Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
jst, you didn't answer on the other thread, hope you will here, would it be ok, in yr view, for the jews to defeat (totally) and enslave the Palestinians?

No.  That is not what Christ instructed us to do.   
Christ is a false Messiah as far as Jews are concerned.
I don't because I've not been talking about keeping them against their will.  How do you know they were kept against their will?
Because that's the nature of slavery.  The whole point is that it's based on power, dominance, and force, or the threat thereof.  That is incompatible with the concept of them willingly and tamely staying slaves.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing
And since you agree there is no difference in being a slave and being kept against your will then do you agree that prisoners are the same as slaves?
I will leave this to Jag to answer, but I somehow doubt that she's going to tamely agree with you that prisoners are the same as slaves.  Frankly, I find this equivocation you keep trying to make repugnant.
General Religious Discussion / Re: The subjective nature of love
« Last post by Graybeard on Today at 01:31:57 PM »
Agape is the Greek term for the contemporary Christians idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin". My boyfriend and I were just discussing how hard this is to put into actual practice
God is aware that it is hard to put into practice: He tried to make it as hard as possible, because, "love the sinner, hate the sin" is an unholy corruption of God's Word:

"These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." (Proverbs 6:16-19)

There are plenty more verses in the Bible about how God HATES THE SINNER.

Do not be deceived by the lukewarm Christians and their "God hates the sin but loves the sinner"!! The Bible says the Lord HATES certain people and not just the sin!! But He does love the True Christian!

I have had (supposed) born again Christians tell me that I'm talking about the Law of the Old Testament. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of His law will pass away. (Matthew 5:18)

The Bible says, "The burden of the Word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob. And I HATED Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage to waste for the dragons of the wilderness." (Malachi 1:1-3) You read it! GOD HATED ESAU. It’s in the Bible!

If someone tells you "God is love", remind him that "love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13:10)

Any enemy of God should be our enemy too!! I would go so far as to say that if you claim to love enemies of God, you are trying to be holier than God.

In Psalms, David constantly called upon God to destroy the wicked! I have found ten Psalms where David asks God to destroy his enemies (7, 35, 55, 58, 59, 69, 79, 109, 137, 139).

I believe when God destroys the wicked it is a form of His grace. God gives us grace when He destroys the wicked because when He destroys the wicked, He stops their evil deeds and works. When He kills drug dealers, He saves grown ups and children from drugs. When He kills abortionists, He saves unborn babies lives.

The Bible says that wicked, evil-doers don't learn lessons. "Let favour be showed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness" (2 Cor 26:10); yet, "when thy [God's] judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness" (2 Cor 26:9).

People aren't saved because of God's love. People get saved because they want to escape God's wrath and don't want to be destroyed. We should, therefore, ask God to judge and destroy the wicked and evil-doers because their destructions is definitely a form of God's grace.

We need to stop separating sin from the sinner. God judges the sinner! If you believe that God is just and true, then you must believe that He hates the sin and the sinner.

"God is a just judge and God is angry with the wicked everyday. (Psalms 7:11)
There are no rose-tinted glasses.  I'm not claiming what I've said is in fact the way it was.  However, there is no reason to assume the worst possible scenerio either.  It should also not be assumed that their enemies were just innocent victims.  You conclusions are based on assumptions.
Rose-tinted glasses aren't about facts, they're about viewpoints.  And you have consistently tried to insert the viewpoint that, despite the known fact that every other culture which had slavery that we have had the opportunity to investigate tended to treat its slaves pretty badly in general[1], despite the fact that all their non-Hebrew slaves were captured in war, often wars Israel started for the purpose of either conquering or destroying neighboring nations, and despite the fact that the Israelites consistently backslid on their religious rules even according to the writings of the Bible, that we shouldn't "assume the worst" about biblical Israelite slavery.  The thing is, Jst, I'm not assuming the worst.  Not even close.  I would say that my assumptions, such as they are and what there are of them, lead to them being slightly worse than average.

