Slavery in the Bible: more than meets the eye?

[Moz]

So now you're either purposely dodging what I've said by not even addressing my point, or your ignorant of what "absolute morality" is.

And ignoring what I said and just repeating your same refuted points just shows that you no longer want and/or able to reasonably continue with this debate. So unless you are able to look at my point and willingly address it, there's no point in continuing this debate with you. And I am stating my observation about you ignoring my point. Because if you would have read what I said, you wouldn't be repeating the same thing.

Hi

Bottom line, god is in direct contradiction of his absolute moral standard, therefore god is immoral.

This is your point i take it. It WAS addressed multiple times. What we have here is NOT a contradiction it is a paradox. A paradox is a logical statement that seems to contradict itself. It is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently-self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.

That he has to navigate between Absolute Morality within himself and relative morality for the imperfect creatures he has to deal with creates a seeming contradiction. But both points are valid within there own perview hence the paradox. You should re read what i have written. You have misunderstood badly.

Peace

 

[night912]

Hi

Bottom line, god is in direct contradiction of his absolute moral standard, therefore god is immoral.

This is your point i take it. It WAS addressed multiple times. What we have here is NOT a contradiction it is a paradox. A paradox is a logical statement that seems to contradict itself. It is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently-self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.

Hahaha. Sorry to crash early celebration, but it's apparent that you're ignorant of what a "paradox," is. You've presented the evidence yourself when you gave the definition for "paradox," immediately follwed an attempt at trying to explain why your argument is a paradox.

That he has to navigate between Absolute Morality within himself and relative morality for the imperfect creatures he has to deal with creates a seeming contradiction. But both points are valid within there own perview hence the paradox. You should re read what i have written. You have misunderstood badly.

There's no need to re read what you've said because I did understand what you wrote, and showed as to why you are wrong. Combining two different statements regarding two separate things is not considered as a paradox. When your argument is not valid because of having false premise due to ignorance, no matter how much you repeat and/or rephrase it, it won't change your argument in any way.
You reaching out for a life preserver in an attempt to saving yourself won't do you any good.

Peace

Although you made the effort to re read and tried to understand my point and what i was addressing it to, you again totally missed my point I made. I explained why god contradicted himself and why it's meaningless for you to repeat your reasons for supporting your argument.

I am glad that you did go back in an attempt grasp my point, but you failed to see it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hi
I if you have a criticism of the system of patriarchal hegomony i laid out please show me where i am incorrect.
I can supply you with any number of tribal confederations in the ancient world where a common ancestor and the decisions of that ancestor hold over the people for centuries. Ishmael's descendants rode out of the Desert to conquer the promised land 4000 years after Abraham claiming it as there right as descendants of the firstborn.

It seems strange for you to think that the ancient tribal world, has evolved physically and spiritually beyond the narrow tribal world of the Bible when the accounts you are referring to were written in the 1500's bce. The world of tribal confederation transforming into city sate and nation had been under way for 1000 years already.
One of the earliest comprehensive law codes governing a Nation State was the one delivered by Moses so how you get the idea of a narrow tribal world is strange.
The violence of the ancient world does NOT need to be justified it needs to be understood.

Peace

. . . but you are making every effort to justify the violence and slavery of the scripture as being still the will of God.

The tribal violence continued in Judaism, Christianity and Islam up until the present, and likely will continue.

 

[night912]

If you consider military action to be murder then fair enough.... but that is hardly a moral slam dunk.
Why is it that the WORST possible spin is always put on it?.... murder.

Of course that's not a slam dunk. That's why I didn't say that. If you are going to a straw man against something I said, at least use it in a way that it won't come back and bite you in a way that literally dismantled your argument even further. You've shown that there is no absolute morality. But what it also show according to you is that the Nazi was morally justified to do what they did the the jews, it was just part of their military action. But what made it really turned back to bite yourself in the butt, is that you based it on a mutal military agreement because it's war. Here comes the GOTCHA that you made for yourself. There's no mutal agreement for it to be consider as being morally justified between the military and the non military.

Why phrase it in such a tricky way?

One only see it as tricky if it's difficult for them. I made it simple to show that there is a difference. Forcing soldiers to kill or killing civilians and/or non military personnel is an immoral act of murder.

 

[Moz]

So now you're either purposely dodging what I've said by not even addressing my point, or your ignorant of what "absolute morality" is.

