I supported my position.I think you flatter yourself if you think words you posted an hour ago on RF forums are words "of historical value".
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I supported my position.I think you flatter yourself if you think words you posted an hour ago on RF forums are words "of historical value".
Because if they don't change it then it becomes easier to see the Bible is on the side of wickedness and evil regarding slavery.That's right.
But interpretation means that now it means "do not covet thy neighbor's things".
Apparently owning slaves does not indicate condoning slavery...The 10 DOES say you shall not covet thy neighbors slave.
State laws cannot conflict with the Constitution no matter how many people vote for it or not. Individual states cannot for example vote to have segregation reinstated or it can't vote to outlaw interracial marriage.I happen to agree with your post. I also happen to agree with the decision made in Louisianna. The difference is in the democratic process. The state represented a majority, federally the separation still stands, and it is on a state to state decision course now, based on efforts and majority rule. This way, the 1st stands for everyone, and each state represents their own majority as they deem fit. This separation enables greater freedom and strengthens our democratic processes per community.
WORLD history says that the entire WORLD practiced slavery from as far as we can look back thru to the 19th century. Not just Christians, for the record.Your foundational book must be interpreted by others?
Which have THE TRUTH, of the many diverse views?
Christian history says otherwise.
Even today, some still practice it.
You mean the version of the 10 Commandments
that you like. What of Christians who want other
versions....more original godly versions?
Why not post other prescriptions of good behavior,
eg, don't enslave people, honor your word, etc?
To command obeying a god we don't believe in,
but not command integrity is evil.
No. Did God force the Edomites to worship YHWH? No. Jesus didn’t say force.So, @Kenny, the First Commandment was cited in 26 cases, the Second in 24 cases. Do you know what convictions resulted? I mean, not following the First ought to mean that it was cited to put Hindus into jail for worshipping any of their gods, right? Or the Second could be cited for putting up a cross with a figurine of Jesus hanging on it, no?
If not those, what the hell was your point in posting that nonsense?
How was Shakespeare used in law? Did they quote his works?As I responded last time somebody made this silly claim, do the same search for how many times Shakespeare has been quoted. That literature that deals with the human condition is used in a rhetorical context does not make it law so matter how many points it is printed in.
I supported my position.
You are welcome. Does that mean it is false? Would you like the site?wow an unreferenced and context free quote about a computer search that seems to have nothing to do with my question. Thank you
The Bill of Rights is America's 10. Those haven't been amended. 11-27 aren't considered the Bill of Rights.I agree, aside from being useless and that people innately know they are wrong. Some do sure, but not all. Tweaking like teaching what they mean and how to apply them or do you think they should be amended like the bill of rights?
So? Lots of states have laws that prohibit atheists from holding public office despite the blatant unconstitutionality of those laws.
Then whats that about killing apostates and those who've had homosexual encounters amd rebellious kids?
I am unaware of the Bill of Rights being amended... do you think they should be amended like the bill of rights?
Yet you ignore the statements in the treaty of Tripoli.
That’s called “wrong”. Like when atheists kill theists - wrong.Then whats that about killing apostates and those who've had homosexual encounters amd rebellious kids?
Not really. You basically have just too documents, one a letter and the other a political treaty with another country that was later changed, to base your position while I have dozens and dozens of documents - legal documents - that say otherwise.
What you want is for me to throw out all legal document based on two statement - one political and the other person (and the personal somewhat taken out of context) Why do you ignore the legal documents that support my position?
You just said your own god is wrong.That’s called “wrong”. Like when atheists kill theists - wrong.
You are welcome. Does that mean it is false? Would you like the site?