Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 01-03-2009, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick F

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

.

A malevolent sort might be prone to abuse a slave and the law prevented that.

Boy you really have to be able to twist scripture in your mind to believe this. The law allows for a sever beating of slaves, even girl slaves, and with a rod.

Quote:

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the(N) slave is his money.

How on earth can you twist this to say this protects a slave? This law means that if you just arbitrarily decided a woman (that you own) isn't working fast enough, you can beat her with a rod almost to the point of death and as long as she survives, then you completely get away it. You're actually allowed to do under Yahweh's law.

I was forced to run, do pushup's, was hit infrequently but never where harm was done. It was for the purpose of training and since I was given bullets and grenades my attention was required.

The OT law allows for punishment but it defines it as punishment where if the servant is harmed, then the servant goes free.

yes, the law allows for punishment. You will find that the same severity is allowed for free men, children, and every one else - ie the rod. You added the word severe. Maybe you could help define when punishment becomes severe - in a universal way for all cultures. Is a spanking severe for when a child will not stay out of the street? Tell me exactly at what point it becomes severe. Don't just throw out an extreme example. Give me the rule you are using to determine that the law is too severe. If you are the judge of the law, then let us in on the rule you are using. I would hate to think it was arbitrary and you are just assuming it is too severe or just want it to appear too severe.

sugarhitman · 01-03-2009, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick F

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Because it means that if the slave died immediately from this beating then that would show that it was intentional and death was the punishment. That law serves to protect slaves from abuse because if abuse of slaves were the accepted norm.....then why the law?

That’s just amazing sugarhitman. The passages merely states that if the slave survives the beating and doesn’t die from it, the master is not to be punished. And you manage to infer that that means the beating wasn’t intended to kill the slave so that makes it ok? Sorry, but that’s self delusion.

First of all, there’s NOTHING in that law about “intent”. The law is void of it. The master would be punished for beating the slave to death whether it was intentional or not. Second, there is NOTHING in that law to even suggest that if the slave didn’t die, but the master actually intended to kill her, that he would be punished. It’s simply not there. You’re imagining it.

Second, you still have a huge problem which is that, under this law, a master could decide that he wasn’t happy with a woman’s work and beat her severely with a rod and completely get away with it. To say that a law that allows a man to severely beat a woman with a rod is “protecting” her is just willful blindness.

Even freemen were beaten by law for infractions against the law. The fact that slaves were to be freed if injured shows that these laws serves to protect slaves from abuse. Like I said if abuse or killings were allowed that law would not be there in the first place. If the slave died during the beating that means it was intentional and the death was to be avenged....if the death happens afterwards then that suggests it was not intentional but an accident.

Again I ask if abuse of slaves were legal then why these laws in the first place? Surely not to give the right to injure and kill them at will?

Exciter · 01-03-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I was forced to run, do pushup's, was hit infrequently but never where harm was done.

You volunteered to do those things and have them done to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

It was for the purpose of training and since I was given bullets and grenades my attention was required.

Yes, so you wouldn't blow up or shoot the higher ranks...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

The OT law allows for punishment but it defines it as punishment where if the servant is harmed, then the servant goes free.

or the immoral slave owner has to lose he's eye or tooth... like I've said before there are many ways to inflict pain without causing the loss of an eye, tooth or whatever.

What good does it do for a slave to be freed if he has only one eye? Don't you think it will be even harder for the person to find something so he doesn't become destitute or have to steal in order to have food and shelter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

yes, the law allows for punishment. You will find that the same severity is allowed for free men, children, and every one else - ie the rod. You added the word severe. Maybe you could help define when punishment becomes severe - in a universal way for all cultures. Is a spanking severe for when a child will not stay out of the street? Tell me exactly at what point it becomes severe. Don't just throw out an extreme example. Give me the rule you are using to determine that the law is too severe. If you are the judge of the law, then let us in on the rule you are using. I would hate to think it was arbitrary and you are just assuming it is too severe or just want it to appear too severe.