And ignoring what I said and just repeating your same refuted points just shows that you no longer want and/or able to reasonably continue with this debate. So unless you are able to look at my point and willingly address it, there's no point in continuing this debate with you. And I am stating my observation about you ignoring my point. Because if you would have read what I said, you wouldn't be repeating the same thing.

One only see it as tricky if it's difficult for them. I made it simple to show that there is a difference. Forcing soldiers to kill or killing civilians and/or non military personnel is an immoral act of murder.

Hi
Bottom line, god is in direct contradiction of his absolute moral standard, therefore god is immoral.
When one begins a statement with bottom line it would seem that this is the point being stressed that is why i addressed it. I explained this seeming contradiction is better understood as paradox.
If you wish to get technical ,have at it , post a definition of both words and we will see where we get.
...............................................................
Of course that's not a slam dunk. That's why I didn't say that.
Yes you did, you classified military action as murder. Here is your exact line..........You also said that Jesus , as a king, would have done what was necessary. Son in this case, murder.
.........................................................................
Forcing soldiers to kill
Well if they were FORCED by God to do something that they felt was immoral then you must be right. Although i think the word FORCED is just more trickyness.
.............................................................................
I do not know how to continue the debate after you have conceded that a mutually agreed outcome has NO moral implication.... I understand that the morles of the ancient world is different and cannot simply be compared to ours today. But that is not what is being discussed here. What is being debated here is the absolute morality of god, not the Israelites. So whether they and the cannanites had mutal agreement on the standard of morality, there's no barring on the morality of god.

The highlighted line is the key and all you have done is made a statement with no reasoning to back it up.
It is a version of the kindergarten level reasoning that if Jehovah were really a moral being he would stop all the bad things happening. A poor rehash of the Why Does God Permit Evil question.

I have explained the CONSTRAINTS that Jehovah has put on himself so as to deal with fallen creatures and you give it no weight.
Absolute Morality would have been the execution of Adam and Eve immediately instead of them only "beginning to die". The introduction of children caused Jehovah to BALANCE his MORALITY against his JUSTICE and leads to the paradoxical situation of a perfect being interacting with imperfect creature.
.................................................................

You have read the information and obviously given it a FAIR examination, i perceive this by unfathomed depth of the questions (Atheism for dummies i assume) that you have posed. So having examined the issue and given it deep unbiased thought you have judged the CREATOR and found him to be at his core an immoral being. That is a brave decision that most of the great thinkers, both religious and philosophical, who have pondered this subject over the centuries has shyed away from stating as a fact. Good Luck With That.

Peace

 

[Moz]

. . . but you are making every effort to justify the violence and slavery of the scripture as being still the will of God.

The tribal violence continued in Judaism, Christianity and Islam up until the present, and likely will continue.

Hi

Please name me ONE military encounter or ANY act of violence perpetrated by a christian from 33ce to 300ce.
You will see if you bother to look into the matter that Jesus followers were absolutely peaceful until politics and earthly power came into the mix a couple of centuries down the track.

If you can not give me a single example will you please stop your uniformed outbursts and keep any disparaging comments confined to Christendom, the religious/political manifestation and the many children she has spawned and leave Christianity out of it.
We really should try to be accurate and specific on these threads should we not?

Peace

 

[Moz]

a mutal military agreement because it's war. Here comes the GOTCHA that you made for yourself. There's no mutal agreement for it to be consider as being morally justified between the military and the non military.

Hi
Sorry i should address this as well. We are not referring here to written and signed "rules of engagement" that restrict action to specific place and time. This is a cultural zeitgeist that pervaded the ancient world. All sides in the ancient world new what war meant for themselves, their families and their possessions. There is no concept of military and non military in this type of conflict once direct battle has been engaged.
Peace.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hi

Please name me ONE military encounter or ANY act of violence perpetrated by a christian from 33ce to 300ce.
You will see if you bother to look into the matter that Jesus followers were absolutely peaceful until politics and earthly power came into the mix a couple of centuries down the track.

If you can not give me a single example will you please stop your uniformed outbursts and keep any disparaging comments confined to Christendom, the religious/political manifestation and the many children she has spawned and leave Christianity out of it.
We really should try to be accurate and specific on these threads should we not?

