What are you mate, a wimpy hand-wringing lefty social worker?
The Japs started the war by bombing Pearl Harbor which killed 2403 people, so we gave them payback..
The emperor and soldiers did, not the civilians.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.
- Thread starter Serenity7855
- Start date
The emperor and soldiers did, not the civilians.
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
So what? If the human race deserves zapping, it serves 'em right, they've already messed up the ice caps and ozone layer!
Yeah well now who sounds like a lefty liberal.
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
The civvies regarded Emperor Hirohito as a "god" and went along with him all the way.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were big military cities and were valid targets
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
You omitted the fact that if the slave was not beaten to death then the lesser charge of manslaughter was applied. You did that deliberately which makes it dishonest.
Tell me, do you know what kind of people these slaves were? Do you know if they were unruly and difficult to control? What do you know about them? How many had to be disciplined by their masters. 1 in a hundred, a thousand or ten thousand. What was the frequency of these beatings, every day, week, year? Are you familiar with their culture. Would you have been a slave owner if you lived in that culture?
Where did God endorse it? How did God endorse it? What rule did God directly make? I am missing nothing. I am familiar with the character of God. I have been converted by the Holy Ghost. I know for an absolute surety that the picture you are trying to paint of my God is incorrect and hideous. God will not be mocked. He always pays his debts without money.
Where did God directly endorse slavery? What guidelines did God actually make. God did give a commandment against owning another human being.
John 13:34-35
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
If the critic would take the time to study the Bible and make an honest evaluation of the principles of God’s justice, wrath, and love, he would see the perfect and harmonious interplay between them. God’s vengeance is not like the impulsive, irrational, emotional outbursts of pagan deities or human beings. He is infinite in all His attributes and thus perfect in justice, love, and anger. Just as God’s ultimate and final condemnation of sinners to eternal punishment will be just and appropriate, so the temporal judgment of wicked people in the Old Testament was ethical and fair. We human beings do not have an accurate handle on the gravity of sin and the deplorable nature of evil and wickedness. Human sentimentality is hardly a qualified measuring stick for divine truth and spiritual reality.
How incredibly ironic that the atheist, the agnostic, the skeptic, and the liberal all attempt to stand in judgment upon the ethical behavior of God when, if one embraces their position, there is no such thing as an absolute, objective, authoritative standard by which to pronounce anything right or wrong. As the French existentialist philosopher, Sartre, admitted: “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist.... Nor...are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior” (1961, p. 485). The atheist and agnostic have absolutely no platform on which to stand to make moral or ethical distinctions—except as the result of purely personal taste. The mere fact that they concede the existence of objective evil is an unwitting concession there is a God Who has established an absolute framework of moral judgments.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=2810
Last edited:
Of course you do, I mean you think it's ok to kill children and rape woman.
I think you missed my point in brining it up.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
He said many times that he wasn't God, and he explained that he only said what God told him to say, and that he could only do his 37 miracles because the power of God was working through him.
He called the snooty priests some terrible names, so they rounded him up and killed him with the help of the Romans.
But he left this message for all of us-
Very, very good post.
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
Nah mate, here in England lefty liberals are mush-brained gutless wimps and I ain't one of them..
Here's a vid of me under my wargaming name 'Poor Old Spike', notice my tough-guy no-nonsense swagger, my credentials are impeccable, I was expelled from school and have been jailed on a vigilante rap, I'm kool..
[youtube]QaArap_NpnI[/youtube]
You want to punish people for melting ice caps and holes in The ozone... a liberal for sure. No righty we even acknowledge them as issues. So hahaNah mate, here in England lefty liberals are mush-brained gutless wimps and I ain't one of them..
Here's a vid of me under my wargaming name 'Poor Old Spike', notice my tough-guy no-nonsense swagger, my credentials are impeccable, I was expelled from school and have been jailed on a vigilante rap, I'm kool..
[youtube]QaArap_NpnI[/youtube]
TheGunShoj
Active Member
I quoted the verse directly. There is no mention of manslaughter.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Please show me where the charge of manslaughter was mentioned.