Do you not understand that physically touching someone is a violation towards them? What makes you think that hitting people is moral?

sschlichter · 01-03-2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Steven you need to understand that the Gawd that sht'man and his crew postulate is one -very- devious and underhanded character.
This "loving" gawd of theirs uses his foreknowledge to deliberately plot, to arrange for, and to assure that government leaders, and others, will under the workings of his devious machinations, become His tools to carry out whatever evil deeds it is that his "plan" requires, that may in turn be used to make Him look good.
That is, he wilfully sets up all these evil situations, so that he can be the "good guy" when he "saves" us from the very situations that he was the chief instigator of.

Reminds me of Doctors that would deliberately poison or injure the patients under their care, so that they can receive greater praise when they manage to "heal" and "save" them.

At the very least, an all powerful Gawd that deliberately "sets up", and provokes weak humans into the doing of His "dirty deeds", does not appear to be a very ethical or admirable Deity.

Apologists will blather on about "free will" choices, but ultimately their Gawd is still the one responsible for "pulling the strings, and running the show" and seeing to it that his victims (the "bad guys") will act in the way that he has "set them up", and with deliberate foreknowledge, intent, and an irresistable will, has predestined them to. (ie. their deeds are NOT their fault.)
Some "love", some "Physician".
This Doctor is really sick, and the only one that can save of from this insane Doctor is ourselves. We need to remove ourselves from this insane Doctors "care".

I think you have already removed yourself. Interestingly enough, you use the same argument that was used against Eve in the Garden. I.e. casting off God and claiming for yourself that which belongs to God - the knowledge of good and evil.

A foolish notion it is, that you can know what advances life and what hinders it apart from God.

sschlichter · 01-03-2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

You volunteered to do those things and have them done to you.

Yes, so you wouldn't blow up or shoot the higher ranks...

If I was drafted it would be immoral?

Quote:

or the immoral slave owner has to lose he's eye or tooth... like I've said before there are many ways to inflict pain without causing the loss of an eye, tooth or whatever.

so, pain is what makes it immoral? What about the pain caused by a doctor or dentist? or the emotional pain caused by the psychiatrist?

Quote:

What good does it do for a slave to be freed if he has only one eye? Don't you think it will be even harder for the person to find something so he doesn't become destitute or have to steal in order to have food and shelter?

yes, the punishment in the law was to keep it from occurring. The law admittedly, did not have a magic remedy for the replacement of a lost eye.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

yes, the law allows for punishment. You will find that the same severity is allowed for free men, children, and every one else - ie the rod. You added the word severe. Maybe you could help define when punishment becomes severe - in a universal way for all cultures. Is a spanking severe for when a child will not stay out of the street? Tell me exactly at what point it becomes severe. Don't just throw out an extreme example. Give me the rule you are using to determine that the law is too severe. If you are the judge of the law, then let us in on the rule you are using. I would hate to think it was arbitrary and you are just assuming it is too severe or just want it to appear too severe.

Do you not understand that physically touching someone is a violation towards them? What makes you think that hitting people is moral?

is that your answer? touching someone in any form of correction is immoral?

Do you have kids?

sweetpea7 · 01-03-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

casting off God and claiming for yourself that which belongs to God - the knowledge of good and evil.

A foolish notion it is, that you can know what advances life and what hinders it apart from God.

It is a dangerous ideology that some notion of god defines good and evil. Should I stone my 12 year old son for back talking me as the OT god recommends?

It is a preposterous notion that only some notion of god can know what advances life or hinders it. It is the fields of science and medicine that have not only advanced life itself but also quality of life for people. Couldn't the bible at least have mentioned the benefits of penicillin?

Also, I expect better from an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being. I have a son and have never had to use physical punishment in any way to correct his behavior. I may have been tempted to do so, but honestly this was more to relieve my feelings of frustration. Physical abuse is not an acceptable punishment.

Zenaphobe · 01-03-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I think you have already removed yourself. Interestingly enough, you use the same argument that was used against Eve in the Garden. I.e. casting off God and claiming for yourself that which belongs to God - the knowledge of good and evil.