Peace

Nostalgia of a mythical time of peace when Christianity was not a religion gets you nowhere. In this discussion the text of the OT fully acknowledges slavery and ownership of slaves for life, bought and sold as a fact, and in history Christians justified slavery based on thes OT references.

Actually not remotely the subject of the thread, but nonetheless.

The New Testament did not even exist as we know it until after ~200-300 CE, nor was Christianity recognizable as a religion. IT was at this time Christianity became Roman. Than it became the Roman Gentile religion.

Over the Millennia Christianity has believed that the OT as scripture and reflecting God's given Laws and direction to the Hebrews, and Christians believed they inherited the Messianic succession of Abraham.

 

[Moz]

Actually not remotely the subject of the thread, but nonetheless.
The New Testament did not even exist as we know it until after ~300 CE, nor was Christianity roganized as a religion. IT was at this time Christianity became Roman. Than it became the Roman Gentile religion.

Hi
The tribal violence continued in Judaism, Christianity and Islam up until the present, and likely will continue.
It was you who brought christian violence into the mix with your Inacurate statement, i was merely clarifing your error is all.

I DID notice that you did not come up with any christian violence in the specified period. So christian violence did not continue as you wrongly stated. Violence was introuded into christianity by the state a couple of centuries after christ.

If you recognise that it is "christendom" and not "christianity" at fault then please keep that in mind when you make your snarky comments in the future.
There are millions of people on the planet today who still follow the example of those first christians and keep free of war and politics, you need to be specific when making such statements.

That is a reasonable thing to ask for isn't it?
Peace

 

[Moz]

Nostalgia of a mythical time of peace when Christianity was not a religion gets you nowhere. In this discussion the text of the OT fully acknowledges slavery and ownership of slaves for life, bought and sold as a fact, and in history Christians justified slavery based on thes OT references.

Actually not remotely the subject of the thread, but nonetheless.

The New Testament did not even exist as we know it until after ~200-300 CE, nor was Christianity recognizable as a religion. IT was at this time Christianity became Roman. Than it became the Roman Gentile religion.

Over the Millennia Christianity has believed that the OT as scripture and reflecting God's Laws and direction to the Hebrews, and Christians believed they inherited the Messianic succession of Abraham.

HI

First.. .. Why phrase it as a "mythical time of peace". We are in the first centuries ce inside the Roman Empire in a highly literate world and you want to claim myth. If the christians had been using organised violence you would have read about it.

You just DO NOT want to acknowledge that violence was not carried on by these initial followers of Christ do you. It would go against what you think you know about christianity.

And to claim that christianity was not a religion until after 200-300ce is just plain silly on so many levels. The Roman Empire that persecuted them sure thought that they were a religion.

Peace

 

[Moz]

Just so that we are comparing apples to apples here.. .....

The Bab did not abolish slavery. Had the Bab lived longer, he surely would have abolished slavery, as a matter of religious principle and as a divine decree, just as Baha’u’llah did. If nothing else, the Bab would have fully agreed with Baha’u’llah’s subsequent religious abolition of slavery.

It seems the abolishIon of slavery was pretty low on the to do list of the Bab. Oh if only he had lived longer. He did not have time to write that slavery is absolutely immoral, Maybe the household slaves that cared for him in his youth gave him a wider view.
Peace

 

[shunyadragon]

HI

First.. .. Why phrase it as a "mythical time of peace". We are in the first centuries ce inside the Roman Empire in a highly literate world and you want to claim myth. If the christians had been using organised violence you would have read about it.

You just DO NOT want to acknowledge that violence was not carried on by these initial followers of Christ do you. It would go against what you think you know about christianity.

And to claim that christianity was not a religion until after 200-300ce is just plain silly on so many levels. The Roman Empire that persecuted them sure thought that they were a religion.

Peace

You simply will not acknowledge that Christianity did not become a reality until the Roman and Greek Fathers compiled the Bible, and it became a Roman religion. The followers wee scattered communities with different and partial scriptures.

Again . . .

In this discussion the text of the OT fully acknowledges slavery and ownership of slaves for life, bought and sold as a fact, and in history Christians justified slavery based on thes OT references.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hi
The tribal violence continued in Judaism, Christianity and Islam up until the present, and likely will continue.
It was you who brought christian violence into the mix with your Inacurate statement, i was merely clarifing your error is all.

