06 Jan 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou are putting words in my mouth, my views on slavery is that it is wrong, period
Are you saying that you don't think slavery is necessarily a bad thing? Or are you trying to cloud the issue with some hypothetical subject which may or may not be bad but which people have agreed is bad? Because, frankly, either way all this sidestepping is getting a bit boring now; the OP was about where we get our moral guidance from and the discu ...[text shortened]... mpelled to argue against opinions expressed by others. Are you just trying to wind somebody up?
and end of story. What we are discussing is by what standard. Back when it was
more accepted, did that make it right back then? If the standard was, is, and
always will be nothing but human opinion, you cannot have it both ways, today we
say it is bad because most of us feel that way, but another time it was not the case!
The standard is what I care about not the topic of slavery, now people here seem
to want to say it was always bad even though most people felt it was okay during
the times it was accepted world wide. So our views change, does that mean there
really isn't a static standard and even slavery by human views remain an off and
on again topic we can accept or reject?
Kelly
06 Jan 13
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayHow do you reconcile your view with the fact that the "word of God" via the Bible gives permission to practice a brand of slavery that, for all intents and purposes, was not all that different from that which was practiced in the US including severely beating slaves - even to death (just not within 1 or 2 days)?
You are putting words in my mouth, my views on slavery is that it is wrong, period
and end of story. What we are discussing is by what standard. Back when it was
more accepted, did that make it right back then? If the standard was, is, and
always will be nothing but human opinion, you cannot have it both ways, today we
say it is bad because most of us f d even slavery by human views remain an off and
on again topic we can accept or reject?
Kelly
06 Jan 13
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe same way everyone else does with things they disagree with, I'd also point
How do you reconcile your view with the fact that the "word of God" via the Bible gives permission to practice a brand of slavery that, for all intents and purposes, was not all that different from that which was practiced in the US including severely beating slaves - even to death (just not within 1 or 2 days)?
out during the Biblical times where this was practiced they were not like today.
There were not civilians and soldiers many times it was cities fighting cities
and everything was a stake. You'd prefer the total destruction? Also there wasn't
a legal system where you could file bankrupty, you'd prefer prison and if there
wasn't a prison some other painful result? Things were different back then I do not
have to like it to accept that was the way it was.
Kelly
06 Jan 13
Originally posted by KellyJayyou should pay attention to which post i am replying
You say most as if that is a meaningful word here, the fact remains that even
if 90% do accept it 10% don't. Look at the gun law debate, it does not matter
that legal law bidding people are not doing the crimes, those are the ones that
people want to change their rights, abortion debate where unborn are killed
each time. Accepting laws and changing them ...[text shortened]... anything that binds us together where we are not pulling
away in one place or another.
Kelly
to otherwise your reply to my reply becomes irrelevant
06 Jan 13
Originally posted by KellyJayI have not attempted to put words into your mouth KellyJay, I have simply tried to elicit your views on the subject of the OP of this thread, which has proved a rather tortuous ordeal I have to say. You now appear to be arguing that the moral guidelines offered by the bible need to be amended with reference to the societal norms in which one finds one's self, thus, as far as I can see, rendering them no more 'objective' than any other source of moral guidance and considerably less so than, for example, the laws of said society.
You are putting words in my mouth, my views on slavery is that it is wrong, period
and end of story. What we are discussing is by what standard. Back when it was
more accepted, did that make it right back then? If the standard was, is, and
always will be nothing but human opinion, you cannot have it both ways, today we
say it is bad because most of us f ...[text shortened]... d even slavery by human views remain an off and
on again topic we can accept or reject?
Kelly
As to your query regarding potential future changes of moral guidelines which would again permit or champion the use slavery within our society, this appears to me to be an attempt at fallacious argument. Our society has evolved towards a more humane and moral outlook since the barbaric days of biblical scripture - how could a society possibly return to such views having risen above them? Surely it could not. For man to accept such would require the complete breakdown of our society to the point where barbarism and slavery would be preferable to whatever ruinous straits society had been reduced to.
06 Jan 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou take the word of men. You take the word of men that magical, miraculous events happened thousands of years ago and that you are imbued with some sort of intangible, eternal essence, and rather than use your god-given critical faculties to consider these words, you gullibly swallow them whole and parrot them on to the next generation of ill-prepared 'believers', thus perpetuating (not to mention distorting and embellishing) this nonsense over history to the point where even some intelligent men fall victim to it's belief.
We Christians take the word of the Son of God that the soul exists. We make no effort to prove or disprove the soul's existence. 😏
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
06 Jan 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAs I see it and please correct me if I'm wrong, morals are something either
I have not attempted to put words into your mouth KellyJay, I have simply tried to elicit your views on the subject of the OP of this thread, which has proved a rather tortuous ordeal I have to say. You now appear to be arguing that the moral guidelines offered by the bible need to be amended with reference to the societal norms in which one finds on ...[text shortened]... rism and slavery would be preferable to whatever ruinous straits society had been reduced to.
we come up with so they can change from tiime to time. If that is the case than
anything that is accepted and rejected today could be rejected and accepted at
some other point in time, and that is the long and short of it. There really isn't
a static measure to know if one time has it right and another has it wrong because
we are the bottom line.