A foolish notion it is, that you can know what advances life and what hinders it apart from God.

Would I need to believe in a literal talking snake to be a real Christian in your estimation?

I mean, the whole going to heaven and whatnot sounds just great, but when I try to believe all these stories like men in fish bellies for 3 days, men who have hair that lets them slay thousands of foes with ass's jawbones, the sun standing still, waters turning to blood, big boats with all possible species of animals on board while the world is submerged to the mountain tops, graves opening up and dead people walking the streets, demons cast into swine, and bread and fish being multiplied, I just can't seem to make myself believe them.

I might just as well try and believe the moon is made of ice and is home to an invisible civilization of vacuum dwelling warm blooded reptile folk.

Is there any hope for me? How can I make myself believe what common sense says is not possible? :huh:

sschlichter · 01-03-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea7

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

casting off God and claiming for yourself that which belongs to God - the knowledge of good and evil.

A foolish notion it is, that you can know what advances life and what hinders it apart from God.

It is a dangerous ideology that some notion of god defines good and evil. Should I stone my 12 year old son for back talking me as the OT god recommends?

It is a preposterous notion that only some notion of god can know what advances life or hinders it. It is the fields of science and medicine that have not only advanced life itself but also quality of life for people. Couldn't the bible at least have mentioned the benefits of penicillin?

Also, I expect better from an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being. I have a son and have never had to use physical punishment in any way to correct his behavior. I may have been tempted to do so, but honestly this was more to relieve my feelings of frustration. Physical abuse is not an acceptable punishment.

Science also provides nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, meth labs. I am afraid science is morally neutral.

of course, physical abuse is not acceptable. Yet, you have not defined abuse in a way that is universal for all cultures. You have had to correct your son, if you are a good parent. Perhaps you do so without spanking but disciplines requires rewards and punishments. a harsh tone or holding someone against their will from running into the street is the same thing.

sweetpea7 · 01-03-2009, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

science is morally neutral

Yes, but irrelevant. My point is that science and medicine have provided more tangilble benefits than the bible or god, especially regarding life and the quality thereof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

physical abuse is not acceptable

And yet you defend bible god when he does it or advocates it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

you have not defined abuse in a way that is universal for all cultures

This is a red herring. I don't have to define abuse in a way that is universal for all cultures. There are very few things that are defined the same way in all cultures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

a harsh tone or holding someone against their will from running into the street is the same thing.

The same thing as physical abuse? That is a laughable example of equivocation. Try calling and explaining that to Children's Services in your area. They will reply with disbelief, scorn, and then hang up the phone.

Also, could you please answer my previous question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea7

Should I stone my 12 year old son for back talking me as the OT god recommends?

sschlichter · 01-03-2009, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I think you have already removed yourself. Interestingly enough, you use the same argument that was used against Eve in the Garden. I.e. casting off God and claiming for yourself that which belongs to God - the knowledge of good and evil.

A foolish notion it is, that you can know what advances life and what hinders it apart from God.

Would I need to believe in a literal talking snake to be a real Christian in your estimation?

I mean, the whole going to heaven and whatnot sounds just great, but when I try to believe all these stories like men in fish bellies for 3 days, men who have hair that lets them slay thousands of foes with ass's jawbones, the sun standing still, waters turning to blood, big boats with all possible species of animals on board while the world is submerged to the mountain tops, graves opening up and dead people walking the streets, demons cast into swine, and bread and fish being multiplied, I just can't seem to make myself believe them.

I might just as well try and believe the moon is made of ice and is home to an invisible civilization of vacuum dwelling warm blooded reptile folk.

Is there any hope for me? How can I make myself believe what common sense says is not possible? :huh:

What is at issue is whether God exists and concerns himself with the affairs of lost men. If that is true then none of these things would be particularly difficult to beleive. Without God, they are of course nonsense. Without God, our existence is nonsense. Try explaining the origin of life (the very beginings of life) without finding yourself very quickly needing fairy dust and faith. Miracles even greater than mine - yet, no miracle maker.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.