Yes, you heard me right.  As bad as Israelite slavery was, there were worse slave systems.  For example, chattel slavery in the American south was worse.  And Mesoamerican slaves were frequently picked as human sacrifices.  Spartan helotry was such a bad system that they actually organized their (free) society on authoritarian, militaristic lines just so they could keep control of the helots.  The point is not that biblical Israelite slavery was especially awful compared to other slavery systems, although I would argue that it was slightly worse than average, but that slavery itself is a pretty awful institution.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing
They were pretty consistently unfaithful.  However, they were not at all times.  So here another assumption is required.  But I'm not defending Israel because I don't know what they did beyond what is in the record.  I am unwilling to make assumption whether it puts them in a good light or a bad light.
Ah, and now we get to the crux of it.  This isn't about assuming the worst; this is about making assumptions, period.  Except that you are making assumptions; among other things, you are assuming that biblical Israelite slavery was pretty much as it was described in the Bible.  But this assumption is not itself justifiable, because slaves were non-entities and would not have been written about in the Bible except in passing.  So all that this assumption is based on is a scanty set of religious rules regarding the acquisition, ownership, and treatment of slaves from the Bible.  And furthermore, you just acknowledged that the Israelites were pretty consistently unfaithful - which would necessarily include the rules on slavery.  Yeah, sure, they weren't always unfaithful.  I'm sure men who beat their wives when they got drunk could be okay individuals when they stayed sober - but the fact remains that the wife-beating would ultimately poison the relationship.  So too it goes with what slavery systems ultimately do to societies.  Whatever the initial causes were, no groups of slaves in history have ever been content with remaining slaves, and the 'safeguards' the slave-owners had to put in place to keep their slaves from rising up and killing them off always did more harm than good.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing
That is why I do not like to debate the character of God over ancient Israel.  The facts simply cannot be known apart from what is in the Bible record and it is not complete enough to make so many judgments.
The Bible - especially the Old Testament - is the epic story of the Israelites, much like the Odyssey is the epic story of Odysseus.  And the thing about epic stories is that they are not sober recitations of facts and truths, but ways to engage and excite the reader.  This often involves dressing up factual events, or even making stuff up entirely, not to mention all the cultural stuff that gets added in simply so that it relates to its intended audience.

The fact remains, if the epic story of a culture involves regularly engaging in wars of conquest or even destruction against one's neighbors, then it's a pretty safe bet that they were not people that anyone else would have looked up to.

Quote from: Jstwebbrowsing
That doesn't change anything.  Many people in Iraq were happy when the U.S. invaded.  Perhaps you are viewing Israel's enemies through rose-tinted glasses.
A nation engaging on regular wars of conquest or destruction doesn't change anything?

Oh, I'm sure that Israel's neighbors weren't the pick of the litter; I certainly wouldn't want to have lived in any of those societies.  But that's beside the point, which is that you're utilizing the 'facts' written in the Bible - the epic story of the Hebrews, which helped define them as a people - to justify Israel's treatment of their neighbors.  And that doesn't fly; every nation in history tends to denigrate its enemies in various ways.  The Israelites were no exception to this rule; your assumption that they were - because you believe that what's written in the Bible are the pure facts of the matter, even though history written by the winners is going to be slanted towards them - is what led me to the conclusion that you are wearing rose-tinted glasses regarding them.
 1. certainly some slave-owners were better than the norm, but some were also worse; the average ended up being pretty bad
General Religious Discussion / The subjective nature of love
« Last post by Jag on Today at 01:20:40 PM »
As explained by the Greeks: 6 words for love.

Short version:
Eros = sexual passion and desire (side note, the Greeks didn't see this as an "always positive" kind of love, it was dangerous because it included a "loss of control" aspect)
Philia = deep friendship, brothers-in arms, loyalty, includes storge, love between parents and children
Ludus = playful love, affection, between children, between adults having social fun like dancing, laughing, bantering
Agape = love for everyone, selfless love, universal love
Quote from linked article:
"Empathy levels in the U.S. have declined sharply over the past 40 years, with the steepest fall occurring in the past decade. We urgently need to revive our capacity to care about strangers."[/nb]
Pragma = mature, long-term love, staying-in-love love (patience, tolerance, compromise)
Philautia = love of self, self-compassion; Aristotle says "All friendly feelings for others are an extension of a man's feelings for himself."

Agape is the Greek term for the contemporary Christians idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin". My boyfriend and I were just discussing how hard this is to put into actual practice - it's easy to love your own children when they misbehave and to cut them some slack for circumstances, but we can be pretty judge-y about other people's kids, for instance. Agapic love requires a certain level of compassion and a suspension of judgment that can be hard to apply with any consistency, and it requires a lot of sustained self-awareness. This kind of love is active, it takes conscious effort to set aside biases to look at the human being, and it's ongoing by definition.

This article and the secondary link to the study in Scientific American do a great job of nailing down what I find so frustrating about many of the theist discussions here about love. They throw the word around to mean whatever they want it to mean at any given moment until it means nothing at all.
Science / Re: Mining the Moon
« Last post by Graybeard on Today at 01:12:07 PM »
Will you please share your opinions on the possible consequences of mining the moon?

It scares the s**t out of me.
Yeah, it’s well known that even dropping something heavy on the moon will break it in two and half would fall straight on America.

That’s why the Moon Landings were filmed in California.

Any light you can shed on that big ass particle maker would also be appreciated.  Do they really have control over all that energy?
Well, the verb “control” is a bit strong – they have a switch to turn it on, but the current is so strong that it doesn’t always work if you try and turn it off. There is a report on the internet that says so far 27 scientists have just “disappeared” leaving behind only a smell of burnt flesh. CERN (who run the show and are funded by “Big Pharma” and the CIA) have just said, “Their contracts expired and they left. We do not track ex-employees.”

There was an earlier model built in the late 1990s in Northern Sweden: nobody is allowed near the area now, and Google Earth maps have the area covered in cloud.

Do earthlings really have the "right" to explore outer space?
No, we don’t. In 1958 the United Nations signed a declaration that there would be no space exploration at all, ever. However, the Soviet Union and China both ignored it. When the US found out, they decided that, for security reasons they would have to break the treaty. You might have thought that the Cuban Missile Crisis was about Cuban Missiles… but no, it was all about that Treaty, but the government won’t ever admit it.

(True Story!)

There is already a problem with space junk hitting people's houses while their watching TV.
Yeah, you’re right, and we only get to hear about 1 in a thousand disasters! Most are reported as “gas leaks” or “a Truck hitting it” or “a hurricane.”

Really sincerely curious JB.
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to publicise these secrets they don’t want you to know.

If you have any questions about the man-eating tendencies of Bigfoot, or Why Area 51 is not Area 51 but Area 51A or how the Illuminati have control of Obama, or the secrets of the Bilderberg Group, or the influence of the Masons, the truth behind “the grassy knoll”, or the chemicals in Con-Trails, let us know.
General Religious Discussion / Re: For Theists - The Case for atheism
« Last post by Merlin on Today at 12:51:31 PM »
That's what I said.  That's what I've been saying for months.  We do not know.  Atheist don't know.  Theist don't know.  That's why I'm neither one.  I am perfectly content with we don't know.   When you assume things you make an ass-u-me.

Atheism assumes.

Not quite right, JB.  I agree that you don't accept religion or atheists.  You made up something called 'Spiritualismtm'.  You agreed above that we do not know what is right, but you made up your own beliefs anyway.  When anyone moves away from atheism on this sliding scale, they have to begin making things up. :-[
Science / Re: Mining the Moon
« Last post by jetson on Today at 12:46:09 PM »
If you take a nihilistic perspective, humans are just another part of the universe, and thus every action they take is just another action - it is not good or bad. It is humans themselves that create all of the emotions and labels, good or bad, around the actions it takes.

Humans have created all of the "meaning" that people love to cling to. Outside of our language, labels, and the words we use to define and categorize stuff - everything just exists - with no concern over what humans do or do not do.

In the grand scheme, we will never be noticed by the universe. Mining the moon around the planet we live on is no exception.

If we destroy ourselves, there will be no one or no thing that cares one way or the other.

Having said all of that, we should weigh the pros and cons of our actions, and try our best not to destroy things for the sake of destroying them. We should learn to utilize resources so that the least amount of harm is done - based on what we know about how our resources are made available, and what we know about the limits of those resources.
I do.

Do you agree that you have been using a double standard?

I don't because I've not been talking about keeping them against their will.  How do you know they were kept against their will?

And since you agree there is no difference in being a slave and being kept against your will then do you agree that prisoners are the same as slaves?
General Religious Discussion / Re: The Ethics of Slavery and the Bible
« Last post by Jag on Today at 12:37:15 PM »
I do.

Do you agree that you have been using a double standard?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10