sschlichter

Nonetheless, it is an interesting aspect of Zoroastrianism.

sschlichter

then what is immoral about the Mosaic law? didn't it occur in nature? There is no good or evil except Mosiac law?

Sheshbazzar

For a start,
Wilful lies cleverly contrived by dishonest men to enslave other men's minds and bodies.
Laws that were founded upon biases, favoritism, nepotism, and xenophobic racism, that required participation in, and the acceptance of stupid, and superstitious
mystical religious rigmarole.
Embraced tyrannical thought control, outlawing the free and open expression of thought and reason, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience.
A lot of things happen, that does not in itself make everything that happens, or that men think they can get away with, every despotic cult, ipso facto acceptable.
In this case what these vile men dreamed up has been, and yet is detrimental to the welfare of all mankind.
When civilized men ought to be respecting one another as equals, and working together for peace and prosperity for all men, there still prevails a religious agenda,
one that desires and seeks to place the political interests and ascendancy of the Israeli/Jewish peoples above the common welfare of all other nations.

The ultimate ideal as set forth in both Jewish and Christian religious literature, The TaNaKa and Bible, is the "Twelve Tribes of Israel" sitting upon twelve thrones ruling over all of the nations; in other words, the suppression of all dissent, all differing opinions, all freedom of thought, and all freedom of religious choice.

And this is all a good thing in your sight, because your adamant beliefe in a Jewish god requires you to call it good no matter how much bloodshed and unneeded human misery it brings upon your fellow man.

For this the blood of our young men is daily being poured out upon foreign soil.
This is a question? Yes, there certainly are other things that men contrive and engage in, that are detrimental to the welfare of their fellow man.
However, most of these things are by nature small and very transitory, even Hitler's Reich for all its evil came and went to its end in a few short years.
Not so with the Israeli domination agenda, which has been brewing and festering for thousands of years, everywhere it goes dragging entire nations
into wars, causing millions of needlessly early deaths and incalculable yet totally unnecessary suffering.

Great! we got "Mosaic law" and all of the problems that it has generated;

even though there never was any actual Moses,

even though there never was an actual Egyptian captivity,

even though there never was an actual Exodus from Egypt,

even though the Hebrew people were actually only native Cannaites,

even though there never was any actual "god"

behind the composition of any of their Bronze-Age fantasy stories,

and none of the the Mosaic laws were actually given by the source,

or in the manner that their books claim.

As for the rest, when the roots are rotten,
the whole tree perishes, and comes crashing down,
crushing the foolish and the unwary
who refuse to heed any warning cry.

And yet you willingly swallow it all, hook, line, and sinker,
Because the Jews propaganda books tell you to,
And just because you want to.
Well then, don't let any knowledge of those little problems
get in the way of your religious convictions.

Just keep telling yourself how wonderful those Jews are going to treat you
in the day that you finally get the privilege of becoming their personal slaves.

Choosing to love an imaginary god, and an obvious pack of lies,
and to hell with your fellow man;

Yep, you are certainly all set to take the big prize!

Don't look behind that curtain! Scarecrow!
Your Great and Terrible God has spoken!

Sheshbazzar

Though I laid it on, No, I do not believe that scenario will ever play out in reality.
On a cosmic scale not much time has passed at all, from mans beginnings to the present day.
All of mans religious gobbly-gook is certain to eventually just be forgotten and pass away, it was really nothing to start with, and is even less now.
Even the mightiest of oak trees, impressive though it may be in its prime, it dies, falls, and soon disappears, leaving no trace at all of its ever having been.

But in the moment, it is rather sad, what men will do, both to themselves, and to others, for the sake of old, foolish, and sometimes nasty religious beliefs.

Johnny Skeptic

No, that highlighted your evasiveness. Your intent was clear. You embarrassed yourself and you know it. Consider the following:

You clearly said "What is the difference between this and the example I gave besides one is legal and the other is not?" That clearly implies "What is the difference betweeen abortion and killing homeless people?," and it also implies "If it is not practical to kill homeless people, then it should not be practical to practice abortion."

As far as I recall, you have also said that women who have abortions sacrifice children. If you said that, what did you mean by the word "sacrifice"?

Will you please state your definition of the word "baby"?

