Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[RumTumTugger]

It's not an arbitrary standard. What part of objective morality didn't you understand? We can't just change it. Doing good to thinking beings is the moral code.

So in others words it is ok to kill someone who is unconscious since if you are unconscious you aren't thinking.

[The Thinker]

For one, you would just be shamed for eternity, not tortured. And He never commanded slavery but regulated indentured servitude. You fail theology/history/biblical hermeneutics forever.

Not in Islam. In Islam you are burned until your skin melts off, and then god grows your skin back and burns it off again, and again, and again....

Biblical slavery is slavery, it is not indentured servitude. In fact in some ways it might even be worse than American slavery in the South.

Read Thom Stark: http://thomstark.net/copan/stark_copan-review.pdf

[Christianbookworm]

Not in Islam. In Islam you are burned until your skin melts off, and then god grows your skin back and burns it off again, and again, and again....

Biblical slavery is slavery, it is not indentured servitude. In fact in some ways it might even be worse than American slavery in the South.

Read Thom Stark: http://thomstark.net/copan/stark_copan-review.pdf

Good thing Islam isn't true, then. You idiot! Give me an actual scholarly source that proves that the voluntary indentured servitude of the OT was actually involuntary race slavery. Keep in mind that kidnapping was a capital crime in Ancient Israel.

[The Thinker]

Well first Thinker, take a breath. You seem rather angry. Second, yes I do live in a just universe, the question would be who or what defines justice. Third, I hold to Christian Conditionalism. But if eternal conscious suffering was the case that would be just. Fourth, as far as soteriology I'm more inclusive - but even here, whatever God does will be in character - loving and just. Fifth, love and trust are the currencies of heaven. Love for God and trust in God is what connects you to God, and by extension everlasting life. Even in human relationships love and trust are the things that intimately connect us to our fellow human beings.

Not angry. It just seems that way perhaps in writing. You said, "I define justice as...." which means it is your opinion unless you can show a logical basis for it. The Muslim defines justice as.....whatever they think their god wants. That's not a good standard. Take for example you saying this...

But if eternal conscious suffering was the case that would be just.

But if eternal conscious suffering wasn't the case that would be just.

But if universalism was the case that would be just.

But if annihilationism was the case that would be just.

All these things would be just if it was the case because to you whatever god does is just, even though the outcome is totally different. I know the basic views on Christianity, so I will ignore most of your assertions about them since they are backed up by zero good evidence.

Even in human relationships love and trust are the things that intimately connect us to our fellow human beings.

Would that be objectively true even if god didn't exist and all things being equal?

As far as Slavery, yes God allowed a commonly practiced, and nearly universal, institution and put limits on it.

If god must compromise his moral standards to accommodate the society he reveals himself in, then would god have done the same thing if childhood prostitution was a near-universal institution and the economy of all ancient societies depended on it?

But I'm not sure why that bothers you so much - after all if you were born in the antebellum South or in some African nations of today you may be perfectly accepting of slavery. Meaning your objection is relative and cultural - nothing more.

You didn't address the dilemma. Slavery is "bad" as you admit, and yet your god is perfect and your universe is just. But compromising morality keeps the universe unjust and is not compatible with perfection. How could a perfect god be a moral compromiser? That's logically incoherent. Please explain.

And if you think slavery is wrong today, you my friend think morality is relative and cultural.

[The Thinker]

What? Why is it morally bad to cause unnecessary suffering? How is that any more than your subjective opinion? If you have, let's say, Communists that don't agree, why is your opinion more valid or correct than theirs?

Well if I asked Jesus, "Why is it morally bad to cause unnecessary suffering?" what do you think he would say?

[The Thinker]

You idiot!

I love that Christian hospitality. It doesn't take much for their true colors to shine.

Give me an actual scholarly source that proves that the voluntary indentured servitude of the OT was actually involuntary race slavery. Keep in mind that kidnapping was a capital crime in Ancient Israel.

Thom Stark is a biblical scholar. And I never said biblical slavery was based on race. Slavery doesn't have to be based on race to be slavery. Lev 25:44-46 says that non-Hebrew slaves can be kept for life and treated harshly. That's ethnic/religious based slavery, which is just as racist.