The other way of looking at it, is that there is a static set of right and wrong that
we can move to or away from. I don't see the 2nd one as real unless there is
some higher power than man at work towards that end.
My views on the OT I'll asnwer just ask. I believe in God yes, I believe God is the
same God in both the NT and OT. I believe our relationship with God changed over
time, and God due to our nature worked with us and on us to bring us to the point
where we valued one another. Now if you see that as something you'd like to
get into feel free we can start another thread.
Kelly
06 Jan 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecat" how could a society possibly return to such views having risen above them?"
I have not attempted to put words into your mouth KellyJay, I have simply tried to elicit your views on the subject of the OP of this thread, which has proved a rather tortuous ordeal I have to say. You now appear to be arguing that the moral guidelines offered by the bible need to be amended with reference to the societal norms in which one finds on ...[text shortened]... rism and slavery would be preferable to whatever ruinous straits society had been reduced to.
As water will not rise above its source our nature is our nature, look around
the world. You think we have gone beyond killing one another in a heart beat?
Kelly
06 Jan 13
Originally posted by KellyJayI think you are wrong. I think that morals change in a positive direction as one becomes more and better informed. Once one learns of the negative consequences of an action in terms of human suffering, how can one, in good conscience, continue performing said action? To return to said action would require either to forget that learned knowledge or to learn that lack of performance of said action had negative consequences perceivably greater than those involved in it's performance.
As I see it and please correct me if I'm wrong, morals are something either
we come up with so they can change from tiime to time. If that is the case than
anything that is accepted and rejected today could be rejected and accepted at
some other point in time, and that is the long and short of it. There really isn't
a static measure to know if one time ...[text shortened]... see that as something you'd like to
get into feel free we can start another thread.
Kelly
06 Jan 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIf we accept that morals change (as I do) and that there is no absolute
I think that morals change in a positive direction as one becomes more and better informed.
"good" and no absolute "bad" then surely we must also accept that
while we perceive that morality is changing for the good, that perception
itself is only based on the fashion of the time.
e.g. From a Victorian perspective our morality is moving in a negative direction.
07 Jan 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThese men were inspired of God and the evidence that I see indicates how true it is. Your unbelief is even part of the evidence. You may think I am gullible but it was not easy for me to be persuaded of the truth of the Holy Bible. But now I strongly believe in the risen Christ and I can not imagine anything that could change my mind. In my mind you are the gullible one to believe in the theory of evolution with absolutely no proof. Evolution is simply a stupid fairy tale for grownups and nothing more. You will never be saved by believing in such a fairy tale.
You take the word of men. You take the word of men that magical, miraculous events happened thousands of years ago and that you are imbued with some sort of intangible, eternal essence, and rather than use your god-given critical faculties to consider these words, you gullibly swallow them whole and parrot them on to the next generation of ill-prepar ...[text shortened]... onsense over history to the point where even some intelligent men fall victim to it's belief.
07 Jan 13
Originally posted by RJHinds
These men were inspired of God and the evidence that I see indicates how true it is. Your unbelief is even part of the evidence. You may think I am gullible but it was not easy for me to be persuaded of the truth of the Holy Bible. But now I strongly believe in the risen Christ and I can not imagine anything that could change my mind. In my mind you are ...[text shortened]... tale for grownups and nothing more. You will never be saved by believing in such a fairy tale.
07 Jan 13
Originally posted by KellyJayThere were not civilians and soldiers many times it was cities fighting cities
The same way everyone else does with things they disagree with, I'd also point
out during the Biblical times where this was practiced they were not like today.
There were not civilians and soldiers many times it was cities fighting cities
and everything was a stake. You'd prefer the total destruction? Also there wasn't
a legal system where you could fil ...[text shortened]... ere different back then I do not
have to like it to accept that was the way it was.
Kelly
and everything was a stake. You'd prefer the total destruction?
Don't understand your point here. You seem to be claiming that God condoning slavery which included severely beating slaves was required to avoid "total destruction".
Also there wasn't
a legal system where you could file bankrupty, you'd prefer prison and if there
wasn't a prison some other painful result?
Don't understand your point here either. I wasn't speaking of "indentured servants", but of a brand of slavery "that, for all intents and purposes, was not all that different from that which was practiced in the US ". This included "acquiring" individuals from foreign countries against their will and being allowed to beat them severely.
07 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWanna buy a bridge? God says it's a nice one.
These men were inspired of God and the evidence that I see indicates how true it is. Your unbelief is even part of the evidence. You may think I am gullible but it was not easy for me to be persuaded of the truth of the Holy Bible. But now I strongly believe in the risen Christ and I can not imagine anything that could change my mind. In my mind you are ...[text shortened]... tale for grownups and nothing more. You will never be saved by believing in such a fairy tale.