Theism MOMENT: Biblical Support for Slavery
Budikka666
Joe Bruno
> http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> Budikka
Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
We have also the Talmud, which brings Jewish law up to date every so
often.Talmud rulings after the bible was written have banned slavery
You just exposed yourself to be an ignorant motherfucker.
Mike Jones
> http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> Budikka
Looks like Wallmart employment regulations to me. ;)
thomas p.
>>
>> Budikka
>
>Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>
>We have also the Talmud, which brings Jewish law up to date every so
>often.Talmud rulings after the bible was written have banned slavery
>
>You just exposed yourself to be an ignorant motherfucker.
>
How so? The Bible still justifies slavery. That both Christians and Jew,
despite the Bible, have discovered (with the use of their own reason) that
slavery, the oppression of women, stoning of blasphemers, treatment of
disease with the blood of bats etc. is absurd and barbaric is hardly a
recommendation for either religion or for the believers.
Budikka666
> On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Budikka
>
> Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
Hey monuMENTAL Moron, where did I say it was? Since I was quite
clearly talking about the Biblical support for slavery, clearly - that
is, for anyone who is actually paying attention - aiming my comments
at jackass creationuts such as Loirbaj-the-asshole's LIES about Darwin
and slavery, then your response shows nothing save for what a
monuMENTAL knee-jerk you truly are. Do everyone a favor: get your
doctor to adjust your chlorpromazine dosage, huh?
Budikka
Joe Bruno
Liar. You were basing religion as you always do, by implying that
Judaism still condones slavery.
In fact, it was banned from Jewish law centries ago.
Joe Bruno
Slavery was banned by Britain throughout the British Empire in the
17th century.
You're just too fucking ignorant to know that, either.
Matter of fact, the ideas that humans have rights and that human life
is valuable didn't arrive on the world scene untl the Enlightenment in
the 18th century. It wasn't just Jews and Christians who practiced
slavery in ancient times. The A rabs in the middle east, the ancient
Romans and Greeks and the Vikings in Scandinavia also did it.
Joe Bruno
My doctor doesn't take orders from me or mentally retarded
mothermotherfuckers
like you, either.
Budikka666
> On May 15, 8:03 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 3:15 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> > > > Budikka
>
> > > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>
> > Hey monuMENTAL Moron, where did I say it was? Since I was quite
> > clearly talking about the Biblical support for slavery, clearly - that
> > is, for anyone who is actually paying attention - aiming my comments
> > at jackass creationuts such as Loirbaj-the-asshole's LIES about Darwin
> > and slavery, then your response shows nothing save for what a
> > monuMENTAL knee-jerk you truly are. Do everyone a favor: get your
> > doctor to adjust your chlorpromazine dosage, huh?
>
> > Budikka
>
> Slavery was banned by Britain throughout the British Empire in the
> 17th century.
> You're just too fucking ignorant to know that, either.
Are you ever going to actually address the point I made which stated
what the Bible says about slavery, or are you going to keep running
from it like the stinking diarrhea that you are?
I don't care what your pissant Talmud states, and neither do the
Christian fundies that I aimed my message at, you microencephalic jerk-
wad, because no one claims that the Talmud is the word of any god.
Have you got that through your pigshit brain yet, or do I need to kick
your monumentally retarded ass some more on the topic you piece of
shit?
Here, let me spell it out for you one time: I addressed only the
Bible, I aimed the message at fundie knee-jerks like Loirbaj who
ignorantly and hypocritically blame slavery on Darwin. None of this
is your business and your inane comments are irrelevant. Got that
now, Brown Owl, or do I need to shove it up your incredibly dumb ass
some more before it starts to impinge on whatever cesspit you're using
for a brain?
Budikka
Joe Bruno
> On May 15, 10:37 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 8:03 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 3:15 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> > > > > Budikka
>
> > > > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>
> > > Hey monuMENTAL Moron, where did I say it was? Since I was quite
> > > clearly talking about the Biblical support for slavery, clearly - that
> > > is, for anyone who is actually paying attention - aiming my comments
> > > at jackass creationuts such as Loirbaj-the-asshole's LIES about Darwin
> > > and slavery, then your response shows nothing save for what a
> > > monuMENTAL knee-jerk you truly are. Do everyone a favor: get your
> > > doctor to adjust your chlorpromazine dosage, huh?
>
> > > Budikka
>
> > Slavery was banned by Britain throughout the British Empire in the
> > 17th century.
> > You're just too fucking ignorant to know that, either.
>
> Are you ever going to actually address the point I made which stated
> what the Bible says about slavery, or are you going to keep running
> from it like the stinking diarrhea that you are?
Never because you were lying.The bible attempts only to regulate an
existing practice.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say slavery is good.
>
>
Joe Bruno
but nowhere does it tell us that it is good for us or approve of it.
You're too much of a simpleton to see the difference.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
So the morality that supposedly came from God is so backward that God
didn't even think to tell people that slavery was a very great evil? Or
that treating women as little better than slaves is also evil?
>Nowhere in the Bible does it say slavery is good.
Where does it say that slavery is bad?
