Why is this world out of control?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

He says: "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

He allowed way too much pain to be honest here.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Adam and Eve chose Satan to govern

None of this happened in the story.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

When I was in school the teacher has some students that would not listen, and to me that did not mean the teacher lost control of the classroom but just needed to either get help for the student rebel or have him permanently removed.

When I taught I was easily blamed for losing control of the classroom. I was a student teacher with no experience. What is God’s excuse?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

So again...come be my slave

Nothing wrong with slavery, which is why the Bible spends an entire book describing how awful it was.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Matthew 25:31-34 answers about the figurative ' sheep ' and ' goats '.
At Jesus' coming Glory Time those who prove themselves to be 'goat-like' will be gone forever.
Any who would bring ruin to Earth (literal or moral) will be brought to ruin - Revelation 11:18 B

Jesus doesn’t like goats, which are adorable. I can’t trust his judgment.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Other than not being vegan, what else did Abel do that was righteous? Remember, Cain was derided for sacrificing veggies but the story never established that it was not allowed.

'Cain was derided for sacrificing veggies' - where does it say that ________
Cain, Not listening not controlling his temper was the problem, Not the veggies. - 1 John 3:12 B
A sacrifice given with a wrong motive is what was deriding.
Righteous Abel speaks through his faith, his confidence in God - Hebrews 11:4 - his actions/motive proved acceptable.
Abel being the first person that God saw as being redeemable among bad influences.
Abel had God's creation with generous foods to enjoy and No electric light to block out night's stars to enjoy.
Abel could have hope in the first promise found at Genesis 3:15 that God would send a promised seed (Messiah).
In other words, that Messiah would come to right the wrongs and restore earth to paradisical conditions.
Abel too saw the angels which would bolster his belief in God's promises - Genesis 3:24 B

 

[URAVIP2ME]

He allowed way too much pain to be honest here.

I find the account about Job (Job 2:4-5) was Not too much pain but an answer to Satan's challenge that to touch our flesh..... ( loose physical health ) and we would Not serve God.
Both, Job and Jesus under very adverse conditions proved Satan a liar and so can we.

 

[Riders]

We also seem to have too many in addiction. Drugs have been put under a state of emergency because of opioid abuse.With drug addiction and alcoholism out of control.

 

[syo]

Why is this world out of control?

Because they altered the creed.

 

[Revelation 21:4]

To all those who’ve responded:
I’m having technical issues with posting on here.
I intend to reply when I can.

Thank you for your input.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is a moral compass?
Well now we are getting somewhere.
I've been asking this question a long time, but none of the atheists would give me a straight answer... well except for @Nimos.

Who created this moral compass? Was it you? Or atheists?

We create our moral compass. Humans.

I'm not able to quote the remaining article, but you can read the third paragraph. In fact, it might help to read the next few.

SLAVE
The original-language words rendered “slave” or “servant” are not limited in their application to persons owned by others. The Hebrew word ʽeʹvedh can refer to persons owned by fellowmen. (Ge 12:16; Ex 20:17) Or the term can designate subjects of a king (2Sa 11:21; 2Ch 10:7), subjugated peoples who paid tribute (2Sa 8:2, 6), and persons in royal service, including cupbearers, bakers, seamen, military officers, advisers, and the like, whether owned by fellowmen or not (Ge 40:20; 1Sa 29:3; 1Ki 9:27; 2Ch 8:18; 9:10; 32:9). In respectful address, a Hebrew, instead of using the first person pronoun, would at times speak of himself as a servant (ʽeʹvedh) of the one to whom he was talking. (Ge 33:5, 14; 42:10, 11, 13; 1Sa 20:7, 8) ʽEʹvedh was used in referring to servants, or worshipers, of Jehovah generally (1Ki 8:36; 2Ki 10:23) and, more specifically, to special representatives of God, such as Moses. (Jos 1:1, 2; 24:29; 2Ki 21:10) Though not a worshiper of Jehovah, one who performed a service that was in harmony with the divine will could be spoken of as God’s servant, an example being King Nebuchadnezzar.—Jer 27:6.
The Greek term douʹlos corresponds to the Hebrew word ʽeʹvedh. It is used with reference to persons owned by fellowmen (Mt 8:9; 10:24, 25; 13:27); devoted servants of God and of his Son Jesus Christ, whether human (Ac 2:18; 4:29; Ro 1:1; Ga 1:10) or angelic (Re 19:10, where the word synʹdou·los [fellow slave] appears); and, in a figurative sense, to persons in slavery to sin (Joh 8:34; Ro 6:16-20) or corruption (2Pe 2:19).

You can also read this article.
Ancient Israel: Slavery, Servanthood, and Social Welfare
Overview
This article corrects the common misconception that slavery/servanthood in the legal code of ancient Israel was comparable to the harsh slavery of other ancient cultures and the early United States.

Here is a bit of info, from someone writing from a non-religious point of view.
View attachment 69051

Sorry but I'm not interested in apologetics that attempt to downplay the owning of human beings as property and trying to equate it to indentured servitude, which, it isn't, and I also find that immoral as well anyway. I've seen all this before.

What is described in the Bible is harsh slavery. It is owning human beings as property. And it's endorsed by the God you worship, which is why you're here defending such an immoral act.
Nobody would defend it otherwise.

Yes.


No. Cussing and swearing - using profanity or obscene speech, homosexual acts, promiscuity, viewing pornographic material, being entertained by violence, smoking, getting drunk, oral and anal sex, adultery, revelry / wild parties, and similar vices are obscene to me.

So, human beings owning other human beings as property isn't obscene or immoral to you, but you view cussing as worse than that? Watching porn? Smoking?
For real? That's alarming to me.

I can be your slave, sure.
In fact I am... well not technically, since I have not met you in person, but I would gladly spend myself and be spent, taking the good news of peace to you, at my experience.... if you were interested.

No, you are not my slave right now. But let's arrange it, since you think it's cool. And I'm not talking about some metaphorical slavery like you're talking about. I'm talking about the slavery that is laid out in the Bible where I get to buy you from the surrounding nations that my nation has defeated in battle, and I own you and I can sell you and your children for profit, and I can beat you as long as you don't die within a couple of days. You think this is totally moral, right?

You don't have a problem with that slavery though, right?
You want to own me. What for, may I ask?

Oh, well, whatever I want, I guess. You think it's moral, right?

Perhaps you didn't read the scripture, or you missed them.
Let me post them again.
Here they are. You don't have to read the entire passage. I highlighted the main parts for you.

(Leviticus 25:39-40) 39 “‘If your brother who lives nearby becomes poor and he has to sell himself to you, you must not force him to do slave labor. 40 He should be treated like a hired worker, like a settler. He should serve with you until the Jubilee year. . .

(Leviticus 25:47-50) 47 “‘But if a foreign resident or a settler among you becomes wealthy and your brother has become poor alongside him and must sell himself to the foreign resident or the settler who lives among you, or to a member of the family of the foreign resident, 48 he will continue to have the right of repurchase after he has sold himself. One of his brothers may buy him back, 49 or his uncle or the son of his uncle may buy him back, or any close relative, one of his family, may buy him back. “‘Or if he himself has become wealthy, he may also buy himself back. 50 He should calculate with his purchaser the time from the year he sold himself to him until the Jubilee year, and the money of his sale will correspond to the number of years. His workdays during that time will be assessed at the rate of a hired worker.
51 If there are many years remaining, he should pay his repurchase price in proportion to the years that are left. 52 But if only a few years remain until the Jubilee year, he should then calculate for himself and pay his repurchase price in proportion to the years remaining. 53 He should continue to serve him year by year as a hired worker; and you should see to it that he does not treat him cruelly. 54 However, if he cannot buy himself back on these terms, he will then go free in the year of Jubilee, he and his children with him.

Oops, you're talking about Hebrew slaves, as someone already pointed out to you, so sorry, but this comes off as a tad ingenuous, in light of that.
How about those gentile slaves? This stuff doesn't apply to them now, does it?

I did not say morality is dependent upon the culture and the time period. You misunderstand what I said... I believe.

You said exactly that. Like, word for word, as I just pointed out to you in the last post.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The fastest growing groups are not Christian.
Islam is the fastest-growing major religion in the world..................................

I never said nor believe that Christians are the fastest growing group.
However, the international spreading of Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8 is now on a grand-global scale.
As one historian calculated that out of all the people Jesus spoke with only 1% became a follower.
So, if we apply what he concluded genuine Christians would make up 1% of the population.
Thus, if 8 billion people are alive on Earth today that would make 8 million as Christians. (wheat Christians)
In other words, just as Jesus said his followers would be hated - Matthew 10:22; Matthew 24:9; Luke 21:17
MANY come in Jesus' name but prove false - Matthew 7:21-23

 

[URAVIP2ME]

And what happens to you if you don't worship this God, pray tell?

As the generous business person saved the only company does Not mean employees are forced to return to work.
As an employee can quit and leave at any time, a person can choose to quit worshipping God at any time.
The same as with an employee who quits but has No place to go, No means to support life will just disappear.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As the generous business person saved the only company does Not mean employees are forced to return to work.
As an employee can quit and leave at any time, a person can choose to quit worshipping God at any time.
The same as with an employee who quits but has No place to go, No means to support life will just disappear.

Mmhmm. And where do you end up if you "quit worshipping God at any time?"

 

[nPeace]

We create our moral compass. Humans.

So your compass is different to mine, and there are billions of different moral compasses pointing in different directions. How is that universal?

Sorry but I'm not interested in apologetics that attempt to downplay the owning of human beings as property and trying to equate it to indentured servitude, which, it isn't, and I also find that immoral as well anyway. I've seen all this before.

What is described in the Bible is harsh slavery. It is owning human beings as property. And it's endorsed by the God you worship, which is why you're here defending such an immoral act.
Nobody would defend it otherwise.

It's not my problem that you don't know the Bible.
Besides, you admitted you see no problem with taking away people's freedom, so I don't know what you are really having a problem with.

So, human beings owning other human beings as property isn't obscene or immoral to you, but you view cussing as worse than that? Watching porn? Smoking?
For real? That's alarming to me.

Of course.

No, you are not my slave right now. But let's arrange it, since you think it's cool. And I'm not talking about some metaphorical slavery like you're talking about. I'm talking about the slavery that is laid out in the Bible where I get to buy you from the surrounding nations that my nation has defeated in battle, and I own you and I can sell you and your children for profit, and I can beat you as long as you don't die within a couple of days. You think this is totally moral, right?

You have to prove yourself superior in strength, and able to dominate me.
Otherwise, I see no reason to be your slave.

Oh, well, whatever I want, I guess. You think it's moral, right?

Oops, you're talking about Hebrew slaves, as someone already pointed out to you, so sorry, but this comes off as a tad ingenuous, in light of that.
How about those gentile slaves? This stuff doesn't apply to them now, does it?

I already mentioned, I see no difference in taking a man from his family, and locking him in a cage, and the only place he is permitted to go is a concrete court, surrounded by high fence with barbed wire, surrounded by armed guards... and in some cases, chained with pick in hand, chopping at stone... or something.

Oh wait! There's a difference, the slave in the Israelite's possession weren't caged or chained. They could eat with Israelite families. Enjoy festive occasions with them. Rest up a whole year - no labor... Oh dear. How privileged.
No wonder some willingly begged to be slaves... rather than die... or fight.

You said exactly that. Like, word for word, as I just pointed out to you in the last post.

Yup. You misunderstood. Not sure why.

A) morality is dependent upon the culture and the time period.
B) A lot of things were common back then, which God allowed because of the "culture"

I think I 'd better return to watching Sesame Street again. I must not know what word for word is.

God allowed polygamy. God did not approve of it.
So it cannot be correctly said that God considered polygamy to be moral.
Allowing something does not mean approving or supporting it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So your compass is different to mine, and there are billions of different moral compasses pointing in different directions. How is that universal?

Mine is quite different from yours, given that you think owning human beings as property is moral while I say it's immoral.
Why do I declare that? Not because I claim some sort of universal moral code - that was actually your claim. Well, until you demonstrated that your system is one of moral relativism.

I declare that owning human beings as property is immoral because I think the goal of morality is the well-being of sentient creatures. People who are owned as property have no rights, they don't have the ability to make their own choices for themselves and their loved ones, and a system where some people are slaves while others are slave owners is neither fair nor just. How can we figure this out? Imagine that you are creating a brand new society, from scratch. You do not know who or what you will be in this society. You could be plopped down into any position. Would you create a society where people are owned as property, knowing that you could be one of those people?

It's not my problem that you don't know the Bible.

I know that the Bible and the God in that Bible endorses slavery, which very explicitly explains is the owning of human being(s) as property, including the slaves' children. It tells you where to buy your slaves and it tells you that you own them and their children as your property, forever.

Besides, you admitted you see no problem with taking away people's freedom, so I don't know what you are really having a problem with.

I did? Where? By the way, slaves have a lot more than just their freedom taken from them.

Of course.

Now that, I find obscene. They are quite obviously not on par with each other.
I mean, you seriously think that "cussing" is worse owning a human being as property, in the morals department?

You have to prove yourself superior in strength, and able to dominate me.

I could just quote God's word, which you have wholeheartedly endorsed here. All I have to do is buy you from somebody else, who managed to dominate you in some way.

Otherwise, I see no reason to be your slave.

The God you worship thinks its fine. You said you do as well.

I already mentioned, I see no difference in taking a man from his family, and locking him in a cage, and the only place he is permitted to go is a concrete court, surrounded by high fence with barbed wire, surrounded by armed guards... and in some cases, chained with pick in hand, chopping at stone... or something.

You see no difference in temporarily removing a person from society who is harmful to that society and the people in it, and owning a person and their children as pieces of property for their entire lives, simply because their nation was defeated by yours in a battle?

A person who has been imprisoned for committing a crime still has a ton of rights. And prison guards aren't allowed to take their children from them and sell them as property.

I find your system of morality to be quite immoral and actually frightening.

Oh wait! There's a difference, the slave in the Israelite's possession weren't caged or chained. They could eat with Israelite families. Enjoy festive occasions with them. Rest up a whole year - no labor... Oh dear. How privileged.

I literally just pointed out that it's disingenuous to keep referring to Hebrew slaves when we are clearly talking about non-Hebrew slaves and instead of addressing that, you've just doubled down on Hebrew slaves (which I still find immoral, by the way). Why?

No wonder some willingly begged to be slaves... rather than die... or fight.

I guess if you have to tell yourself that for any of this to make sense, have at it.

If slavery is so great, why aren't you begging to be my slave?

Yup. You misunderstood. Not sure why.

I think you've misunderstood yourself then.

A) morality is dependent upon the culture and the time period.
B) A lot of things were common back then, which God allowed because of the "culture"

Because of the culture makes the morality dependent on the culture. If God allowed something that wouldn't normally be allowed BECAUSE of the culture and the time period in which the culture existed, then what you are describing is moral relativism.

I think I 'd better return to watching Sesame Street again. I must not know what word for word is.

You don't seem to understand the implications of your own arguments, so yeah, maybe you should.

God allowed polygamy. God did not approve of it.

He allowed it, thus making it moral in some particular time period, but not in others. That's moral relativism.

So it cannot be correctly said that God considered polygamy to be moral.
Allowing something does not mean approving or supporting it.

When you're the master of the universe dictating morality to your little minions, yes, it does. Especially when you're the same God who makes lists of commandments and moral pronouncements that you expect your minions to follow.

My system of morality is superior to yours and is not subject to the changing whims and opinions of some God who changes his mind all the time in such a chaotic and nonsensical fashion.

No wonder there are so many Christian denominations in existence - you guys can't even figure it out amongst yourselves.

 

[nPeace]

Mine is quite different from yours, given that you think owning human beings as property is moral while I say it's immoral.
Why do I declare that? Not because I claim some sort of universal moral code - that was actually your claim. Well, until you demonstrated that your system is one of moral relativism.

I declare that owning human beings as property is immoral because I think the goal of morality is the well-being of sentient creatures. People who are owned as property have no rights, they don't have the ability to make their own choices for themselves and their loved ones, and a system where some people are slaves while others are slave owners is neither fair nor just. How can we figure this out? Imagine that you are creating a brand new society, from scratch. You do not know who or what you will be in this society. You could be plopped down into any position. Would you create a society where people are owned as property, knowing that you could be one of those people?


I know that the Bible and the God in that Bible endorses slavery, which very explicitly explains is the owning of human being(s) as property, including the slaves' children. It tells you where to buy your slaves and it tells you that you own them and their children as your property, forever.


I did? Where? By the way, slaves have a lot more than just their freedom taken from them.


Now that, I find obscene. They are quite obviously not on par with each other.
I mean, you seriously think that "cussing" is worse owning a human being as property, in the morals department?


I could just quote God's word, which you have wholeheartedly endorsed here. All I have to do is buy you from somebody else, who managed to dominate you in some way.


The God you worship thinks its fine. You said you do as well.


You see no difference in temporarily removing a person from society who is harmful to that society and the people in it, and owning a person and their children as pieces of property for their entire lives, simply because their nation was defeated by yours in a battle?

A person who has been imprisoned for committing a crime still has a ton of rights. And prison guards aren't allowed to take their children from them and sell them as property.

I find your system of morality to be quite immoral and actually frightening.




I literally just pointed out that it's disingenuous to keep referring to Hebrew slaves when we are clearly talking about non-Hebrew slaves and instead of addressing that, you've just doubled down on Hebrew slaves (which I still find immoral, by the way). Why?

I guess if you have to tell yourself that for any of this to make sense, have at it.

If slavery is so great, why aren't you begging to be my slave?




I think you've misunderstood yourself then.



Because of the culture makes the morality dependent on the culture. If God allowed something that wouldn't normally be allowed BECAUSE of the culture and the time period in which the culture existed, then what you are describing is moral relativism.


You don't seem to understand the implications of your own arguments, so yeah, maybe you should.


He allowed it, thus making it moral in some particular time period, but not in others. That's moral relativism.



When you're the master of the universe dictating morality to your little minions, yes, it does. Especially when you're the same God who makes lists of commandments and moral pronouncements that you expect your minions to follow.

My system of morality is superior to yours and is not subject to the changing whims and opinions of some God who changes his mind all the time in such a chaotic and nonsensical fashion.

No wonder there are so many Christian denominations in existence - you guys can't even figure it out amongst yourselves.

All I get from this basically, is that you have a moral compass that is better than billions of people who do not agree with you. Therefore, you are morally upright, and they aren't.
Thanks.
Good to know you believe in right and wrong.
...and you get to decide what is, right and wrong.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Mmhmm. And where do you end up if you "quit worshipping God at any time?"

As I said ' disappear ' because only humble meek people will inherit the Earth - Psalms 37:9-11; Matthew 5:5.
Those who refuse to live by Jesus' New Commandment found at John 13:34-35 will be: gone forever.
During and also after Jesus' 1,000 year governmental reign over Earth No one will be allowed to go on living that is Not loving as Jesus loves us.
Refusing to love as Jesus' loves will mean a person's perpetual death ( extinction ) - Jeremiah 51:57,39

 

[SkepticThinker]

All I get from this basically, is that you have a moral compass that is better than billions of people who do not agree with you.

Well no, because billions of people don't all believe what you believe. For example, most Christians I know would say that slavery is immoral.

And if these people cannot demonstrate the veracity of their claims, it doesn't matter how many people believe it. Unless you want to get caught in a logical fallacy.

Therefore, you are morally upright, and they aren't.
Thanks.

Nope. I'm not talking to them about their beliefs; I'm talking to you about your beliefs that you have shared in this forum.

Good to know you believe in right and wrong.
...and you get to decide what is, right and wrong.

Most people do exactly that. Including yourself.
I mean, you think slavery is moral.

 

[Gezellig]

...and I don't remember it being mentioned as a prevalent historical practice.

Sodom and Gomorrah is a historical practice. Now some Governments at the international level support homosexuality practiced in these cities.