They Are Going After The Churches:

[The Thinker]

It is never "commanded." You "may..." And if God "allowed" things in the past that He didn't allow today that would not necessarily mean that He changed, only that He accommodated our natures until He could bring men to a higher realization, to a higher moral ground.

But god never says slavery is morally wrong, even though he had numerous opportunities when he could have just said slavery is morally wrong. So you cannot say he allowed slavery in the past and wouldn't allow it today. You have no justification your god is against human slavery. And it Numbers 31 he commands genocide and the keeping of virgin girls, and in Judges 1:21-35 when the lord "was with" the Israelites they forced the Canaanites into slavery.

[seer]

In your world your arbitrarily defined values are held by an arbitrarily defined god. An ISIS member could claim the same thing about his universe using a different god and different values and claim whatever those values and god are is what he can assert as "just." To me that in no way indicates his moral views are superior to mine. And again, your god is jealous, angry, vengeful, and thinks slavery is OK - and these must be immutable traits according to you, and so that must mean slavery is morally acceptable in principle by your view even today. I do not find that superior at all. In fact, it seems inferior.

Nonsense Thinker, you are lost. It does not matter for this discussion on how one subjectively defines justice, or love or mercy or goodness. Those opinions vary. And we are not arguing about epistemology but about what is ontological. In your world no moral or ethical quality can be universal, immutable or permanent. Our best moral instincts are the accidental byproducts of biological processes, as transitory and as mutable as our fickle and ephemeral natures. This is the bottom line Thinker, I ultimately live in a just, moral universe you live in an unjust and a-moral universe. Now if you think your position is superior or even comparable there is little I can say, I believe it is decidedly not so.

Yes it is true. It doesn't matter whether it is by accident or not, if love and justice serve the species, it benefits us, just as much as if we were planned the same exact way as our accident, and therefore this would exist independently of god. And if selfishness and cruelty are bad according to your god, your god must have logical reasons for why this is so, and if he does, those logical reasons must exist independently of god, otherwise you're left with an arbitrary brute fact "it just is" or circular reasoning -- which means you can never escape the trilemma -- which means your view is not in any way superior to mine.

That makes no sense, since in your world there is no right way for humans to be, even if certain ethics serve our species you can not even make the argument that our survival is a moral good. And tell me why those logical reasons must exist independently rather than them simply being His logical reasons based on His character and omniscience?

[The Thinker]

Nonsense Thinker, you are lost. It does not matter for this discussion on how one subjectively defines justice, or love or mercy or goodness. Those opinions vary. And we are not arguing about epistemology but about what is ontological.

Of course it matters. Unless you can give me an objective definition of justice your claim is no better than the person in ISIS. In his world, he claims to have justice, and infidels like you burn in hell for eternity. Unless you can give me a logical demonstration why the values you think are god are good, all you have is a bald assertion. As such, you have nothing superior to me.

In your world no moral or ethical quality can be universal, immutable or permanent. Our best moral instincts are the accidental byproducts of biological processes, as transitory and as mutable as our fickle and ephemeral natures. This is the bottom line Thinker, I ultimately live in a just, moral universe you live in an unjust and a-moral universe. Now if you think your position is superior or even comparable there is little I can say, I believe it is decidedly not so.

It is irrelevant whether an ethical quality is universal, immutable, or permanent for it to have value or be objective to us human beings. It is irrelevant whether our moral instincts are the accidental byproducts of biological processes for them to be good or bad or to matter and have the same exact effect if they were planned.

The bottom line is that your universe is no more "just" than the one an ISIS member believes in (where you burn in hell for eternity) unless you can logically demonstrate why your definition of justice and goodness is the correct one. Until you do so, all you are doing is illogically asserting you live in a just and moral universe, when you don't. I can just as easily say that in my universe billions of people do not go to hell for eternity which means that in your universe there is infinitely more suffering than in mine and so mine is just and yours isn't. There, now my view is superior to yours.

And of course I notice you didn't even attempt to refute my first paragraph. Instead you chose to just assert your point of view again with no logical foundation for it.

That makes no sense, since in your world there is no right way for humans to be, even if certain ethics serve our species you can not even make the argument that our survival is a moral good.

