Slavery Debate with Pastor
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-09-2016, 02:40 PM
RE: Slavery Debate with Pastor
(21-09-2016 02:12 PM)bigjay Wrote:  
(20-09-2016 08:00 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The will of GOD is without change, yet different times and people call for different revelation.

If so, why don't we get a new, updated bible every hundred years or so? You know, because the times and people have changed, and therefore require a different revelation?

In other words, if the ancient revelations weren't also meant for us, then where are our revelations?

KerimF, the spokesman for God, and Popsicle, the other spokesman for slightly better God, are here to inform us.

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
21-09-2016, 03:22 PM
RE: Slavery Debate with Pastor
(21-09-2016 02:40 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(21-09-2016 02:12 PM)bigjay Wrote:  If so, why don't we get a new, updated bible every hundred years or so? You know, because the times and people have changed, and therefore require a different revelation?

In other words, if the ancient revelations weren't also meant for us, then where are our revelations?

KerimF, the spokesman for God, and Popsicle, the other spokesman for slightly better God, are here to inform us.

Please tell me... Aren't you happy, or at least satisfied, the way you are now?
So what do you want more than this? Wink

It is not my fault that you may like reading my posts because I am not here to inform you about anything Wink I know in advance that every sane mature person sees himself on his right path and is immune against any change.

Anyway, thank you for the compliment; "the spokesman of God" Big Grin
But this God is not a ruling one as the formal theists have Tongue

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2016, 03:24 PM
RE: Slavery Debate with Pastor
(21-09-2016 02:10 PM)KerimF Wrote:  
(21-09-2016 09:22 AM)Impulse Wrote:  The OT teachings about slavery are directly at odds with the NT teachings as you pointed out. Therefore, they can't both be correct and they can't both be "the will of God". So, for your claim to be true that the will of God is without change, it means that God was lying either in OT or NT times. Is that really what you want to say?

Even in science, it is natural to start with incomplete, if not wrong, ideas to teach the new comers into life (as our kids). Then, step by step, these ideas are updated till they reach their final known version.

For example, if you remember well, the first definition of parallelism you heard of, when you were a little kid, is:
"Two straights are said parallel if they don't intersect".
This definition is totally wrong. Should we call your teachers ignorant or liars?

But when your mind started perceiving what we may call '3D geometry', you knew that two straight lines, not on the same plane, don't intersect and are not parallel. So it was time to update the previous wrong definition as:
"Two straights are said parallel if they don't intersect and are on the same plane".

Finally, if you had the chance to study the perspective geometry, the previous definition had to be updated once again as (in order to draw properly the perspective images):
"Two straights are said parallel if they intersect at infinity"

As you see, ALL three definitions, mentioned above, DO exist in teaching science while one of them is wrong and another is incomplete.

Does this mean that science contradicts itself?

Finally, truth be said, it is hard for many people to think rationally always.
Why they can't do it always... this should take us to another thread Wink


Where do i begin

1. Are you honestly trying to compare a top down principle like the bible which is suppose to be the inerrant word of a god and thus one would expect to be consistent and COMPLETE in it's teaching.Too science a bottom up principle developed by human beings because we don't have an all knowing super being to tell us this shit.And thus we would expect to be ever growing but incomplete ideas's and would expect success and failures.

2.Are you honestly trying to say the only reason jesus principles could not have been implemented at the very beginning(by a god).Is because humans were to dumb to understand it that reeks of poor design or bad teaching.

3. Are you honestly trying to argue that god was able to make people understand that murder and theft was wrong but slavery wasn't .Because human being were not developed enough to understand it really?Shocking

4. Are your really trying to cop out on humans being able to be irrational as a reason your magic book is littered with contrary teachings. Well if our irrational nature is giving god trouble at keeping and learning his supposed teachings maybe he should take it up with the designer.oh wait ......