I don't know, I don't care and it doesn't matter. Under no circumstances or context is it EVER moral to own another human being as property. Bottom line.
No you aren't. You're familiar with the character of God that suits you. I've posted several verses in which God gives rules about owning slaves, meaning he is not opposed to it. For instances, Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44
No he did not. This is the biggest cop out I've ever seen. If this were the rule which envelopes slavery then why are there separate rules for killing, stealing, coveting, adultery, ect. Wouldn't those all fall under loving one another? Apparently, if God is against it then he didn't feel it was important enough to mention among all the other commandments which is absurd.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
There doesn't have to be.
Your NAB adds words to the bible making it false doctrine.
he is not to be punished - "FOR MURDER",
Exodus
Exodus 21:20-21King James Version (KJV)
20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
The mention is unnecessary. The charge of murder was rescinded by the fact that the servant was not beaten hard enough to kill him so there was no intention to take his life. If, after a few days, the servant dies then the charge against him must be unintentional homicide, manslaughter. Can you see the logical progression now?
And there we have it. You cherry picked this argument from an anti-theist Web site and felt that it was an argument set in stone. Even in the face of reason you are holding onto it just in case someone might post something in your favour or a reality may spring to your mind to verify your baseless assertion. Be assured that the argument is flawed because it does not reflect upon the true nature of God.
I am familiar with the actual character of God, and it suits me fine. God communicates with his Children via Prophets because he cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection. Prophets are human and carnal in nature. They have the job of translating concepts and emotions given to them via the Holy Ghost, Gods messenger and testator, and then to write the results down in their own language by their own interpretations. Was the interpretation accurate? I don't know, but neither do you. Your accusation against God is baseless and anecdotal. You have no evidence to indict God with. Your accusation is born out of acrimonious resentment. The God I know might have allowed free agency to play out, but, that does not mean he condones it.
John 13:34-35
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another
The words "A new commandment I give unto you", and your own ability to reason them out in your mind, should have given you a clue that this commandment supercedes all commandments for by keeping this commandment will cause all commandments to be kept. If you love your fellow man you would not take him to be your slave. A cop out is what you did because you could not keep to the higher law. This is not a cop out, God needs no cop outs.
Last edited:
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
TheGunShoj
Show me where it says that his wife and children will remain the property of the master for ever. It does not, so, the seven year rule applies to them as well.
Show me where it says that his wife and children will remain the property of the master for ever. It does not, so, the seven year rule applies to them as well.
Last edited:
TheGunShoj
Active Member
lol, so you can just add things to verses to make them fit your agenda now? That's worse than cherry picking. Not sure how you get from "he is not to be punished because the slave is his property" to "he will be punished for the lesser charge of manslaughter"
Yes of course, I see reason now. Owning and beating slaves is moral. Thank you for shining a light on this topic for me. :no:
He dwelled in the presence of imperfection plenty of times in the past, why not now? That sure would throw a wrench in us wretched atheists diabolical plan of total world domination.
What do you mean I have no evidence? I have words from his own mouth, a confession.
Look, If you are against kidnapping, is it more sensible to say
"You can kidnap children as long as they aren't from your neighborhood and they will be your property forever. And actually you can kidnap kids from your neighborhood but you can only hold them hostage for 7 days and then you must let them go, unless they want to stay with you forever. Oh yeah and you can beat them too, as long as they don't die"
Does that really sound like the position of someone who is opposed to kidnapping?
Ooooor if you are against kidnapping would it make more sense to say
"Don't kidnap, it's bad"
???
Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, it was Jesus that said that. How many years went by without a commandment against slavery (I still don't but that this vague passage blankets over slavery) that people had to suffer and die through? Did God just make this cavalcade of mistakes in the OT and then had a total change of heart and became this really nice, compassionate guy? Is God bi-polar?
