Originally posted by sonhouseI suppose it was not needed.
Then why wasn't there an 11th commandment "Thou shalt not own or use slaves"?
Jesus was asked a similar question here in Matthew 22:36 as I quote below:
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
(Matthew 22:36-40 NKJV)
Now concerning the ten commandments, the first four dealt with our love toward God and the last six dealt with our love toward our fellow men.
So Jesus is pointing out that if you love your neighbor as yourself you will fulfill your duty toward the commandments concerning how to treat your fellow man. That obviously would include slavery, so that is why I say a specific command against slavery is not needed. If someone wishes to be a slave to you, that does not mean you should not treat him with love like you would yourself or your own family.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneMindless sycophants is what faith provides.
It's a leading non-believer theory, nothing more.
How many times do I have to say this? Free will must be maintained. If God went around just telling everyone what was going on, there would be no need for free will, it would be as if he came down and spoke to each one of us. But God doesn't want mindless sycophants, he wants people to come to the trut ...[text shortened]... elf. This is why there must always be a choice between the worldly solution and God's solution.
If you don't want mindless sycophants you need to look to reason, not faith.
And you have never demonstrated that we have free will.
29 May 14
Originally posted by PudgenikGod said "Let there be Light." and there was light.
In the concept that matter was made by light.
In the beginning, what made the light to begin with?
Light Speed and Other Puzzling Data That May Support a Recent Creation
Declining speed of Light Has been measured before the use of atomic clocks. Light may have been much faster at creation so it took less that 2 days to reach earth at that time.
Speed of Light and planck's constant inversely related
Atomic clock slowing compared with orbital time
http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25852/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.3966.pdf
30 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsAstronomers can and have measured the speed of light in the VERY early universe, middle universe and now and it is extremely close to the same for all cases.
God said "Let there be Light." and there was light.
Light Speed and Other Puzzling Data That May Support a Recent Creation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKgXe72_Kbk
Declining speed of Light Has been measured before the use of atomic clocks. Light may have been much faster at creation so it took less that 2 days to reach earth at that time. ...[text shortened]... ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.3966.pdf
Your variable speed of light theory fails on several counts.
30 May 14
Originally posted by sonhouseIt's not my theory. It's a fact that the measured speed of light decreased over time. And it's BS that astromers have measured the speed of light in the VERY early universe.
Astronomers can and have measured the speed of light in the VERY early universe, middle universe and now and it is extremely close to the same for all cases.
Your variable speed of light theory fails on several counts.
31 May 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou think created is the proper word to use? Shouldn't it be transformed
As far as chemistry is concerned, matter is never created or destroyed, only
it's form is changed.
In physics however, matter is a form of energy [E=MC^2] and matter can be
converted into energy and energy into matter.
This happens all the time in particle accelerators.
And all the matter in the universe was created from the energy of the bi ...[text shortened]... which eventually became
the background radiation from the big bang that we still detect today.
or something along those lines. If all the parts were already in place the
only thing a Bang could do would be set everything flying so that they
mix, nothing was created.
Kelly
31 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd you of course, with your Phd in astronomy have done those measurements yourself to refute those claims. Can I see your peer reviewed paper on this subject?
It's not my theory. It's a fact that the measured speed of light decreased over time. And it's [b]BS that astromers have measured the speed of light in the VERY early universe.[/b]
31 May 14
Originally posted by KellyJayGF's post is quite clear.
You think created is the proper word to use? Shouldn't it be transformed
or something along those lines. If all the parts were already in place the
only thing a Bang could do would be set everything flying so that they
mix, nothing was created.
Kelly
One can consider ENERGY "transformed" into MATTER
or
ENERGY "creating" MATTER
and you really should research the "Big Bang" - a name
that every scientist wishes had never been coined.
31 May 14
Originally posted by sonhouseI did not say I did any measurements. The measurements have been done in the past and reported in the scientific literature.
And you of course, with your Phd in astronomy have done those measurements yourself to refute those claims. Can I see your peer reviewed paper on this subject?
02 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindshttp://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html
I did not say I did any measurements. The measurements have been done in the past and reported in the scientific literature.
Creationists probably pin their hopes on papers like these but their theoretical effect would be in the parts per million or better in the change of the speed of light not many orders of magnitude creationism requires.
Sorry, you have to do better than that.
03 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonhouseTime Dilation has Startling Consequences
http://www.livescience.com/29111-speed-of-light-not-constant.html
Creationists probably pin their hopes on papers like these but their theoretical effect would be in the parts per million or better in the change of the speed of light not many orders of magnitude creationism requires.
Sorry, you have to do better than that.
03 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayWell yes, but then again the biblical account has God creating order out of chaos, so that kind of argument can be applied to your narrative as well.
You think created is the proper word to use? Shouldn't it be transformed
or something along those lines. If all the parts were already in place the
only thing a Bang could do would be set everything flying so that they
mix, nothing was created.
Kelly