It makes perfect sense, and you have not at all avoided the trilemma. If god has a right way for humans to be, he either made it up arbitrarily, or he has logical reasons why he wants us to be that way. If the former, it's just a whim, no better than anyone else's opinion. If the latter, the reasons must exist independently of god. If they do not exist independently of god, you will get stuck in either arbitrariness or circular logic. And once again you're stuck. You can't make the argument that our survival is a moral good on your view. Is it good because god wants it? Why does that make it good objectively? It doesn't. It's subjective and based on god's opinion. He could change his mind at any time.

And tell me why those logical reasons must exist independently rather than them simply being His logical reasons based on His character and omniscience?

Easy. If they are "simply...His logical reasons based on His character and omniscience" and they do not exist independently they are not intelligible. Imagine an ISIS member saying killing Christians is good because god commands it. Is that in any way in your honest opinion a good logical justification? If no, you have a problem: That is the same exact logic you use to justify your moral views. No difference. You each claim your god is the locus of morality and his commands are what's good. But it's just an assertion, there is no intelligibility to it. All you've got is a brute fact basically saying: it just is. You have no explanation why his character is actually good. Just a bare assertion and no logic.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's completely irrelevant to the fact that the Bible condones slavery. It is the principle here that matters. You do know that right? And European colonial powers kept slavery in their colonies until the 1800s and justified it through the Bible which ensured generations of humans wouldn't have dignity for nearly two millennia after Christianity's start. What else would you expect from a perfect deity?

So your point is totally mute. Once again.

Sorry non-thinker, but it doesn't and your soundbites show that you're too stupid to understand the context. Plenty of people have done the work to show you're wrong and very wrong at that. Glenn Miller has a pretty good slavery and the Bible series too found here. We both know though that you won't read it and instead throw out ad hominem's and more of your drooling stupidity because you can't refute it. I'm also well aware that some people attempted to use the Bible to support slavery and it's funny how you flat ignore that the abolitionist movement was preached from the pulpit from Christians and church's all over the world, for centuries. However; that side of the story also doesn't fit into your mold and thus you ignore it. Once a fundy, always a fundy, eh non-thinker?

[lilpixieofterror]

Force people to serve me or else? That's an absurd parody of my view. Please try to be more logical. Or, go back to serving your husband's needs where you belong and as god intended.

It's not an 'absurd parody' of your view at all because you're the one arguing in support of the view that people should be forced, though threat of law, to serve others or else. Not me. Not my fault that your insults end up turning around on you and putting all this egg all over your face. I personally prefer to be aware of where people stand on issues, so I know who might spit in my food and who wouldn't, but perhaps you prefer your food with a little snot? It's rather cute to watch you scream about me being 'my husband's servant' even though I already refuted you on this one too, but just like the Glenn Miller series on slavery and the Bible, you're just too stupid to refute his essay on women in the Bible too. When you're done with all these sexist comments and show how much you fear strong women, Gleen Miller's series still requires an answer (in case your tiny mind forgot where it was, it's found here).

[Tassman]

That that is the point, Title 2 of the 64 Act went too far, though I agree with the rest of it. No business should be forced into associations that they do not want to be in. This concept is completely antithetical to the Founding principles of this nation.

Because of what I have been saying - it forces businesses into associations that they may not want to be in. No such law or ideal was known in this nation for nearly 200 years,

ALL the Amendments were crafted in the spirit of The Constitution and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment forms the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

and it certainly would not have been approved by the Founding Fathers.

Yes it would have been approved by the Founding Fathers given the 1st Amendment, with its Separation of Church and State, as the courts have mostly decided.

[NorrinRadd]

Yes it does. The quicker you realize that the quicker you won't be in denial.

If you care to adduce some specific examples, we can discuss them.

[Tassman]

What are you talking about? I don't need or want these laws. Listen Tass, if you owned Bakery and did not want to bake a cake for my Church party I would not want you to be forced by law to do it. All men should have the freedom to refuse - equally.

All men have the "freedom" to receive service - equally.

Yes you prefer forced labor. We understand.

No one's forcing you to operate a "place of public accommodation" (as defined) but if you so choose then under the Civil Rights Act "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation...without discrimination or segregation"

http://citizensource.com/History/20t...A1964/CRA2.htm

[Tassman]

I doubt that any of us "want" that per se. But we are willing to accept that unlikely but possible consequence of greater freedom and less government intrusion.

Without "government intrusion" Rosa Parks would still be sitting at the back of the bus and schools would still be segregated.

[Tassman]

That is not true at all. God created us for a purpose, and fulfilling that purpose is what is best for us.

REALLY! Prove it.

There is no such teleology if we were created by the blind forces of nature. Love and justice may serve the species, but only accidentally, at other times selfishness and cruelty may so serve the species - eliminating the weak and infirmed from the gene pool. There is no "right" way for humans to be in your world.

As with all animals we have a purpose-driven life; one of survival and reproduction. And we, as a social species, achieve this by living in community. These communal instincts evolved naturally and form the basis upon which we build our moral codes. No gods necessary or likely.

[seer]

No, it forces one man to serve another man under the threat of law. It is as simple as that. And unheard for nearly 200 years (except for slavery), and antithetical to the vision of the Founders and freedom in general.

ALL the Amendments were crafted in the spirit of The Constitution and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment forms the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Nonsense, there is nothing in the 14th Amendment that would force a private business owner into serving whom he did not choose to serve.

Yes it would have been approved by the Founding Fathers given the 1st Amendment, with its Separation of Church and State, as the courts have mostly decided.

Really, show me from their own words that they would agree to forcing men into associations - business or private - that they did not choose to be in. They believed in the Freedom of Association- unlike the totalitarian left.

[seer]

REALLY! Prove it.

Sure, as soon as you prove that you are rational. I'll be waiting.

[seer]

All men have the "freedom" to receive service - equally.

Really - show me that in the Constitution.

[seer]

Of course it matters. Unless you can give me an objective definition of justice your claim is no better than the person in ISIS. In his world, he claims to have justice, and infidels like you burn in hell for eternity. Unless you can give me a logical demonstration why the values you think are god are good, all you have is a bald assertion. As such, you have nothing superior to me.

Why would your subjective definition of justice even play a role in this discussion? In other words, if I don't meet your personal definition I lose. That is stupid and impossible.

It is irrelevant whether an ethical quality is universal, immutable, or permanent for it to have value or be objective to us human beings. It is irrelevant whether our moral instincts are the accidental byproducts of biological processes for them to be good or bad or to matter and have the same exact effect if they were planned.

It is irrelevant to whom? You? But the point is, if we are merely the byproduct of blind natural forces then there is no right way for man to be, morally. Kindness at times may further survival, cruelty at times may do the same. Biology, not ethical ideals, decide how we act and you never know where biology will lead or what it will cause us to do, morally.

It makes perfect sense, and you have not at all avoided the trilemma. If god has a right way for humans to be, he either made it up arbitrarily, or he has logical reasons why he wants us to be that way. If the former, it's just a whim, no better than anyone else's opinion. If the latter, the reasons must exist independently of god. If they do not exist independently of god, you will get stuck in either arbitrariness or circular logic. And once again you're stuck. You can't make the argument that our survival is a moral good on your view. Is it good because god wants it? Why does that make it good objectively? It doesn't. It's subjective and based on god's opinion. He could change his mind at any time.

Of course He has logical reasons, He is the source of logic. But they are still His reasons, and need not exist independently - that does not follow. For instance let's say that God created free rational creature to love and who will love Him in return. That is His reason, and rational, so why does that reason need to exist independently of God?

[The Thinker]

Sorry non-thinker, but it doesn't and your soundbites show that you're too stupid to understand the context. Plenty of people have done the work to show you're wrong and very wrong at that. Glenn Miller has a pretty good slavery and the Bible series too found here. We both know though that you won't read it and instead throw out ad hominem's and more of your drooling stupidity because you can't refute it. I'm also well aware that some people attempted to use the Bible to support slavery and it's funny how you flat ignore that the abolitionist movement was preached from the pulpit from Christians and church's all over the world, for centuries. However; that side of the story also doesn't fit into your mold and thus you ignore it. Once a fundy, always a fundy, eh non-thinker?

Ad homenims? That's basically all you're capable of: middle school insults because you have no argument most of the time. Well, in keeping with middle school level name calling, sorry lilditzyofstupidity, the claim that all forms of biblical slavery were not real slavery has been refuted over and over again. If you could capture foreigners and make them perform forced labor (which is slavery) and you can sell them to other Israelites who are not obligated to set them free after a certain time like with Hebrew servants, and you do not have to treat them according to standards you abide by with Hebrew slaves (Lev 25:46), you in effect have a form a slavery that is very much like the US south (which by the way is not the only form of slavery). And what Christians did or didn't do regarding slavery is technically irrelevant to my point. The only thing relevant is whether the biblical god condones slavery, that's it. So everything you said is totally irrelevant to my point. Like I said, you are better off being busy serving your husband's needs like god intended, because when you are not in your place you tend to look foolish.