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2016, 03:36 PM
RE: Slavery Debate with Pastor
(21-09-2016 09:22 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(20-09-2016 08:00 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The Jewish perspective was manipulated somewhere along the line. This is apparent even in the OT as they are openly damned to exceeding torment as a price to pay for the misdirection they caused. The will of GOD is without change, yet different times and people call for different revelation.
The OT teachings about slavery are directly at odds with the NT teachings as you pointed out. Therefore, they can't both be correct and they can't both be "the will of God". So, for your claim to be true that the will of God is without change, it means that God was lying either in OT or NT times. Is that really what you want to say?
GOD didn't lie... Men did.

Yes, that is my final answer.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2016, 03:39 PM
RE: Slavery Debate with Pastor
(21-09-2016 02:12 PM)bigjay Wrote:  
(20-09-2016 08:00 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The will of GOD is without change, yet different times and people call for different revelation.

If so, why don't we get a new, updated bible every hundred years or so? You know, because the times and people have changed, and therefore require a different revelation?

In other words, if the ancient revelations weren't also meant for us, then where are our revelations?
The most recent credible writings I know of so far are indeed the writings of the Bab, those core writings of the Baha'i faith. Even the Quran. There are others that are older than the bible but those are the only newer ones I have read which agree with the general direction edified in the bible.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2016, 04:05 PM
RE: Slavery Debate with Pastor
(21-09-2016 03:36 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  GOD didn't lie... Men did.

Prove that your god actually said anything.

Quote:Yes, that is my final answer.

That might qualify as a miracle.

(21-09-2016 03:39 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The most recent credible writings I know of so far are indeed the writings of the Bab, those core writings of the Baha'i faith.

What makes them credible? That you like what they say? Still picking those cherries? When you can provide objective reasons for calling any scripture credible then you get to use that term without being called on it. When the only justification is that they match your delusions....

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
22-09-2016, 06:48 AM
RE: Slavery Debate with Pastor
(21-09-2016 01:29 PM)KerimF Wrote:  It wasn't about being round and/or square... it is about how your parents at home and your teachers at school did, when you were a kid, to prepare you, step by step, to become the person of knowledge you are now.

(21-09-2016 02:10 PM)KerimF Wrote:  
(21-09-2016 09:22 AM)Impulse Wrote:  The OT teachings about slavery are directly at odds with the NT teachings as you pointed out. Therefore, they can't both be correct and they can't both be "the will of God". So, for your claim to be true that the will of God is without change, it means that God was lying either in OT or NT times. Is that really what you want to say?

Even in science, it is natural to start with incomplete, if not wrong, ideas to teach the new comers into life (as our kids). Then, step by step, these ideas are updated till they reach their final known version.

For example, if you remember well, the first definition of parallelism you heard of, when you were a little kid, is:
"Two straights are said parallel if they don't intersect".
This definition is totally wrong. Should we call your teachers ignorant or liars?

But when your mind started perceiving what we may call '3D geometry', you knew that two straight lines, not on the same plane, don't intersect and are not parallel. So it was time to update the previous wrong definition as:
"Two straights are said parallel if they don't intersect and are on the same plane".

Finally, if you had the chance to study the perspective geometry, the previous definition had to be updated once again as (in order to draw properly the perspective images):
"Two straights are said parallel if they intersect at infinity"

As you see, ALL three definitions, mentioned above, DO exist in teaching science while one of them is wrong and another is incomplete.

Does this mean that science contradicts itself?

Finally, truth be said, it is hard for many people to think rationally always.
Why they can't do it always... this should take us to another thread Wink
I understand that knowledge builds on itself and one can't jump straight to a higher permutation without having first gone through the lower ones. We learn addition and subtraction in first grade so that we may learn algebra in seventh. Algebra won't make any sense without having first learned addition and subtraction.

I also understand that we can't always foresee what we don't know. Sometimes learning one thing brings about unexpected learning about something else.

