Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2015, 08:30 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(09-10-2015 11:27 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 11:12 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Really, you don't understand? We know the cultures back then were degenerate in morals and practices, except for Israel.

The pagan cultures were so degenerate....... that we still, to these days (For larger or smaller worth) quote back to their thinkers, agitators, tacticians etc?

And, as for your 'glorious' people of ancient Israel, we remember them for what? A book not even reflecting their true culture?

Laugh out load

Comedy gold Q, comedy gold.

Laugh out load

There are marvelous Greek and Roman thinkers. Some of them were pederasts and slavers. Your point?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2015, 09:48 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(13-10-2015 08:30 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(09-10-2015 11:27 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  The pagan cultures were so degenerate....... that we still, to these days (For larger or smaller worth) quote back to their thinkers, agitators, tacticians etc?

And, as for your 'glorious' people of ancient Israel, we remember them for what? A book not even reflecting their true culture?

Laugh out load

Comedy gold Q, comedy gold.

Laugh out load

There are marvelous Greek and Roman thinkers. Some of them were pederasts and slavers. Your point?

So were your so-lovely Hebrews.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2015, 11:42 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(13-10-2015 09:48 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(13-10-2015 08:30 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There are marvelous Greek and Roman thinkers. Some of them were pederasts and slavers. Your point?

So were your so-lovely Hebrews.

The Hebrews were not pederasts. And they could own slaves but were not slave traders or slavers. And Hebrew slavery was indentured servitude and not the slavery horrors of the Americas.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 04:34 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-10-2015 11:42 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Hebrews were not pederasts. And they could own slaves but were not slave traders or slavers. And Hebrew slavery was indentured servitude and not the slavery horrors of the Americas.

Evidence? You seem so goddamn certain.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
24-10-2015, 07:51 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
PS dickhead. Not slavers huh? Then what about all the detailed explanations of how to sell your daughter into slavery?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2015, 08:51 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-10-2015 11:42 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-10-2015 09:48 AM)morondog Wrote:  So were your so-lovely Hebrews.

The Hebrews were not pederasts. And they could own slaves but were not slave traders or slavers. And Hebrew slavery was indentured servitude and not the slavery horrors of the Americas.

This is completely, completely false. The Hebrew version of indentured servitude AND of permanent, heritable slaves were used in the Americas. The former was used for fellow Hebrews, while the latter for other races (see Leviticus chapter 25, all of it, where it spells out the difference, particularly in verses 44-46 for full-bore slavery of non-Hebrews).

In the early Americas, people of white race were brought to the new world for 7 years of servitude, after which they'd become free, per the Hebrew system.

ALSO under the Hebrew system, those of Native American and African ancestry/race were allowed to be made into permanent slaves, and treated more harshly. Exactly as the Bible detailed.

When, two hundred years later, Abolitionism became a thing, the Southern Baptist Chruch split off from the mainline Baptists because the Bible specifically says that it is God's will that slavery be allowed, and they felt the mainline church was not following Biblical principles and thus a threat to society (exactly like in the liberal-vs-conservative Christian denominational arguments about gay rights, today, where whole branches are splitting over the question). When the Civil War kicked off, numerous speeches furiously defending Biblical slavery were offered by the Southern senators/congressmen... soon to become Confederates on the issue.

Claiming that the Bible only endorses Indentured Servitude is not only dishonest, it's apologetic for the slavery and racism of the Confederacy. You see it a lot, down here, as Christians try to distance themselves from that legacy. As a Southerner born and bred, I find people who use this revisionist argument either willfully blind or disgustingly dishonest. I hope it is the former, in your case, Q.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
26-10-2015, 11:38 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(24-10-2015 07:51 AM)morondog Wrote:  PS dickhead. Not slavers huh? Then what about all the detailed explanations of how to sell your daughter into slavery?

You couldn't sell your Jewish daughter to slavery. You could arrange a marriage and a dowry.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 11:39 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(24-10-2015 08:51 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 11:42 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Hebrews were not pederasts. And they could own slaves but were not slave traders or slavers. And Hebrew slavery was indentured servitude and not the slavery horrors of the Americas.

This is completely, completely false. The Hebrew version of indentured servitude AND of permanent, heritable slaves were used in the Americas. The former was used for fellow Hebrews, while the latter for other races (see Leviticus chapter 25, all of it, where it spells out the difference, particularly in verses 44-46 for full-bore slavery of non-Hebrews).

In the early Americas, people of white race were brought to the new world for 7 years of servitude, after which they'd become free, per the Hebrew system.

ALSO under the Hebrew system, those of Native American and African ancestry/race were allowed to be made into permanent slaves, and treated more harshly. Exactly as the Bible detailed.

When, two hundred years later, Abolitionism became a thing, the Southern Baptist Chruch split off from the mainline Baptists because the Bible specifically says that it is God's will that slavery be allowed, and they felt the mainline church was not following Biblical principles and thus a threat to society (exactly like in the liberal-vs-conservative Christian denominational arguments about gay rights, today, where whole branches are splitting over the question). When the Civil War kicked off, numerous speeches furiously defending Biblical slavery were offered by the Southern senators/congressmen... soon to become Confederates on the issue.

Claiming that the Bible only endorses Indentured Servitude is not only dishonest, it's apologetic for the slavery and racism of the Confederacy. You see it a lot, down here, as Christians try to distance themselves from that legacy. As a Southerner born and bred, I find people who use this revisionist argument either willfully blind or disgustingly dishonest. I hope it is the former, in your case, Q.

Kidnapping in the OT gets the death penalty. The slaves were procured in Africa and elsewhere via kidnapping in the 1600's - 1800's. The Bible teaches the opposite of Western slavery.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: