Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[ratiocinator]

You're projecting your own nature.

Evasion noted. Your two verses have no relevance to what I said.

You attempted to justify slavery with

So it's ok if I steal your stuff when there are no prisons and no other way for you to recoup your losses?

So somebody owes a (finite) debt to somebody else. There are no prisons (hadn't god thought of that?), can you seriously not think of anything more proportionate and reasonable than slavery? I can.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Implying that your opinion is some kind of valid argument

Again, I didn't share an opinion.
You asked about what methodology could be used to know such things aren't justified and I answered.

is not the same thing as showing that you actually have an argument.

I didn't give you an argument either.

I just told you that rational moral reasoning is how one can reach the conclusion that slavery isn't morally justified


Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand it because rational moral reasoning is an alien concept to you, since you get your "morals" from an ancient book that sprang from a patriarchic society during rather primitive and barbaric times. This ancient book, off course, reflects the morals of the culture of those days. This is why they trivially go over the rules of slavery and how they see no issues with genocidal and infantacidal killing sprees.

 

[Ebionite]

Evasion noted. Your two verses have no relevance to what I said.

I'm not being evasive. The two verses are relevant to your assumption of omnipotence and omniscience.

 

[Ebionite]

Again, I didn't share an opinion.

So what? You've got nothing.

 

[ratiocinator]

The two verses are relevant to your assumption of omnipotence and omniscience.

So you don't think god is omnipotent and omniscient? Okay, what sort of god do you believe?

And you still didn't address the point that slavery is a dimwitted, brutal, and morally abhorrent 'solution' to theft and debt.

 

[ratiocinator]

The two verses are relevant to your assumption of omnipotence and omniscience.

Also of course, demonstrating that the 'god of the bible' is ambiguous at best.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So what? You've got nothing.

You know what..... Next time when you don't want to hear the answer, perhaps don't ask the question

 

[Ebionite]

You know what..... Next time when you don't want to hear the answer, perhaps don't ask the question

I didn't ask you for anything. The purpose of my question to ratocinator was to draw out the error of his argument.

 

[Ebionite]

So you don't think god is omnipotent and omniscient? Okay, what sort of god do you believe?

What I believe isn't relevant. What matters is what actually exists.

And you still didn't address the point that slavery is a dimwitted, brutal, and morally abhorrent 'solution' to theft and debt.

You didn't make a point, you simply projected your own nature. Dimwitted and morally repugnant would be the modern approach shifting the cost on to the public.

So morally abhorrent, and a bit dim?

 

[Ebionite]

Also of course, demonstrating that the 'god of the bible' is ambiguous at best.

No, you only demonstrated the absurdity of your interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Ebionite]

Put in the proper context they're not confusing at all.

You're using the word "context" like it was some kind of magic incantation that could get you out of the hole that you just dug for yourself.

The context for the ambiguity is the relationship between the "universal" Roman cult and the set-apart nature of the deity and the people of the covenant.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're using the word "context" like it was some kind of magic incantation that could get you out of the hole that you just dug for yourself.

The context for the ambiguity is the relationship between the "universal" Roman cult and the set-apart nature of the deity and the people of the covenant.

I don't think so but if you think so that's what counts for you.

 

[ratiocinator]

What I believe isn't relevant.

The subject was the 'god of the bible' and its condoning of slavery and genocide. You made a point about omnipotence, which many people regard the 'god of the bible' to be. If we don't actually know what 'the god of the bible' is then that makes another point, that 'god of the bible' isn't even a well defined concept. So we can probably conclude that the bible is a bit of a mess and so is its supposed god.

What matters is what actually exists.

No consistent definition of what the bible means and what its supposed god is like.

You didn't make a point, you simply projected your own nature.

Not mine. People who try to defend slavery and genocide in the 21st century are thankfully rather rare. You still haven't put forward any reasonable justification for either.

Dimwitted and morally repugnant would be the modern approach shifting the cost on to the public.

So you think this is about economics? What some sorts of religion do to some people is horrifying.

You also never did answer my question, here is again: So somebody owes a (finite) debt to somebody else. There are no prisons (hadn't god thought of that?), can you seriously not think of anything more proportionate and reasonable than slavery? I can.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The subject was the 'god of the bible' and its condoning of slavery and genocide. You made a point about omnipotence, which many people regard the 'god of the bible' to be. If we don't actually know what 'the god of the bible' is then that makes another point, that 'god of the bible' isn't even a well defined concept. So we can probably conclude that the bible is a bit of a mess and so is its supposed god.