True, because it is a fact that Christianity acknowledges the OT as the word of God, up until recently by far most considered the Pentateuch the literal word of God, as well as the rest of the OT. Many if not most still consider Genesis as the literal Word of God..

In this discussion the text of the OT fully acknowledges slavery and ownership of slaves for life, bought and sold as a fact, and in history Christians justified slavery based on thes OT references.

 

[Moz]

True, because it is a fact that Christianity acknowledges the OT as the word of God, up until recently by far most considered the Pentateuch the literal word of God, as well as the rest of the OT. Many if not most still consider Genesis as the literal Word of God..

In this discussion the text of the OT fully acknowledges slavery and ownership of slaves for life, bought and sold as a fact, and in history Christians justified slavery based on thes OT references.

Hi
You bahai are a strange lot.
Yes we have fully been thruogh the old testement stuff and most have agreed that slavery was a societal norm of the times and that individuals back then should not be judged by the moral standards of our times.

We have also acknowledged that slavery was the law of the state and that christians had no choice but to follow the law.

The only sticking point has been whether God was moral in allowing these things to occur in the first place.
Now as a bahai you claim some solidarity with both the bible and koran, both of which allow for the continuation of slavery. So i can not understand why you would be so happily slagging off a position that your own religion held until the 1870's.

Surely you MUST beleive that the time for the abolishment of slavery was with the revelations in the1800's ce that you claim are god inspired. If the previous messengers that YOU claim are messengers of god did not bring that revelation then god must not have wanted it that way right?

Peace

 

[Moz]

You simply will not acknowledge that Christianity did not become a reality until the Roman and Greek Fathers compiled the Bible, and it became a Roman religion. The followers wee scattered communities with different and partial scriptures.

Again . . .

In this discussion the text of the OT fully acknowledges slavery and ownership of slaves for life, bought and sold as a fact, and in history Christians justified slavery based on thes OT references.

Hi
You simply will not acknowledge that Christianity did not become a reality until the Roman and Greek Fathers compiled the Bible, and it became a Roman religion.

You are incorrect with what you state above. The fact that rome absorbed a fully interconnected religion with centuries of written precedent, shows that they were an organised international brotherood with strong ties between the various congregations.

Do you REALLY see no distinction between chtistendom and christianity?
Peace

 

[shunyadragon]

Hi
You bahai are a strange lot.
Yes we have fully been thruogh the old testement stuff and most have agreed that slavery was a societal norm of the times and that individuals back then should not be judged by the moral standards of our times.

We have also acknowledged that slavery was the law of the state and that christians had no choice but to follow the law.

The only sticking point has been whether God was moral in allowing these things to occur in the first place.
Now as a bahai you claim some solidarity with both the bible and koran, both of which allow for the continuation of slavery. So i can not understand why you would be so happily slagging off a position that your own religion held until the 1870's.

Surely you MUST beleive that the time for the abolishment of slavery was with the revelations in the1800's ce that you claim are god inspired. If the previous messengers that YOU claim are messengers of god did not bring that revelation then god must not have wanted it that way right?

Peace

The Baha'i belief involves progressive Revelation, and the different ancient religions, like Judaism and Christianity reflect the ancient world in which they were revealed, which includes human perspectives of law and culture. These human perspectives of religions are still rooted in the ancient religions, and they persist in the belief that they are the only true religion, but still anchored in the ancient cultural view they formed in

I believe there is a contradiction in the nature of God in the belief that anyone religion over the vast millenia is the only religion for humanity as some sort of chosen people to be saved. This gets more problematic when an ancient mythological Genesis is the root of the beliefs of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Either there is a universal binding and evolving nature if the Relationship between God and humanity for all humanity that evolves over time with Revelation, or the alternative is that all the diverse conflicting individual religions are created by humans in the cultures and times of the religion, and of course if this is the case God(s) do not exist. I believe it is a fact that the individual religions of the world believe in very human conflicting beliefs of the 'Source' some call God(s). Considering the history of humanity that would not reflect omnipotent universal God if in reality God exists.

It is time to give up the cultural ghosts of the past and not cling to ancient worldviews. .

 

[Moz]

The Baha'i belief involves progressive Revelation, and the different ancient religions, like Judaism and Christianity reflect the ancient world in which they were revealed, which includes human perspectives of law and culture. These human perspectives of religions are still rooted in the ancient religions, and they persist in the belief that they are the only true religion, but still anchored in the ancient cultural view they formed in

I believe there is a contradiction in the nature of God in the belief that anyone religion over the vast millenia is the only religion for humanity as some sort of chosen people to be saved. This gets more problematic when an ancient mythological Genesis is the root of the beliefs of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Either there is a universal binding and evolving nature if the Relationship between God and humanity for all humanity that evolves over time with Revelation, or the alternative is that all the diverse conflicting individual religions are created by humans in the cultures and times of the religion, and of course if this is the case God(s) do not exist. I believe it is a fact that the individual religions of the world believe in very human conflicting beliefs of the 'Source' some call God(s). Considering the history of humanity that would not reflect omnipotent universal God if in reality God exists.

It is time to give up the cultural ghosts of the past and not cling to ancient worldviews. .

Hi
So, progressive revelation. .. Ok.
The previous revelations had nothing to say about abolishing the practise, It seems like the "take no Slaves" revelation was relegated to the 1800's ce. It makes me wonder what you get from banging away at the Bible for not banning the practise?

Is there an actual list of bible verses that you lot accept as divine revelation or is it just a pick what you like when you like sort of deal. You quote scripture when it suits and reject any scripture quoted back at you as human corruption. That is a neat trick.

The bahai absolute dishonesty in claiming to be a continuation of the Relevations of the past is very apparent when considered alongside what the previous religions taught. I see your posts all over the place saying the most ridiculice things and would rather it if you left me out of your cynical nastyness.
I do not want to ignore you, you make me laugh quite often. But i would rather if you did not engage with me and i will afford you the same courtesy.

Peace.

 

[night912]

Hi
Bottom line, god is in direct contradiction of his absolute moral standard, therefore god is immoral.
When one begins a statement with bottom line it would seem that this is the point being stressed that is why i addressed it. I explained this seeming contradiction is better understood as paradox.
If you wish to get technical ,have at it , post a definition of both words and we will see where we get.

When one address a point being made , one has to actually address the point. Posting what I wrote and repeating what you said in your past post is not addressing the point, it's dodging my point. No need to post the definition when you already did and showed that you didn't understand the meaning. And I already explained why you don't understand what a paradox is by addressing your statement. Note the difference between you and me. I actually explained why it's not a paradox, while you just repeat. You should really read the whole thing to understand it means and not just the words you're looking for. That way you won't make a statement that dismantle your own argument.

Since god changed his absolute moral standards in order to be relevant to lessor beings, it is a change in his morality. And there's your contradiction. You can only have either absolute morality or no absolute morality, one the other. They are opposites that contradicts one another. A paradox is different from that.
...............................................................

Of course that's not a slam dunk. That's why I didn't say that.

Yes you did, you classified military action as murder. Here is your exact line..........You also said that Jesus , as a king, would have done what was necessary. Son in this case, murder.

Nope. That's why I purposely said murder, to differentiate it from acts of war (in which it can include acting out in self defense .) Killing non military personnel is immoral. God commanded the Israelites to killed all, so they committed immoral acts during their campaign. And you said Jesus AKA god, would have done the same.

Btw, god changed his morals when he commanded the Israelites to spill blood on the promise land. So from spilling blood equals bad and changing to spilling blood is ok. That would make god not having absolute morality standards or he is immoral for violating his previous morals code.

.........................................................................

Forcing soldiers to kill
Well if they were FORCED by God to do something that they felt was immoral then you must be right. Although i think the word FORCED is just more trickyness.

Hahaha. I don't use tricks to debate others, I don't require it. Just because you have now realize that my question is asking for an answer that requires you to question your own set of beliefs, that doesn't make it a trick question.

And yea, god is forcing someone to commit murder if the only two choices god gave the soldier, " fight for your god, obey his commands or die." Don't worry, you don't have to answer this here.
.............................................................................

I do not know how to continue the debate after you have conceded that a mutually agreed outcome has NO moral implication.... I understand that the morles of the ancient world is different and cannot simply be compared to ours today. But that is not what is being discussed here. What is being debated here is the absolute morality of god, not the Israelites. So whether they and the cannanites had mutal agreement on the standard of morality, there's no barring on the morality of god.

The highlighted line is the key and all you have done is made a statement with no reasoning to back it up.
It is a version of the kindergarten level reasoning that if Jehovah were really a moral being he would stop all the bad things happening. A poor rehash of the Why Does God Permit Evil question.

Sorry but your attempt to straw man this won't help you. I never said anything remotely close to indicate that argument. Perhaps you like to using common arguments and reword it to look like your it's own, but I don't do that. This is about about morality, moral and immoral. I don't really have a problem with good permitting evil. One may choose not to take action against an evil act. They are not being immoral here. But when some is doing an evil act or commanding someone to do an evil act, especially with force, they themselves have committed an immoral act .

I have explained the CONSTRAINTS that Jehovah has put on himself so as to deal with fallen creatures and you give it no weight.

Absolute Morality would have been the execution of Adam and Eve immediately instead of them only "beginning to die". The introduction of children caused Jehovah to BALANCE his MORALITY against his JUSTICE and leads to the paradoxical situation of a perfect being interacting with imperfect creature.

That's what I've been saying this whole time. He doesn't have absolute morality. But no, having having absolute moral standards does not require executing people, don't know where you got that belief from.
.................................................................

You have read the information and obviously given it a FAIR examination, i perceive this by unfathomed depth of the questions (Atheism for dummies i assume) that you have posed.

So having examined the issue and given it deep unbiased thought you have judged the CREATOR and found him to be at his core an immoral being. That is a brave decision that most of the great thinkers, both religious and philosophical, who have pondered this subject over the centuries has shyed away from stating as a fact. Good Luck With That.
Peace

Come on now, there's no need to falsely accused me of doing something I never did. We're having a debate on this particular subject, just because I dismantle your argument using evidence and actually presented it explained why it failed, an you failed to give any rebuttal to my points, there's no need to get all emotional about it.

A great debater carries good understanding of the what is being discussed, along with good reasoning, rational mindset, evidences etc with them to support their argument. And if someone is bringing poor understandings and tools in which they are ignorant of what they are and its usage, even an amateur like myself can use their opponent's own flawed argument against them to easily dismantle it.

Don't get discouraged. Next time, all you have to do is have a better understanding of what you want to debate. And remember to leave the emotions at home. And most importantly, approach your opponent as being anybody who just happened to have an opposing view from you. You attack the persons ideas, not the person themselves. That's why I don't care it they are an atheist, theist, deist, etc, as long as I have a different view, I'm willing to debate don't care about who they are.

BTW,
I've never read atheism for dummies, but if you really believed that I read it then, apparently a dumb atheist just totally kicked your behind by refuting your argument using your own supporting evidence, leaving you full of emotional stress. But keep in mind, I'm not judging a creator. The fact is, I'm judging your ideas on how you believe your creator is like. I was in fact, having a debate with you and not your creator. I've never met the guy, only his PR representative. So if you have a problem with what was presented, that's between you and your maker. I pray that he is not like how you betrayed him. Just tell him it's "war," that justifies any immoral act that's being done. Afterall, it worked for you.

 

[wellwisher]

In the ancient times, slavery was the lessor of two evils. When a large and more sophisticated culture expanded it borders for resources, there was war. In term of the conquered nations, there were two alternatives in terms of dealing with large numbers of conquered people. You could massacre everyone, or allow them to live, but as slaves.

If you let the conquered peoples simply go free, after a war, they would have constant resentment and attempt to restore their lands. You would be fighting the same people over and over. Slavery was a compromise where life was spared, until assimilation occurred. The original quote in the bible, used to start this topic, about the escaped slave, has to do with assimilation.

After assimilation, many cultures were often restored, but as allies with the main super power. Rome had slaves, but it also had countries like Israel, who had been previously conquered slaves, were eventually allowed to be semi independent again; after assimilation. The Christians, at the time of Jesus, became a newer target of war and became enslaved for assimilation, A couple of hundred year later, they too had autonomy restored and went on to lead Rome.

In southern California the illegal aliens get to work as slaves to the rich Democrats; low wages and no benefits. Their children grow up and assimilate through school and media. They become part of the main stream culture; final assimilation with all the bells and whistles restored.

The Blacks came from the conquered nations of Africa. They were shipped around the world as slaves for assimilation. The Democrats were the one who tried to delay the ancient right of passage of slave leading to assimilation. But as history shows, the slavery phase ended but assimilation was delayed, It only slowly realized due to legal games by the Democrats which slowed this step.