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
lol, so you can just add things to verses to make them fit your agenda now? That's worse than cherry picking. Not sure how you get from "he is not to be punished because the slave is his property" to "he will be punished for the lesser charge of manslaughter"
I have not added anything. The fact that it is not there is evidence that your insipid insinuation is incorrect. It is mentioned elsewhere so why not here?
You are using sarcasm to mask your embarrassment for being wrong. Nobody has claimed that anyone was beaten, the scripture is demonstrating the consequences if you do..
When? God has not appeared in person since the fall of Adam and Eve.
Please, do not flatter yourself thus. World domination will never be entirely achieved by the atheists. Not whilst one Christian lives and breaths. No, Armageddon is close at hand where the earth will be cleansed by fire of the wicked and unbelievers, such as yourself. But I understand why you would be enthralled to see the plan of Redemption fail.
Well, I would like to see evidence of that.
To kidnap someone is to hold them captive against their wishes. Your analogy fails miserably as these slaves are volunteers. Nobody forced them into slavery. It was the best of two evils. Death by starvation, exposure and malnutrition or a life as a paid employee with a roof over their heads. You are trying to make the God you failed a monster and you are failing.
That is what God said when he announced the new commandment.
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
You are not getting this, are you, or you don't want to.
Is God bi-polar? Oh my, you do not mind tempting fate do you. I have a list of certainties in my life, based on actual events and experiences, both in the lives of others and myself. One of those certainties is that God ALWAYS pays his debts without money. It is a supernatural version of the natural law of cause an effect. Murderers never get away with murder, thiefs are always caught, adulterers always get a payback, those who mock God always get a just reward. Sooner you then me.
God did not give a commandment that "thou Shalt not take unto yourself slaves" it is true, however, God gave no commandment that "thou shalt take unto thy self slaves who thou should beat to within an each of their lives". Sometimes you need to look at what God didn't say to know what God did say. God did not give a commandment that thou shalt not commit paedophilia either. We do not need to be told the rights and wrongs of everything. God gave us a brain and a conscious to do that, the light of Christ. If he had to tell us every right and wrong then the ten commandments would most likely be 10,000 commandments. It takes but a little lateral thinking to come up with the right answer. You should also be aware that mankind acts for itself. It requires no council from God when they make their minds up. Mankind introduced slavery, not God.
Last edited:
TheGunShoj
Active Member
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
Only he will go free in the seventh year. The wife and child will still belong to his master.
I also took the liberty of finding some NT verses supporting slavery including a quote from jesus himself telling how severely slaves are to be beaten for infractions. So either Jesus doesn't include slavery under the "love thy neighbor" rule or there is a contradiction here. Which is it?
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
Or luke 12:47 from the NKJ version
"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."
Last edited:
TheGunShoj
Active Member
It explicitly says "he is not to be punished because the slave is his property" implying that he can do what he wishes since it is his property. Where is it stated otherwise?
I'm not embarrassed. You are defending slavery and worshiping a God that does so. You are the one who should be ashamed.
Irrelevant. The immorality is the fact that the rule exists to begin with. And do you really think that if people owned slaves and this rule was in place that no one exercised it? Give me a break.
Jesus?
That was a joke....
Dude, I just gave you several quotes directly from his mouth. That is the evidence.
Haha. Slavery is not holding someone against their wishes? Keep it up, your arguments are brilliant.
Regardless, you missed my entire point. I used kidnapping as an example because it's similar to slavery in that you are holding someone against their will but the point stands for any moral position. If you are staunchly against something, you don't make all these rules and exceptions for it, you simply state that it is wrong. Much like in the ten commandments where murder and theft are forbidden.
See above response. This doesn't cover slavery. Jesus even endorses beating your slaves in the NT.
Nope.
....yes he did. I just showed you verses where he said almost exactly that.
He didn't command that you must take slaves but he clearly allows it to happen and gives permission to beat them when he should forbid it.
Last edited:
TheGunShoj
Active Member
Seriously. +1
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
You are becoming very annoyed with me as a result of your own incompetence to comprehend what is being said here. Your statement is correct but your need to vilify God prevents you from expanding your reasoning. After he has served for seven years he shall go free. If he brings a wife with him then she to will go free as she began her service at the same time as he did. Naturally she will go free at the same time as her husband. If the master gives him a wife and she has his children then it must needs be after he began his service. When she finishes her service it will be after he's finished his, so she will not be set free at that time, but later.