No consistent definition of what the bible means and what its supposed god is like.


Not mine. People who try to defend slavery and genocide in the 21st century are thankfully rather rare. You still haven't put forward any reasonable justification for either.


So you think this is about economics? What some sorts of religion do to some people is horrifying.

You also never did answer my question, here is again: So somebody owes a (finite) debt to somebody else. There are no prisons (hadn't god thought of that?), can you seriously not think of anything more proportionate and reasonable than slavery? I can.

Yet there is still slavery today and genocide.
Mao, Stain and Hitler all committed genocide.
They were all socialists or communists and evolutionists.
Almost all those that support abortion or had one believe in evolution and billions of years.
And that is the genocide of over 2 billion innocent children.
Marx who was a communists wrote how he wanted to kill 100s of millions
He wanted to dedicate The Communist Manifesto to Darwin.
Darwin was a racist and talked about extermination of the less evolved.
Almost all the early evolutionists were racists.

 

[McBell]

Yet there is still slavery today and genocide.
Mao, Stain and Hitler all committed genocide.
They were all socialists or communists and evolutionists.
Almost all those that support abortion or had one believe in evolution and billions of years.
And that is the genocide of over 2 billion innocent children.
Marx who was a communists wrote how he wanted to kill 100s of millions
He wanted to dedicate The Communist Manifesto to Darwin.
Darwin was a racist and talked about extermination of the less evolved.
Almost all the early evolutionists were racists.

And?

I mean, so what?
If we were to use the above as the standard, you do not look so pretty.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yet there is still slavery today and genocide.
Mao, Stain and Hitler all committed genocide.
They were all socialists or communists and evolutionists.
Almost all those that support abortion or had one believe in evolution and billions of years.
And that is the genocide of over 2 billion innocent children.
Marx who was a communists wrote how he wanted to kill 100s of millions
He wanted to dedicate The Communist Manifesto to Darwin.
Darwin was a racist and talked about extermination of the less evolved.
Almost all the early evolutionists were racists.

More running away.

All of this is irrelevant to the point (as well as riddled with nonsense and double standards) that the bible says that your god condones slavery and genocide.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

More running away.

All of this is irrelevant to the point (as well as riddled with nonsense and double standards) that the bible says that your god condones slavery and genocide.

Well just to be accurate why not stick to the God of the Bible condoned having bondservants.
Of course, in the NT that is not the case.

But this is from Satan.
There is still slavery today and genocide.
Mao, Stain and Hitler all committed genocide.
They were all socialists or communists and evolutionists.
Almost all those that support abortion or had one believe in evolution and billions of years.
And that is the genocide of over 2 billion innocent children.
Marx who was a communists wrote how he wanted to kill 100s of millions
He wanted to dedicate The Communist Manifesto to Darwin.
Darwin was a racist and talked about extermination of the less evolved.
Almost all the early evolutionists were racists.

 

[ratiocinator]

Well just to be accurate why not stick to the God of the Bible condoned having bondservants.

Because hiding a horrendous morally abhorrent practice behind archaic language is a kind of dishonesty.

But this is from Satan.
...

"Don't look at this, look over there!"

I'll happily address all your new nonsense once we've established that the bible condones slavery.

 

[McBell]

Well just to be accurate why not stick to the God of the Bible condoned having bondservants.
Of course, in the NT that is not the case.

Given your exceedingly embarrassing track record concerning what is and is not in the Bible...

But this is from Satan.
There is still slavery today and genocide.
Mao, Stain and Hitler all committed genocide.
They were all socialists or communists and evolutionists.
Almost all those that support abortion or had one believe in evolution and billions of years.
And that is the genocide of over 2 billion innocent children.
Marx who was a communists wrote how he wanted to kill 100s of millions
He wanted to dedicate The Communist Manifesto to Darwin.
Darwin was a racist and talked about extermination of the less evolved.
Almost all the early evolutionists were racists.

And?

I mean, so what?
If we were to use the above as the standard, you do not look so pretty.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't ask you for anything. The purpose of my question to ratocinator was to draw out the error of his argument.

You asked "how do you know" and the answer is "rational moral reasoning".

I'm not aware of any rational moral argument that can result in the conclusion that slavery is moral.

You are welcome to try.

Off course, if your "moral reasoning" goes no further then "god says it's okay, therefor it's okay", then it is no surprise that you don't see the problem.

But then again, then you are not engaging in moral reasoning... rather, your idea of morality then is no more or less then obedience to a perceived authority.
That's the "morality" of psychopaths.