|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jan 3, 2019 19:45:46 GMT
a shining light upon a pill
if a nations greatness
is measured
by the number of health insurance companies
that determine
who
gets to live and who
is jettisoned
onto a flaming pyre
of death
then i would have to agree
that america
is totally off the charts
awesome.
sjw 01/03/19 inspired at this very moment in time by putting your legislation where your mouth is.
from the 'benevolent series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 3, 2019 19:52:50 GMT
Just spitballing here. After WWII the Allies didn't keep the Axis POWs as slaves. The Allies also didn't live in The Bronze Age. But we're (supposedly) talking about a people living under the moral laws of GOD, who performs miracles for them as long as they live by his moral laws. We expect a loftier standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 3, 2019 20:01:55 GMT
The Allies also didn't live in The Bronze Age. But we're (supposedly) talking about a people living under the moral laws of GOD, who performs miracles for them as long as they live by his moral laws. We expect a loftier standard.
I'm sure you expect a lot of things....  - "Why didn't God just create magic chocolate milkshakes so everybody would be just be friends?"  - "I don't know..." - "Why didn't God just make jobs for everybody on the planet?"  - "I don't know.." -- "Why doesn't God just....  |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 3, 2019 20:04:36 GMT
But we're (supposedly) talking about a people living under the moral laws of GOD, who performs miracles for them as long as they live by his moral laws. We expect a loftier standard.
I'm sure you expect a lot of things.... - "Why didn't God just create magic chocolate milkshakes so everybody would be just be friends?" - "I don't know..." - "Why didn't God just make jobs for everybody on the planet?" - "I don't know.." -- "Why doesn't God just.... If you'd rather play jester than actually address my point (assuming you get it), that's OK. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 3, 2019 20:12:16 GMT
Maybe, God thought that a foreign enemy is better as a live slave than a dead combatant? Or that some people's chances of survival would rely on just being a slave?... So He provided rules for such arrangements.  Just spitballing here. After WWII the Allies didn't keep the Axis POWs as slaves.Don't worry. Nobody thinks you're in favor of slavery. You don’t think prisoners are slaves? |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 3, 2019 20:19:23 GMT
Just spitballing here. After WWII the Allies didn't keep the Axis POWs as slaves.Don't worry. Nobody thinks you're in favor of slavery. You don’t think prisoners are slaves? Y'know? I think even Vegas is slapping his forehead at that one. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 3, 2019 20:21:50 GMT
I'm sure you expect a lot of things... If you'd rather play jester than actually address my point (assuming you get it), that's OK. Technically.... I can do both.   - "Then... TRY BEING A FUNNIER JESTER!"  |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 3, 2019 20:44:00 GMT
You don’t think prisoners are slaves? Y'know? I think even Vegas is slapping his forehead at that one. so that’s a no? If a person is forced to serve someone for a certain amount of time how is that not slavery? If they are transferred from lace to place how is that not slavery. The things you say are slavery in the Bible are Conscription POWS indentured servitude Slavery Volunteer service Do we need to do a checklist to see which are which because I can tell you right now POW’s are slaves in Scripture so maybe the Bible is wrong about the definition... |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 3, 2019 21:03:22 GMT
Y'know? I think even Vegas is slapping his forehead at that one. so that’s a no? No. It's a forehead slap. I said AFTER WWII, we didn't keep the POWs for slaves.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jan 3, 2019 21:11:37 GMT
No. It's a forehead slap. I said AFTER WWII, we didn't keep the POWs for slaves.
are you saying the morals regarding POW’s changed? I’m just interested in the lines of demarcation. |
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Jan 3, 2019 23:36:37 GMT
(And not too hard to guess what it's analogous to)
Someone who is putatively a great moral authority for the ages issues the following statement: "I have an important command for all pedophiles among you, so listen carefully. Pedophiles, remember to always be kind and considerate to all the children you have sex with."
What, if any, effect should such a pronouncement have on his status as a great moral authority? Are you using the current definition of a pedophile where laws in most countries view paedophilia as one of the worst of crimes? Or do you expect us to visit the moral world of 1,500 years ago where popes, kings and everybody else followed different rules and would not have understood the current definition? Or perhaps we could go just a year back, where the current guardians of moral authority in our own culture, Catholic priests, Jewish school Principals and Rabbis practice what some of us call child sexual abuse if we don't follow their moral authority. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 4, 2019 0:01:49 GMT
(And not too hard to guess what it's analogous to)
Someone who is putatively a great moral authority for the ages issues the following statement: "I have an important command for all pedophiles among you, so listen carefully. Pedophiles, remember to always be kind and considerate to all the children you have sex with."
What, if any, effect should such a pronouncement have on his status as a great moral authority? Are you using the current definition of a pedophile where laws in most countries view paedophilia as one of the worst of crimes? That's about right. |
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Jan 4, 2019 0:12:05 GMT
Are you using the current definition of a pedophile where laws in most countries view paedophilia as one of the worst of crimes? That's about right. So you are neither willing to accept that Catholic Priests and Rabbis are at the forefront of both moral authority and paedophilia, nor that what Mahommed might have done was common practice not just with Muslims but Popes, Kings and peasants too. Let's blame all Britons especially Queen Liz for the brutal torture and disembowelment of William Wallace. Oops, let's not. America still likes torture till death, as practiced at Bagram Airbase. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 4, 2019 0:22:09 GMT
So you are neither willing to accept that Catholic Priests and Rabbis are at the forefront of both moral authority and paedophilia, nor that what Mahommed might have done was common practice not just with Muslims but Popes, Kings and peasants too. Let's blame all Britons especially Queen Liz for the brutal torture and disembowelment of William Wallace. Oops, let's not. America still likes torture till death, as practiced at Bagram Airbase. My OP is not about pedophilia. That was just an analogy for God's (God of the Bible, that is) disturbingly tolerant attitude toward slavery (regulate it, don't condemn it). |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 4, 2019 2:07:52 GMT
I find this post interesting, as I had not realised that you were one of the rare breed of religious/theist who don't promote the concept of an absolute or objective morality. Most theists subscribe to the camp of an objective morality which is fixed, God given and endures throughout history and into the modern day. You don't realize this because you neither care to know or care to remember all of the silly debates had over it. You will make this statement again sooner than later. The fact that there are people whining on the internet about another person's religious beliefs based on history from thousands of years ago is automatic verification that people and times have different moral standards and theophobiacs simply try to merge them. Not all moral standards are equal and some are longer lasting. My primary moral standard is Christian. All other ones are subservient or not honored if in conflict with it. Most people, including religious ones, are fully aware that there are differing moral standards and adhere to multiple ones since not one of them covers everything.No, many theists don't, and I was tossing up whether to say 'most' rather than 'many'. |
|