I also took the liberty of finding some NT verses supporting slavery including a quote from jesus himself telling how severely slaves are to be beaten for infractions. So either Jesus doesn't include slavery under the "love thy neighbor" rule or there is a contradiction here. Which is it?
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
In Ephesians 6:5-9 the hardest form of subjection, that of slaves to masters, is dealt with, still under the same idea that both are in Christ. The slave is the servant of Christ in obeying his master, the master is a fellow-servant with his slave to the same Divine Lord. We notice on this particular subject a remarkable emphasis, and a singular closeness of parallelism between this Epistle and the Epistle to the Colossians; probably to be accounted for by the presence of Onesimus with St. Paul at the time, which would naturally press on him some special consideration of the relation of Christianity to slavery. Accordingly St. Pauls general attitude towards slavery will be best considered in the Epistle to Philemon (which see). Here it will be sufficient to note that while the institution, unnatural as it is, is left untouched, the declaration of a common fellowship in Christ enunciates a principle absolutely incompatible with slavery, and destined to destroy it.
(5) Your masters according to the flesh.This phrase (used also in Colossians 3:12) at once implies the necessary limitation of all human slavery. It can subjugate and even kill the body, but it cannot touch the spirit; and it belongs only to the visible life of this world, not to the world to come. The slave is a man in spiritual and immortal being, not a living tool or chattel, as even philosophy called him.
With fear and trembling.The phrase is a favourite one with St. Paul. (See 1Corinthians 2:3; 2Corinthians 7:15; Philippians 2:12, in all which cases it is applied to the condition of man as man under the weight of solemn responsibility before God.) It recognises the spirit of bondage unto fear (Romans 8:15) necessarily belonging to all who are under law, i.e., under obedience to the will of another, as enforced upon them by compulsion; and this fear, moreover, is viewed as showing itself in trembling anxiety to obey. So St. Peter commands (1Peter 2:18), Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward; and it is to be noted that he describes the suffering herein implied as a fellowship with the sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 6:21-24).
Singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.The phrase singleness of heart, is here used in its proper sense, from which all others (see Romans 12:8; 2Corinthians 8:2; 2Corinthians 9:11; 2Corinthians 9:13) may be derived. It means having but one aim, and that the one which we profess to have, with no duplicity of reservation or hypocrisy. Such singleness of heart cannot be given perfectly to any merely human service, because no such service has a right to our whole heart; hence St. Paul adds, as unto Christ, bidding them look on their service as a part of the service to Him who can claim absolute devotion.
Ephesians 6:5 Commentaries: Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour.From questions connected with the presbyters and others among the recognised ministers and officials of the church, St. Paul passes on to consider certain difficulties connected with a large and important section of the congregations to whom these presbyters were in the habit of ministeringthe Christian slaves.
It was perhaps the most perplexing of all the questions Christianity had to facethis one of slavery. It entered into all grades and ranks. It was common to all peoples and nations. The very fabric of society seemed knit and bound together by this miserable institution. War and commerce were equally responsible for slavery in the Old World. To attempt to uproot itto preach against itto represent it in public teaching as hateful to God, shameful to manwould have been to preach and to teach rebellion and revolution in its darkest and most violent form. It was indeed the curse of the world; but the Master and His chosen servants took their own course and their own time to clear it away. Jesus Christ and His disciples, such as St. Paul and St. John, left society as they found it, uprooting no ancient landmarks, alarming no ancient prejudices, content to live in the world as it was, and to do its work as they found ittrusting, by a new and lovely example, slowly and surely to raise men to a higher level, knowing well that at last, by force of unselfishness, loving self-denial, brave patience, the old cursessuch as slaverywould be driven from the world. Surely the result, so far, has not disappointed the hopes of the first teachers of Christianity.