|
Author
|
Topic: Is God good?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 555 of 722 (684791)
12-18-2012 4:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 551 by jaywill
12-18-2012 4:29 PM
|
|
The mentioning of slavery as in indentured servitude widely practiced in ancient times, seems heavily designed to protect the slave from abuse. The Levitical laws seem to me to lean towards an overall improvement of a social practice. Yeah ... like teaching cannibals to use napkins.
To our modern senses the word "slavery" is very negatively charged. Indentured servitude could be a way of escaping starvation or to repay depts. ( Of course indentured servitude could also be a hell sometimes ). These indentured servants are often called "slaves" in the Bible. The word "slaves" to most of our 21rst century reactions conjures up the concept of the Atlantic Slave Trade and antibellum slavery. Which is what it should conjure up, because the differences between antebellum slavery in the U.S. and slavery in the Bible were negligible. A slave is "property" (Exodus 21:21, Leviticus 25:46). People are "forced" to become slaves (Jeremiah 34:16). Slaves are "held in bondage" (Jeremiah 34:9, Jeremiah 34:10). The opposite of slave is "free" (Deuteronomy 32:36, 1 Kings 14:10, 2 Kings 9:8, 2 Kings 14:26). To cease being a slave is to be "freed" (Exodus 6:6, Exodus 21:26, Jeremiah 34:9, Jeremiah 34:10). The masters of slaves "oppress them with forced labor" (Exodus 1:11). A slave may be "bought" (Leviticus 22:11, Leviticus 25:44, Ecclesiastes 2:7) and "sold" (Leviticus 25:42, Deuteronomy 24:7, Esther 7:4, Job 3:19, Psalms 105:17). A slave may be given as a gift (Genesis 20:14) or bequeathed by his master to his children "as inherited property" (Leviticus 25:46). If through negligence someone causes the death of a slave, compensation is paid to his "master" not to his family (Exodus 21:32). It is legitimate to beat a slave with a rod, so long as the beating is not so severe that the slave dies as a direct result of the beating (Exodus 21:20-21). That's slavery.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 551 by jaywill, posted 12-18-2012 4:29 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 556 of 722 (684793)
12-18-2012 4:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 549 by jaywill
12-18-2012 3:56 PM
|
|
Re: But that is NOT Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution
Your innuendos or accusations of untruthfulness do not make sense to me. Your charges of being a liar and otherwise less than straightforward do not make sense to me. But if you're having that hard of a time trusting that I am not involved with honest dialogue, albeit rather opinionated, its your own problem, not mine. You're resorting to poisoning the well. I don't resort to calling people liars just because I strongly disagree with them. Nor do I. I call people liars because they tell lies, untruthful if they don't tell the truth, and dishonest if they make stuff up without spending five minutes to find out the facts about the subject on which they wish to bloviate. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 549 by jaywill, posted 12-18-2012 3:56 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 558 of 722 (684798)
12-18-2012 5:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 557 by jaywill
12-18-2012 4:59 PM
|
|
For those still wondering whether jaywill has any facts that he is willing to present in favor of his fantasies, the answer is apparently still no. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 557 by jaywill, posted 12-18-2012 4:59 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 573 of 722 (684857)
12-19-2012 12:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 561 by jaywill
12-18-2012 5:39 PM
|
|
Now I take a turn to call Dr. Adaquate dishonest for excluding important information about the capturing of the enemy's women to become WIVES, not sex slaves. Though Dr. Adaquate references the verses as 10 - 14 (10 THROUGH 14) the doctor curiously excluded verse 13 - 14: Verse 11 - "And you see a beautiful woman among the captives and desire her and would take her to yourself as a wife. Verse 12 - You shall bring her within your house, and she shall shave her head, trim her nails, Verse 13 - And take her clothes of captivity away from her. And she shall dwell in your house and mourn her father and mother for a full month. And afterwards you shall go in unto her and be her husband, and she shall be a wife to you. Verse 14 - And if [after a time] you do not delight in her, you shall let her go wherever she wishes. But you must not sell her for money; you shall NOT DEAL WITH HER AS A SLAVE, because you have humbled her." You want to MARRY one of the captive women ? Okay, she lives in your house not as a captive for a full month. You let her mourn for her family for that time while you support her and do not touch her. Afterwards you can marry her and be her HUSBAND (not slave master) and she can be your WIFE. You shall not deal with her as a SLAVE. If you change your fickle mind, she goes out as a divorced wife. Presumably with the proper certificate to protect her from your lusty wishy washy whims on any given lonely night. Now WHY didn't Dr. Adaquate adaquately quote the passage as he advertized ? Because what he accuses me of he has just given example of in spades - dishonest and sloppy research. I did of course quote "that thou wouldest have her to thy wife", as everyone can see. So congratulations on combining stupidity, dishonesty, and hypocrisy. I did not deny that after the woman was kidnapped, she was to be forced into marriage; on the contrary, the quotation I supplied makes this quite clear. I merely maintain that this is an example of kidnapping sanctioned by the Bible --- which it is. You yourself describe it as "the capturing of the enemy's women", so you have not even attempted to deny my point, preferring to make yourself ridiculous with your pitiful whinging about imaginary "dishonesty". Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 561 by jaywill, posted 12-18-2012 5:39 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 574 of 722 (684864)
12-19-2012 2:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 571 by jaywill
12-18-2012 9:43 PM
|
|
The aftermath of Joshua's victories are a lot less gruesome than the annals of the ancient Near East major empires. That is the Hittite and Egyptian of the 2nd millennium BC, the Aramaean, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian or Greek of the 1rst millennium BC. The Persians, eh?
