a slave should be treated and how a slave should act. 

It was a way of life, but that doesn't make it correct and right then or now. What is more worrisome is the obvious lack of condemnation of slavery in the Bible.

I'm not denying it was a way of life.  But I object to this idea that our morals have not changed on the issue of slavery. 

[Rlyeh 16,654]

8 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

There have been different kinds of slavery in the world.  The Roman and American models were much the same and quite brutal. In America, once a slave, always a slave unless freed by your master.  The Romans allowed some slaves their freedom.  These usually took their masters names and stayed around as members of the family.  In America they used the Bible to justify slavery, but conveniently forgot about the Jubilee when all slaves were to be freed.  This would have happened on the new moon of October in 1770 and 1820 had the Jubilee Calendar still been running.

The Egyptian model was less restrictive.  Slaves often owned other slaves and even supervised free men.  In Egypt, slavery mostly determined who was entitled to the fruits of the slave's labor.  In Egypt, slavery was usually reserved for criminals and prisoners-of-war.  Sometimes a person would sell himself into slavery to pay a debt.  After a specified period of time, he was free.  There was little difference between a slave and any other workman on the temple-owned farms.  This is the Jewish model.

The Irish captured slaves and were themselves captured.  Slaves usually got jobs like sheep herding where they were alone for days at a time.  St. Patrick came to Ireland as a slave of Nial of the Nine Hostages.

The first two Europeans ashore in the New World were Scottish slaves of the Vikings.  The Vikings feared the local Indians, so sent the slaves ashore to search for food and scout the land.

In American Indian society, slaves often became full-fledged members of the tribe.  There is still an on-going "war" between "Indian" and "black" Cherokees.

Doug

The Hebrews had different rules for Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves.  Non-Hebrew slaves were by every definition slaves, they could be bought and sold.

 

[Doug1029 7,390]

Dannydandan

That Irish woman I told you about is sending me articles on Bloody Sunday.  You better look out.  When she gets there, she'll raise all the Leprichauns against you.

Doug

[Rlyeh 16,654]

6 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

It wouldn’t make too much sense for it to.  That is not worrisome in the least.  There is slavery today.  We should be concerned in eradicating it completely.  But in a way, are we not slaves to our jobs, family, bank, credit cards, etc.?

Why should we be concerned if God isn't?

[danydandan 13,922]

7 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

I'm not denying it was a way of life.  But I object to this idea that our morals have not changed on the issue of slavery. 

Oh of course the mass consensus of what we deem societal morality has changed, and vastly for the betterment of humanity.

[RavenHawk 10,379]

9 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I'd say the fact that you constantly rant about "Constitutionally protected individual freedoms and liberties" while trying to justify slavery in any capacity is the most blatant of your contradictions here.

The ignorance – it burns!  I wish that for once you would pull your head out of your butt!  Acknowledging history is not justifying it.

[danydandan 13,922]

3 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Dannydandan

That Irish woman I told you about is sending me articles on Bloody Sunday.  You better look out.  When she gets there, she'll raise all the Leprichauns against you.

Doug

What? 

[Rlyeh 16,654]

4 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

The ignorance – it burns!  I wish that for once you would pull your head out of your butt!  Acknowledging history is not justifying it.

You're the last person to talk about ignorance.  You're not even acknowledging history, you're fabricating it.

Tell again how slavery is respectable.. lunatic.

[RavenHawk 10,379]

5 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Tell again how slavery is respectable.. lunatic.

And how long has slavery existed?  Can you  list the empires of the past that used slavery?

[Doug1029 7,390]

17 minutes ago, danydandan said:

What? 

A friend of mine who is in her 60s and very interested in Irish culture and language, and a firm believer in "the Little People," has been sending me emails about Bloody Sunday.  She's ready to go to war.  She plans to move to Ireland as soon as she retires.  Good luck.

Doug

[Rlyeh 16,654]

10 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

And how long has slavery existed?  Can you  list the empires of the past that used slavery?

Are you trying to say if something has been practiced for a long time it must be respectable?  Unbelievable.

You live in your own fantasy world.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Rlyeh

[Doug1029 7,390]

5 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Are you trying to say if something has been practiced for a long time it must be respectable?  Unbelievable.

You live in your own fantasy world.

The British Parliament has "loaned" the Stone of Scone back to Scotland in the apparent belief that because it was stolen from Scotland 700 years ago, it now belongs to England.  Time heals all wounds (or wounds all heels).

Doug

[danydandan 13,922]

18 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

A friend of mine who is in her 60s and very interested in Irish culture and language, and a firm believer in "the Little People," has been sending me emails about Bloody Sunday.  She's ready to go to war.  She plans to move to Ireland as soon as she retires.  Good luck.

Doug

Which Bloody Sunday? 

Go to war with whom exactly? 

Why would I need good luck? 

Edited March 15, 2019 by danydandan

[Aquila King 22,624]

31 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Acknowledging history is not justifying it.

You were very clearly justifying it:

Quote

Back then it was very respectable.

Quote

the Mosaic law gave rules in treating the slave well (or not abusing them).  That would be different with a disobedient slave.

Quote

I do understand what changed from then and now and it’s not morals. 

 

[Doug1029 7,390]

8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Which Bloody Sunday? 

Go to war with whom exactly? 

Why would I need good luck? 

That's too many questions.  I'll have to get back to you later.

Doug

[Noteverythingisaconspiracy 16,688]

18 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Interpretations?

Yes interpretations. If the bible wasn't open to interpretation there would be only one christian denomination, insted of several thousand.

18 hours ago, Will Due said:

Would you rather that God created you in the form of a machine? A robot? Without the ability to choose? To interpret?

God didn't create me. Me mum and dad did. They allways thought me to make my own decisions. Unlike people who let the morals of bronze age Middle Eastern sheppards rule their lives. 

18 hours ago, Will Due said:

What's this fear all about? Being human, and having the responsibility to decide? 

What fear ?