 

[Moz]

When one address a point being made , one has to actually address the point. Posting what I wrote and repeating what you said in your past post is not addressing the point, it's dodging my point. No need to post the definition when you already did and showed that you didn't understand the meaning. And I already explained why you don't understand what a paradox is by addressing your statement. Note the difference between you and me. I actually explained why it's not a paradox, while you just repeat. You should really read the whole thing to understand it means and not just the words you're looking for. That way you won't make a statement that dismantle your own argument.

Since god changed his absolute moral standards in order to be relevant to lessor beings, it is a change in his morality. And there's your contradiction. You can only have either absolute morality or no absolute morality, one the other. They are opposites that contradicts one another. A paradox is different from that.
...............................................................

Nope. That's why I purposely said murder, to differentiate it from acts of war (in which it can include acting out in self defense ..

Btw, god changed his morals when he commanded the Israelites to spill blood on the promise land. So from spilling blood equals bad and changing to spilling blood is ok. That would make god not having absolute morality standards or he is immoral for violating his previous morals code.

.........................................................................
Hahaha. I don't use tricks to debate others, I don't require it. Just because you have now realize that my question is asking for an answer that requires you to question your own set of beliefs, that doesn't make it a trick question.

And yea, god is forcing someone to commit murder if the only two choices god gave the soldier, " fight for your god, obey his commands or die." Don't worry, you don't have to answer this here.
.............................................................................

Sorry but your attempt to straw man this won't help you. I never said anything remotely close to indicate that argument. Perhaps you like to using common arguments and reword it to look like your it's own, but I don't do that. This is about about morality, moral and immoral. I don't really have a problem with good permitting evil. One may choose not to take action against an evil act. They are not being immoral here. But when some is doing an evil act or commanding someone to do an evil act, especially with force, they themselves have committed an immoral act .

That's what I've been saying this whole time. He doesn't have absolute morality. But no, having having absolute moral standards does not require executing people, don't know where you got that belief from.
.................................................................


Come on now, there's no need to falsely accused me of doing something I never did. We're having a debate on this particular subject, just because I dismantle your argument using evidence and actually presented it explained why it failed, an you failed to give any rebuttal to my points, there's no need to get all emotional about it.

A great debater carries good understanding of the what is being discussed, along with good reasoning, rational mindset, evidences etc with them to support their argument. And if someone is bringing poor understandings and tools in which they are ignorant of what they are and its usage, even an amateur like myself can use their opponent's own flawed argument against them to easily dismantle it.

Don't get discouraged. Next time, all you have to do is have a better understanding of what you want to debate. And remember to leave the emotions at home. And most importantly, approach your opponent as being anybody who just happened to have an opposing view from you. You attack the persons ideas, not the person themselves. That's why I don't care it they are an atheist, theist, deist, etc, as long as I have a different view, I'm willing to debate don't care about who they are.

BTW,
I've never read atheism for dummies, but if you really believed that I read it then, apparently a dumb atheist just totally kicked your behind by refuting your argument using your own supporting evidence, leaving you full of emotional stress. But keep in mind, I'm not judging a creator. The fact is, I'm judging your ideas on how you believe your creator is like. I was in fact, having a debate with you and not your creator. I've never met the guy, only his PR representative. So if you have a problem with what was presented, that's between you and your maker. I pray that he is not like how you betrayed him. Just tell him it's "war," that justifies any immoral act that's being done. Afterall, it worked for you.

Since god changed his absolute moral standards in order to be relevant to lessor beings, it is a change in his morality. And there's your contradiction. You can only have either absolute morality or no absolute morality, one the other. They are opposites that contradicts one another. A paradox is different from that.

God restrained his absolute moral standards to accomodate the imperfections of lessor beings, it is a moderation of his morality. Not a change,

See i can make statements just as easily as you. Mine fits within the context of the story, yours is an imposition from without.
I have tried to explain why the BIBLICAL God had to mitigate his morals.You wish to apply standards that are outside the biblical explanation. With the Bible God CAN have absolute morality and exercise relative morality. The story is actually written so as to accomodate it.
It seems that you think the authors did not see the problem, they did and gave the explanation in genesis with the knowledge of good and evil bit and the casting out and the two seeds.
)
Killing non military personnel is immoral. God commanded the Israelites to killed all, so they committed immoral acts during their campaign. And you said Jesus AKA god, would have done the same

The ancients did not see it that way and that is the standard that i apply. Anything else is just your uniformed opinion.