Unlike Assyrian kings, Cyrus was known for his mercy rather than his cruelty. For example, he allowed the Hebrews, who had been captives in Babylon for over fifty years to return to the holy city of Jerusalem, instead of turning them into slaves. He returned sacred items that were stolen from them and allowed the rebuilding of their capital and the temple. Cyrus also allowed the Hebrews to continue living and worshiping as they chose. The Jewish prophet, Isaiah, called Cyrus "God's shepherd," and said that "God would go before him and level the mountains." Cyrus's generosity toward the Jews was not an isolated event. He and his successors employed a policy of adaptation and reconciliation toward all of their new subjects. Did any of the peoples conquered by Joshua show a similar enthusiasm for him? Did they call him "God's shepherd" and say that "God would go before him and level the mountains"? Oh, right, they were dead weren't they? Otherwise they would doubtless have praised his mercy, his policy of reconciliation, and his religious tolerance.
Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 BC) - His annals discribed the flaying of live victims, the impaling of others on poles, and building up heaps of body parts for a showy display. They boasted of gouging out the eyes of enemy troops. They bragged about cutting off their ears and limbs. Severed heads were displayed around the city. You could make a slogan out of that. "Jehovah --- Not Quite As Evil As The Assyrians." It's not saying much though. Nor am I. No-one worships me. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 571 by jaywill, posted 12-18-2012 9:43 PM | | jaywill has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 575 of 722 (684865)
12-19-2012 2:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 565 by jaywill
12-18-2012 7:38 PM
|
|
Anti kidnapping laws in the OT - "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be out to death." (Exodus 21:16) "If a man kidnaps is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that THIEF shall DIE; so you shall purge the evil from among you." (Deut. 24:7) The POW - prisoner of war must not then be considered as kidnapped person. And since the Ten Commandments say "thou shalt not kill" the people killed in the wars of the Israelites must not then be considered dead. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 565 by jaywill, posted 12-18-2012 7:38 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 576 by kofh2u, posted 12-19-2012 7:26 AM | | Dr Adequate has not replied | | | Message 580 by jaywill, posted 12-19-2012 12:28 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 596 of 722 (685003)
12-19-2012 11:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 595 by kofh2u
12-19-2012 10:09 PM
|
|
Re: rule of war??? or not?
