sschlichter

that is not about the hebrews, that is about the law. It says they should not harm their slaves and if they did, they were immoral.

Johnny Skeptic

If naturalism is true, you would not be wrong, but you would be impractical because if naturalism is true, it has given almost everyone a conscience which compels them to do at least some good things. It would not be practical for a man to never do good things since that would cause physical and emotional distress.

If a God exists who is amoral, the same argument applies.

Johnny Skeptic

But that does not tell what you are after. What are you after?

premjan

I went by the Wikipedia article, but it actually appears that Zarathushtra was opposed more generally to social classes and made no explicit reference to slaves:
http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/article/dgm/vol2.htm

Johnny Skeptic

The law says that if a Hebrew killed a Hebrew, he was to be put to death. It also says that if Hebrew killed a slave, he would only be punished, and not punished at all if the slave recovered within a few days. That was immoral.

It was also immoral for the law to require the death penalty for working on the Sabbath Day, for cursing at a person's parents, and for practicing the freedom of religion by worshipping other Gods. Perhaps you would like to claim that any kind of conduct at any time in history was acceptable for person A as long as he was more moral than person B was.

Your presupposition is that a loving, moral God inspired the Bible. I am curious how you arrived at the conclusion that God wanting slaves to be treated well, but killed some of those very same slaves himself, was loving and moral.

Johnny Skeptic

I have never said otherwise.

I have never said otherwise, and for that matter, President Bush could be an alien. What evidence do you have that President Bush is not an alien?

No, your promise was not fulfilled in that discussion because you abandoned the discussion soonafter I asked you why you believe that the God of the Bible exists. A discussion about an issue as complex as the existence of the God of the Bible is certainly not one or two posts. You like to ask questions, but you do not like to give answers.

Consider the following:

Will you please tell me how any of that tells why you believe that the God of the Bible exists? Why I believe that I believe does not sufficiently tell why you believe that you believe. How does why I believe what I believe tell why you believe that the God of the Bible exists.

Regarding "The God of the Bible is a separate question," that is correct, and that is the exact separate question that I asked you, which was "Why do you believe that the God of the Bible exists?"

Since I am agnostic, I obviously do not promote naturalism or intelligent.

I have never said that atheists do not have faith, although some atheists at the Evolution/Creation Forum would be happy to discuss the issue of faith with you.

Regarding "If we are trading question for question.......," that is cute since you have made it clear that you do not have any intention of trading question for question. If you did you would be willing to have a discussion regarding why you believe that the God of the Bible exists. You are obviously not confident enough of your debating abilities to do that, although I was confident enough of my debating ablities to start a thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum that is titled "If is doubtful that a God inspired the Bible."

sschlichter

That is my good thing. I am clearing old ladies off the road for the common good. Conscience can be swayed and is subjective. Many things I thought were wrong when I was a kid became very easy to do later in life. What is the difference?

I also find it very practical to wipe out the homeless because they are a drag on the system. What is impractical about this?

Sheshbazzar

For those who may have missed it, what Steve is referring to is a statement that I made way back in Post #906, which just like most of the things that he finds regarding the subject of slavery in his Bible, he chooses to remove my words out of their context and use them as evidence of something, that the entirety of the context they was presented in shows to be no more than a satirical and ironic observation.
What I actually said was;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar There may well be an Eternal, a just, and loving God, BUT IF THERE IS, THE ONE THING THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, IS THAT HE (or SHE) IS MOST DEFINATELY NOT THAT FABRICATED ABOMINATION THAT IS LAID OUT WITHIN THE HEBREW/CHRISTIAN BOOKS. IF THAT -THING- IS THE ONLY "GOD", ONE MIGHT WELL BE BETTER OFF WORSHIPPING ROCKS, FIRE, AN IDOL OF MOLOCH, OR EVEN A DOG; all of which would prove less harmful to mankind that that fraudulent Jew god and religion that you and your ilk have long labored to foist off upon us through institutionalised deceit and murder.

It must sheer desperation ( because stupidity is off limits) for Steve to attempt to paint this as being any endosement of his Biblegawd, or of his imaginings of any gawd.

I have stated quite clearly in this thread, and in many others that I do NOT believe in a "god" like that immoral and dispicable anthromorphised -thing- that is presented as "god" in Jewish and Christian literature.

By conscience, I deny that any such an abomination has any basis in reality, existing purely as the product of mens imaginations, a cumulative progression of ever more blatant fabrications and outright willful lies.

I might -wish- that there was a real and just and compassionate god, for such would certainly see to it that this sick joke of Judaeo/Christian god would be the first thing to be eliminated from his or her universe, and from the affairs of men.
That this stupidity and evilness of religion has advanced unchecked for so many thousands of years is only further proof that no such god exists, and if he/she did still exist in spite of this, he/she would also be equally immoral and unworthy of worship for not stepping in and putting a quick and decisive end to the worlds sufferings.

Dismissing all imaginary "gods", I put my trust in truth, in the eternity of time, and of space, and in the progress of natural processes, to bring an end to all of this.

I appriciate the original concept of Ha'Shem, and what the name YHWH in itself implied, before the latter Isrealite/Jews hijacked the term, and working like so many dung beetles, rolled it up into their little ball of shit, so distorting and profaning it by their lying stories and by their evil works.

Johnny Skeptic

If naturalism is true, it compels the majority people to refrain from doing the things that you mentioned. The same argument applies if a God exists, and is amoral. Under those circumstances, it would be impractical for a man to be compelled to do some good things, but always act contrary to what he is compelled to do because that would cause emotional distress.

If free will does not exist, obviously what you said is irrelevant. What evidence do you have that free will exists?

sschlichter

I did not imply that you endorsed the God of the Bible. While claiming that the God of the Bible is immoral (using the death of children as the case) you claimed that...

How is this compatible with the existence of death and suffering of children? Shouldn't the reasons you eliminate the God of the Bible eliminate any eternal and just God. I think you could beleive in a just God that is not eternal or an eternal God that is not just but the reason you are disqualifying the God of the Bible should preclude this possibility as well.