Oh and, it was a crime to kidnap Hebrew slave in ancient Israel, not non-Hebrew slaves. As Thom Stark notes in his book:

It’s only to Hebrew slaves that all
this applies. Hebrews were indentured servants, to be released on
the seventh year, who could not be kidnapped, and who could not
be treated harshly. Conversely, non-Hebrew slaves (foreign
slaves) were slaves for life, their children were slaves for life.
They could be kidnapped, they could be captured in war, they
could be purchased, against their will. They could be treated
harshly, as “slaves,” which means they could be beaten, even beaten
to death, so long as they didn’t die immediately! This is exactly
like slavery in the antebellum South. In the South, you couldn’t
enslave a U.S. citizen. But you could purchase a kidnapped African.
In the same way, in Israel, you couldn’t permanently enslave
an Israelite, but you could kidnap, capture, or purchase a foreigner
against their will. Moreover, there was in fact a way in which an
Israelite could coerce another Israelite to be a slave for life.

[Christianbookworm]

Well if I asked Jesus, "Why is it morally bad to cause unnecessary suffering?" what do you think he would say?

If an honest seeker asked: Because you should love your neighbor as yourself. If you asked: You already know why. Why do you think so?

[Christianbookworm]

I love that Christian hospitality. It doesn't take much for their true colors to shine.



Thom Stark is a biblical scholar. And I never said biblical slavery was based on race. Slavery doesn't have to be based on race to be slavery. Lev 25:44-46 says that non-Hebrew slaves can be kept for life and treated harshly. That's ethnic/religious based slavery, which is just as racist.

Oh and, it was a crime to kidnap Hebrew slave in ancient Israel, not non-Hebrew slaves. As Thom Stark notes in his book:

You're a fundy atheist. Your modus operandi is to try to deconvert Christians to your hopeless worldview. Jesus wasn't nice to the Pharisees. I don't have to be nice to someone who is just barfing out the same dumb fundy atheist canards. Know your little patch of vomit in Biblical Ethics? Repost that in the Tektonics area. I dare you.

[lilpixieofterror]

Not in Islam. In Islam you are burned until your skin melts off, and then god grows your skin back and burns it off again, and again, and again....

Biblical slavery is slavery, it is not indentured servitude. In fact in some ways it might even be worse than American slavery in the South.

Read Thom Stark: http://thomstark.net/copan/stark_copan-review.pdf

I'm sorry, but anybody who quotes Thom Stark, as a serious source, does not deserve to be taken seriously. Since you like elephant hurling though, try to refute this:

http://www.christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Have fun. Many have tried and failed to refute it.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well if I asked Jesus, "Why is it morally bad to cause unnecessary suffering?" what do you think he would say?

You're begging the question as to what 'unnecessary suffering' is and isn't.

[Christianbookworm]

I'm sorry, but anybody who quotes Thom Stark, as a serious source, does not deserve to be taken seriously. Since you like elephant hurling though, try to refute this:

http://www.christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Have fun. Many have tried and failed to refute it.

Shouldn't he be in trouble for arguing by weblink? He already barfed in Biblical Ethics(in an old thread of mine!). Don't worry, CP already cleaned it up.

[lilpixieofterror]

Shouldn't he be in trouble for arguing by weblink? He already barfed in Biblical Ethics(in an old thread of mine!). Don't worry, CP already cleaned it up.

It's just elephant hurling when somebody doesn't have an argument to speak of. Besides, anybody quoting Thom Stark, as a serious source, does not deserve to be taken seriously.

[Christianbookworm]

It's just elephant hurling when somebody doesn't have an argument to speak of. Besides, anybody quoting Thom Stark, as a serious source, does not deserve to be taken seriously.

What do you expect from a fundy atheist? Who's Thom Stark anyway? Never heard of him. No relation to Tony Stark, right?

[KingsGambit]

What do you expect from a fundy atheist? Who's Thom Stark anyway? Never heard of him. No relation to Tony Stark, right?

A very liberal Christian.

[lilpixieofterror]

What do you expect from a fundy atheist? Who's Thom Stark anyway? Never heard of him. No relation to Tony Stark, right?

He's a very liberal Christian, who says a lot of silly stuff. JPH has taken him on before and several Christians have taken him on too. He's very good at arguing against strawman and passive-aggressiveness, but nothing really of substance (the review of his book, here, reveals quite a bit of that). Again, anybody quoting Thom Stark, as a serious source, does not deserve to be taken seriously.