If naturalism is true, it somehow compels most women who have abortions to oppose killing homeless people. It would be impractical for a woman who had an abortion to kill a homeless person if doing so would cause her physical and emotional distress. That would cause her physical and emotional distress.

How is abortion any different from God killing babies?

If free will does not exist, obviously, women who have abortions have no choice except to have abortions, which means that if you do not have sufficient evidence that free will exists, you cannot make any logical arguments against abortion.

If part of your intent in this thread is to show that none of the Bible is immoral, you have lost hands down. Slavery is merely one of many issues that deal with the character of the God of the Bible.

Please be advised that what the Old Testament says about slavery does not provide any evidence that supports the claims that the God of the Bible exists, and that he has good character. If all that you want to establish is that Old Testament laws were as moral or more moral than the laws of the Hebrews' neighbors, that is merely a secular matter, and it does not benefit Christians at all. Who knows how many other cultures in the world might have had laws that were more moral than the Hebrews' laws were?

That is false. You did not provide any specific evidence regarding why you believe that the God of the Bible exists. On the other hand, over the past several years, I have given many specific reasons why I do not believe that the God of the Bible exists. You mentioned evidence of intelligent design, but my question was not about intelligent design. It was about the God of the Bible. Since I am an agnostic, which I thought you already knew, I certainly would not ask you why you believe in intelligent design.

More accurately, you have been willing to discuss all sorts of issues that do not have anything to do with slavery, including naturalism, and (supposedly) faith and reason until you got into trouble, and then you became evasive. You said that you would be willing to discuss faith and reason, but you obviously do not wish to discuss faith and reason unless you wish to define a discussion as a few paragraphs.

You certainly had enough time to go the Evolution/Creation Forum and embarrass yourself regarding a debate about the flood. You made a false claim at this forum that you answered my question about Mount Ararat at the Evolution/Creation Forum. At least three times I asked you if you believe that the Mount Ararat that the texts mention is the same Mount Ararat that is in modern Turkey. If your answer is "yes," you lose because you believe that the flood was localized. If the flood was localized, it could not have been very deep. If it was not very deep, surely some humans, animals, birds, and insects could have escaped to higher ground.

The reason that you went to the Evolution/Creation Forum is because I told you that I could embarrass you regarding topics other than slavery. You boldly went to that forum with confidence, but your withdrawal was not bold and confident, although it was convenient.

You asked me to give you some examples of where you made blunders, but whenever I give you examples of where you made blunders, you usually refuse to discuss the examples. You ought to just come right out and admit that you do not mind getting off topic at all as long as you believe that you have the advantage.

I have a thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259943 at the General Religious Discussions Forum that is titled "It is doubtful that a God inspired the Bible." I discussed some more of your blunders in that thread, but you conveniently refused to make any posts in the thread. Why did you ask me to tell you where you made blunders when you had no intention of discussing most of your blunders?

Whenever you decide whether or not you actually want to limit your discussions to slavery, please let us know. In addition, if you want to limit your discussions to slavery, please do not make any off-topic comments that you do not wish to defend. You are obviously evasive, and you are obviously not adequately prepared to defend what you claim.

sschlichter

yet, here are some terms that you used that seem to indicate you do beleive in good and evil.

How do you reconcile your position that their is no good and evil while using these terms to describe others.

sschlichter

I discuss what I want with who I want.

My last response to you is where I discussed the relevance of naturalism and morality, in which you are unable to judge Mosaic law. I am not discussing anything else with you besides this.

Johnny Skeptic

What does that have to do with slavery? Do you intend to limit your discussions to the topic of slavery or not?

Regarding what you said, anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense knows that when naturalists use the words "good" and "evil," they only do so in order to have a common frame of reference with people who do believe that good and evil exist. When a naturalist says that God is immoral, he certainly is not implying that a God actually exists, and that he is immoral. Rather, the naturalist is implying, for instance, "IF a God inspired the Bible, he is immoral according to his own rules." Whether or not the God of the Bible is immoral according to his own rules is another issue, and I will be happy to discuss that issue with you if you wish in a new thread that I could start at the General Religious Discussions Forum, or at the Moral Foundations and Principles Forum.

Do you agree with me that if naturalism is true, good and evil are human inventions?

sschlichter

yes, then how do you judge slavery immoral when there is no good or evil?

sschlichter

Message to Johnny Skeptic: Please reply to post #999