So what have conquerors done with the women, traditionally, after decimating the enemy destroying every local economy, killing off all the young potential husbands and breadwinners?? Y'know, the conquerors don't have to do that. Even if enforced marriage was the best solution to the problem which they made, an alternative would be to not make the problem.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 595 by kofh2u, posted 12-19-2012 10:09 PM | | kofh2u has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 597 of 722 (685004)
12-19-2012 11:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 580 by jaywill
12-19-2012 12:28 PM
|
|
As in secular society, differences were recognized from civil actions and those in military conflicts. So it is OK to kidnap a woman if you first exterminate her culture? Let's hope the people who carried out the transatlantic slave trade knew that. We wouldn't want them to commit sins, would we?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 580 by jaywill, posted 12-19-2012 12:28 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 635 of 722 (685542)
12-23-2012 3:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 630 by jaywill
12-22-2012 10:20 PM
|
|
I never said that Hitler was a good Christian. But neither was he a Darwinian:
The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier) For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier) The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed. (Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 630 by jaywill, posted 12-22-2012 10:20 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 637 by kofh2u, posted 12-23-2012 4:26 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 638 of 722 (685562)
12-23-2012 6:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 637 by kofh2u
12-23-2012 4:26 PM
|
|
But you do agree he was a Progressive socialist democrat who believed in the idea that social engineering can mould a better world, i.e. Social Darwinism however subtle?? No, because I don't drool out ridiculous lies and nonsense. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 637 by kofh2u, posted 12-23-2012 4:26 PM | | kofh2u has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 639 by kofh2u, posted 12-23-2012 6:29 PM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 640 of 722 (685568)
12-23-2012 6:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 639 by kofh2u
12-23-2012 6:29 PM
|
|
Re: Hitler was a Socialist Democrat
Democrats don't usually start dictatorships, 'cos of dictatorship being kinda the opposite of democracy. And socialists don't usually have a policy of killing all the socialists, which is pretty much the opposite of socialism. You're right that the Nazi Party originally had a leftish component, the so-called "beefsteak Nazis". Then Hitler had them all shot. Oh, and he made trade unions illegal. The other thing you evidently don't know is the definition of "Social Darwinism", which is the very opposite of "social engineering". It's a doctrine of extremist laissez-faire. (And has nothing to do with Darwin, who opposed it.) Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 639 by kofh2u, posted 12-23-2012 6:29 PM | | kofh2u has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 707 of 722 (686980)
01-06-2013 9:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 706 by jaywill
01-05-2013 12:01 PM
|
|
Re: More squared circles
I'll go tell the potential rapist that this is God's universe and that He has certain laws which He will enforce. I will tell him that NOTHING will escape God's scrutinization and that the sinner can have redemption in Christ or perdition. You go and tell the potential rapist that you know God has not done too well in creating the world. You tell him that you have in your imaginative collection two or maybe three or more BETTER ways in which God could have administered things. I think the former presentation from the Bible will be of more help to him. I think your teaching of the inept God who needs to be presented with a few handy alternatives on how to be God from you will be of less help to him. If that was true, and I'm not sure that it is, it has no bearing on the question before us. By analogy, it might improve the behavior of children if they all believed that Santa is watching to see if they're naughty or nice; but this has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether there is a Santa Claus, or whether, given this hypothesis, he himself is nice or naughty. And your own reasoning could just as well be turned against you, if only it worked. Imagine a religious zealot about to condemn a heretic to the flames, or fly a plane into a building. Wouldn't it produce a better outcome if he suddenly decided that God doesn't exist? Yes, it would. And yet of course that's no reason to think that God doesn't exist. The consequences, good or bad, of people believing or disbelieving a supposedly substantive proposition can have no possible relevance to its truth.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 706 by jaywill, posted 01-05-2013 12:01 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 708 by jaywill, posted 01-07-2013 9:13 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 712 of 722 (687122)
01-07-2013 6:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 711 by jaywill
01-07-2013 4:49 PM
|
|
Re: No Hydrogen Bomb there
Paradoxically evil demonstrates God's existence. Couldn't he have used less evil to prove his existence? Heck, you'd think that an omnipotent being could have proved his existence without using evil at all. I mean, I can prove my existence without being evil.
Evil is a departure from the way things should be. You would not know what crooked is unless you knew what straight is. God must exist first to define what good is. Yeah, but my grandfather's socks are sometimes purple. Oh, wait, we're not playing Non Sequiturs?
I don't think objective moral values exist if God does not exist. I think I've already addressed this nonsense. But in any case, it doesn't matter, because the argument from evil involves investigating the corollaries of the proposition that God does exist. If the existence of God implies an objective standard of good and evil, that can be made part of the argument. By analogy, imagine the following conversation. A: There is an elephant in your bathroom. B: But an elephant is a large and tangible material object. If there was an elephant in my bathroom, then I'd keep bumping into it every time I tried to take a bath. Your supposed elephant is purely imaginary. A: But you see, your argument fails. An imaginary elephant would be intangible, so you wouldn't bump into it. The elephant must first exist in order to be tangible. But B's argument involves investigating the consequences of the elephant being real, which include the elephant being tangible and his ability to bump into it. It doesn't require the elephant to be real and tangible, rather it asks what if it was? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 711 by jaywill, posted 01-07-2013 4:49 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 714 by jaywill, posted 01-07-2013 9:40 PM | | Dr Adequate has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 713 of 722 (687127)
01-07-2013 7:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 708 by jaywill
01-07-2013 9:13 AM
|
|
Re: More squared circles
Well, this doesn't seem to relate to my post at all. You asked, what were the consequences of telling a potential rapist X rather than Y. I pointed out that this has no bearing on the truth of X or Y. Your subsequent post doesn't answer that point or even discuss it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 708 by jaywill, posted 01-07-2013 9:13 AM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2