I think that is the crux of the points you have been making. However, they don't address the one I am making. If you think they do then please explain to me what additional knowledge could possibly make slavery both morally acceptable and morally unacceptable at the same time. To be clear, that does not mean sometimes acceptable and sometimes not. It means the moral principle God has laid out is slavery is both morally acceptable and morally unacceptable.

Additional learning only makes a difference when the subject lends itself to growth. Black and white areas do not, they are fixed. Mutually exclusive concepts are black and white. Slavery being morally acceptable or morally unacceptable is mutually exclusive.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2016, 06:56 AM
RE: Slavery Debate with Pastor
(21-09-2016 03:36 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(21-09-2016 09:22 AM)Impulse Wrote:  The OT teachings about slavery are directly at odds with the NT teachings as you pointed out. Therefore, they can't both be correct and they can't both be "the will of God". So, for your claim to be true that the will of God is without change, it means that God was lying either in OT or NT times. Is that really what you want to say?
GOD didn't lie... Men did.
Do you believe God knows everything past, present, and future? If you do, then for God to give opposite, mutually exclusive, teachings in the OT and NT means God MUST have lied in one of those no matter how strongly you assert otherwise.

(21-09-2016 03:36 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Yes, that is my final answer.
Then please explain when men lied and how that explains the OT/NT contradiction?

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2016, 07:13 AM
RE: Slavery Debate with Pastor
(21-09-2016 04:05 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(21-09-2016 03:36 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  GOD didn't lie... Men did.

Prove that your god actually said anything.

Quote:Yes, that is my final answer.
We've been over this; objectively speaking;.....damnit..... I don't have time right now.

Quickly; remove sense of self... Self attainment, pride, greed, want, reward, all that. Remove any and all of that from cognitive thought, intentionally and consciously..this coupled with the use of the conscience brings about the objective state or understanding. This is the means to which one can observe objective morality as a truth... Which it is.

While having these things removed (consciously at first for some (those more naturally self centered)) you can read, without preconception or bias. This in no way applies only to reading though.

Anyway; while consciously in this state or even through retrospect one can easily identify those things that are abject to objective morality and as such abject to the benevolent Creator of existence... in my humble opinion.

Sorry, probably illegible, I will try to clarify later when I have more time.

Peace
(21-09-2016 03:39 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The most recent credible writings I know of so far are indeed the writings of the Bab, those core writings of the Baha'i faith.

What makes them credible? That you like what they say? Still picking those cherries? When you can provide objective reasons for calling any scripture credible then you get to use that term without being called on it. When the only justification is that they match your delusions....


Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2016, 08:50 AM
RE: Slavery Debate with Pastor
(22-09-2016 07:13 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(21-09-2016 04:05 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Prove that your god actually said anything.

We've been over this; objectively speaking;.....damnit..... I don't have time right now.

Quickly; remove sense of self... Self attainment, pride, greed, want, reward, all that. Remove any and all of that from cognitive thought, intentionally and consciously..this coupled with the use of the conscience brings about the objective state or understanding. This is the means to which one can observe objective morality as a truth... Which it is.

While having these things removed (consciously at first for some (those more naturally self centered)) you can read, without preconception or bias. This in no way applies only to reading though.

Anyway; while consciously in this state or even through retrospect one can easily identify those things that are abject to objective morality and as such abject to the benevolent Creator of existence... in my humble opinion.

Sorry, probably illegible, I will try to clarify later when I have more time.

You are right. Unintelligible word salad. I do not believe for a second that you can read anything without your irrational beliefs and biases getting in the way.

I don't know what you are using 'abject' to mean because something being 'abject to' something else is meaningless to me. The bigger question is what you define as objective morality. I do not see any evidence that there is objective morality except within a subjective framework. I also still see zero evidence that your "Creator of existence" exists (even ignoring the fact that something 'creating existence' is a paradox).

You make a lot of claims and they all appear to be based on nothing but your own imagination. If you can't make claims that can be tested and verified then there's no reason to take anything you say seriously.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: