Texas church shooter was a militant atheist

[Israel]

Israel, look up the definition of platitude and try again.

Uh oh, the Webster's card's been played.

Anyone got trump?

C'mon man, you know all dem werds been made up.

 

[Spotlite]

Listen spotty, try not to wallow in your own dishonesty.
Slavery is an immoral act. It certainly was not considered immoral back when the bible was written and that shows that morals are relative to the times

bully (no pun intended) ............very interesting statement..........I would agree that slavery is immoral. But it is interesting that one can view Christianity as immoral for something that was certainly not immoral when the Bible was written. Do you know any Christians that teach that slavery is acceptable? Don't count the "rabid"...we have already established that in every club.

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant....Exodus 21:7

Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land. And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-man forever.Leviticus 25:44-46

If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money.Exodus 21:20-21

And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.Exodus 21:26-27


If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver.Exodus 21:32


And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.Leviticus 19:20

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.Deuteronomy 20:10-11

But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.Deuteronomy 20:14 .

Aside that Exodus was just that......an exit from bondage.......All of these have one thing in common..........they`re laws of Moses........ the first 5 books; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are attributed to the writing of Moses. Nothing in them is a foundation to build on for Christianity. Slavery was a way of life for the Jews how many years B.C.? And as you have already stated, "certainly not considered immoral when the Bible was written"

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.Ephesians 6:5

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.Colossians 3:22

Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.Colossians 4:1

Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise ... he is proud, knowing nothing.... From such withdraw thyself.1 Timothy 6:1-5

Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.Titus 2:9-10

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.1 Peter 2:18

These do nothing but teach obedience to those that have rule over you, those that are under yoke, children to their parents, etc. There is nothing in here that promotes owning slaves and slavery as a foundation for Christianity. Again, "certainly not considered immoral when the Bible was written"

Sorry that it took a while to get back, I was being a good servant to my company

 

[Spotlite]

I take offense to that.

you should lol

 

[atlashunter]

Is human sacrifice immoral?

 

[Israel]

Ask the two guys on either side of Michael Monsoor.

 

[bullethead]

bully (no pun intended) ............very interesting statement..........I would agree that slavery is immoral. But it is interesting that one can view Christianity as immoral for something that was certainly not immoral when the Bible was written. Do you know any Christians that teach that slavery is acceptable? Don't count the "rabid"...we have already established that in every club.

What is interesting is that your god, who's words are supposedly contained in the bible, could not see into the future and more specifically convey back then that slavery was immoral.
Which tells me that no god had anything to do with the bible. The contents reflect man morals and actions at the time.

Aside that Exodus was just that......an exit from bondage.......All of these have one thing in common..........they`re laws of Moses........ the first 5 books; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are attributed to the writing of Moses. Nothing in them is a foundation to build on for Christianity. Slavery was a way of life for the Jews how many years B.C.? And as you have already stated, "certainly not immoral when the Bible was written"
[

You are obviously not well versed in history. The Jews were never enslaved like what was told in the bible. The Exodous. Never Happened.

Not immoral when the bible was written = morals of man.
Laws that man has made have been revised over the years. Updated.
The contents of the bible stay the same. The same bible that you can buy hot off the press today contains the same immoral acts as it did a thousand years ago.
Is your god unwilling to change?
Is there really a god involved?

So where did ol Moses get his laws from? According to the bible....god.
And going by that story, your god gave specific instructions all throughout the books of the bible(not just Exodous) regarding slavery.

These do nothing but teach obedience to those that have rule over you, those that are under yoke, children to their parents, etc. There is nothing in here that promotes owning slaves and slavery as a foundation for Christianity. Again, "certainly not immoral when the Bible was written"

Are you cherry picking again? You totally missed the quotes that justify beatings, the selling of wives and children of "servants", and can sell your "servants" to others.
No matter how hard you try to not acknowledge slavery, it is in there for all to see.

Sorry that it took a while to get back, I was being a good servant to my company

I bet if you got home and your family was sold off you'd keep wearing the servant tshirt huh?

Take the time to read the other posts that I made about "servants". Knowledge is not a bad thing.

 

[atlashunter]

Spotlite conveniently left out the word "considered". Just because people considered slavery moral that doesn't mean it was.

Spotlite also just proved the Bible is not his source of morality.

 

[WaltL1]

I read a very good article by a pastor on that saying. He stated it is the most inaccurate quip that a Christian can make. His logic is that God will give us more than we can handle to take us out of our comfort zone, to expand our potential and help us grow in order for him to use us for His purpose.

But then again, that is one man's opinion. I've heard all kinds in my lifetime.

Seems like its kind of an open ended statement anyway.
"Handling it" can mean anything.
From jumping off a bridge to leading a model life is "handling it".
Not sure "more than you can handle" is actually possible.

 

[bullethead]

Spotlite conveniently left out the word "considered". Just because people considered slavery moral that doesn't mean it was.

Spotlite also just proved the Bible is not his source of morality.

Precisely x2

 

[WaltL1]

Spotlite conveniently left out the word "considered". Just because people considered slavery moral that doesn't mean it was.

Spotlite also just proved the Bible is not his source of morality.

I'm going to play on both sides here -

Just because people considered slavery moral that doesn't mean it was.

Doesn't mean it was.... by todays standards of morality.
Spotlite has a valid point in that judging using todays standard of morality is akin to comparing apples and oranges.

Spotlite also just proved the Bible is not his source of morality

And that's the side of Spotlite's argument that he doesn't fully grasp because that is a 5 gallon bucket of worms....

 

[bullethead]

I'm going to play on both sides here -

Doesn't mean it was.... by todays standards of morality.
Spotlite has a valid point in that judging using todays standard of morality is akin to comparing apples and oranges.

And that's the side of Spotlite's argument that he doesn't fully grasp because that is a 5 gallon bucket of worms....

Walt, wouldnt a god know about what is moral and what is not? Nevermind man.
Wouldn't a god telling his flock that slavery is immoral be compelling, even if it took a couple thousand years for society to catch up?
Instead, the supposed word of god condones and commands it, with rukes to go about it!!

 

[atlashunter]

I'm going to play on both sides here -

Doesn't mean it was.... by todays standards of morality.
Spotlite has a valid point in that judging using todays standard of morality is akin to comparing apples and oranges.

And that's the side of Spotlite's argument that he doesn't fully grasp because that is a 5 gallon bucket of worms....

But apples and oranges is precisely the point. If you're claiming to have an inerrant and objectively perfect moral code provided by an infallible deity you don't get to progress to oranges. You're stuck with what you got and it's open to scrutiny just as all other moral standards are. Secular moralists don't make that claim for themselves. They readily admit the human source of their morality with all its imperfections and leave the door open to improvement.

 

[atlashunter]

Walt, wouldnt a god know about what is moral and what is not? Nevermind man.
Wouldn't a god telling his flock that slavery is immoral be compelling, even if it took a couple thousand years for society to catch up?
Instead, the supposed word of god condones and commands it, with rukes to go about it!!

Does the god of the old testament, a god that is credited with wiping out an entire city because of sodomy and other forbidden activity strike you as one to look the other way on immoral behavior to accommodate cultural norms? Don't you dare work on the sabbath or eat shrimp! But your slaves are yours to keep. You can even beat the tar out of them with impunity as long as they survive a day or two.

 

[WaltL1]

Walt, wouldnt a god know about what is moral and what is not? Nevermind man.
Wouldn't a god telling his flock that slavery is immoral be compelling, even if it took a couple thousand years for society to catch up?
Instead, the supposed word of god condones and commands it, with rukes to go about it!!

Ok lets pretend gods exist

Walt, wouldnt a god know about what is moral and what is not?

I would assume an Omni-everything god would know everything there was to know about "morals" past, present and future.
Which would mean any morals that was communicated by him to us would be the ones he approved of out of all the possible morals past, present and future.

Wouldn't a god telling his flock that slavery is immoral be compelling, even if it took a couple thousand years for society to catch up

If he actually told them that yes I would think it would be compelling.

 

[WaltL1]

But apples and oranges is precisely the point. If you're claiming to have an inerrant and objectively perfect moral code provided by an infallible deity you don't get to progress to oranges. You're stuck with what you got and it's open to scrutiny just as all other moral standards are. Secular moralists don't make that claim for themselves. They readily admit the human source of their morality with all its imperfections and leave the door open to improvement.

Yes those are the worms crawling all over the floor now that he tipped that bucket over
His point is a valid one.
It just also happens to completely clash with the rest of the story.

 

[atlashunter]

Yes those are the worms crawling all over the floor now that he tipped that bucket over
His point is a valid one.
It just also happens to completely clash with the rest of the story.

I think it's acceptable to contrast the morals of different places and times and say "they got it wrong on that point". I wouldn't expect anything other than that from future generations in looking at ours. Morals are subjective but that doesn't mean they are all of equal merit. Humanity can't progress if it can't look itself in the mirror both past and present.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Maybe God foresaw the ever changing morals, folkways and mores and knew that man still could never be righteous.

Considering that each nation has different morals as Christianity would be spread, his plan included a way out.

 

[Artfuldodger]

We could say the Bible got it wrong as it pertains to women's and racial equality.
Maybe it got it right by the time Paul came around when there no longer was male or female, free or slave, Jew or Gentile. Perhaps this only pertains to who could then receive salvation from not being able to live by the set morals of the day. Even way after Paul was dead we still have male & female, free & slave, Jew & Gentile.

I think about my parents and grandparents and how they viewed equality back in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. I hope that I have advanced past them in that respect. It doesn't make me any more moral or them any less. I don't even think it was related to their belief in God or my belief in God. Just the changing times.

Maybe my generation is getting something wrong about equality even today because we are using the Bible to set those standards. Either the bible changes or it doesn't. Perhaps it was just explaining the way it was at the present time. Maybe we are suppose to understand that and apply it today as to what Paul said concerning there is no longer male & female, free or slave, Jew or Gentile.

 

[atlashunter]

If a god condones something he knows is immoral what does that make him?

 

[Artfuldodger]

I think it makes him the owner of the ant farm.

If a big part of it is related to discipline then maybe it's not whether God is moral or not. Such is the case when a parent beats a child or when a country bombs another. It could appear to be bad or mean when really it's not. I used to get hit for hitting someone. Did that make my mom immoral?

I imagine in the future as morals change parents of yesterday will be considered mean and immoral. I time when a mother whips her child could be frowned upon.