Joe Bruno
> On Sun, 15 May 2011 09:11:14 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net>
It doesn't but the claim made by the Budikka idiot was that the Bible
condones slavery.
You need remedial reading.
Joe Bruno
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Since it does not condemn slavery, it is clear that it condones slavery
that follows the rules that are set down.
Your Bible is useless as a moral tract.
>You need remedial reading.
You need to understand language and logic.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On May 15, 9:02 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
...
>> I don't care what your pissant Talmud states, and neither do the
>> Christian fundies that I aimed my message at, you microencephalic jerk-
>> wad, because no one claims that the Talmud is the word of any god.
>> Have you got that through your pigshit brain yet, or do I need to kick
>> your monumentally retarded ass some more on the topic you piece of
>> shit?
>>
>> Here, let me spell it out for you one time: I addressed only the
>> Bible, I aimed the message at fundie knee-jerks like Loirbaj who
>> ignorantly and hypocritically blame slavery on Darwin. None of this
>> is your business and your inane comments are irrelevant. Got that
>> now, Brown Owl, or do I need to shove it up your incredibly dumb ass
>> some more before it starts to impinge on whatever cesspit you're using
>> for a brain?
>>
>> Budikka
>
>
>American law also heavily regulates the use of alcohol and tobacco,
>but nowhere does it tell us that it is good for us or approve of it.
>You're too much of a simpleton to see the difference.
So having slaves is the same as using drugs? Really? What a useless
analogy.
thomas p.
Please point out where he said that Jews today condone slavery. Your lies
are becoming rather silly.
thomas p.
>>
>> > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>>
>> > > Budikka
>>
>> > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>>
>> Hey monuMENTAL Moron, where did I say it was? Since I was quite
>> clearly talking about the Biblical support for slavery, clearly - that
>> is, for anyone who is actually paying attention - aiming my comments
>> at jackass creationuts such as Loirbaj-the-asshole's LIES about Darwin
>> and slavery, then your response shows nothing save for what a
>> monuMENTAL knee-jerk you truly are. Do everyone a favor: get your
>> doctor to adjust your chlorpromazine dosage, huh?
>>
>> Budikka
>
>Slavery was banned by Britain throughout the British Empire in the
>17th century.
No it was not.
>You're just too fucking ignorant to know that, either.
This is strange even for you. Are you just trying to be funny?
>Matter of fact, the ideas that humans have rights and that human life
>is valuable didn't arrive on the world scene untl the Enlightenment in
>the 18th century. It wasn't just Jews and Christians who practiced
>slavery in ancient times. The A rabs in the middle east, the ancient
>Romans and Greeks and the Vikings in Scandinavia also did it.
>
Who said otherwise?
>
--
* I promise I will format my posts properly in the future.
* Windows Live Mail just can't quote! Luckily, I have found this:
* http://www.dusko-lolic.from.hr/wlmquote/
Mike Painter
The subject is the (minority) christian belief that the OT is the literal
word of god and that it can't be changed.
Clearly you don't believe that, so this would not apply to you.
However there should be no need for additional updates to the laws in the
OT.
The subject heading here could have also been "Theism MOMENT: Biblical
condemnation of Slavery"
All you need to do is find the phrases that contradict the ones quoted
above.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/slavery.html
As usual, you can find anything you want in the bible.
Mike Painter
<snip>
> Slavery was banned by Britain throughout the British Empire in the
> 17th century.
> You're just too fucking ignorant to know that, either.
> Matter of fact, the ideas that humans have rights and that human life
> is valuable didn't arrive on the world scene untl the Enlightenment in
> the 18th century. It wasn't just Jews and Christians who practiced
> slavery in ancient times. The A rabs in the middle east, the ancient
> Romans and Greeks and the Vikings in Scandinavia also did it.
Perhaps you meant "ignorant motherfucker" as a sig line rather then calling
Budikka one.
It fits as I again point out that the bible condemns slavery and recognizes
the rights of humans in several places.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/slavery.html
Mike Painter
>>
<snip>
.
>>
>> Are you ever going to actually address the point I made which stated
>> what the Bible says about slavery, or are you going to keep running
>> from it like the stinking diarrhea that you are?
>
>
> American law also heavily regulates the use of alcohol and tobacco,
> but nowhere does it tell us that it is good for us or approve of it.
> You're too much of a simpleton to see the difference.
Apparently this is a long winded way of saying "NO" to Budikka's question.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>> On May 15, 3:15 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>>>
>>> > > Budikka
>>>
>>> > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>>>
>>> Hey monuMENTAL Moron, where did I say it was? Since I was quite
>>> clearly talking about the Biblical support for slavery, clearly - that
>>> is, for anyone who is actually paying attention - aiming my comments
>>> at jackass creationuts such as Loirbaj-the-asshole's LIES about Darwin
>>> and slavery, then your response shows nothing save for what a
>>> monuMENTAL knee-jerk you truly are. Do everyone a favor: get your
>>> doctor to adjust your chlorpromazine dosage, huh?
>>>
>>> Budikka
>>
>>Slavery was banned by Britain throughout the British Empire in the
>>17th century.
>
>No it was not.
>
Some folks still cannot manage to map the number of the century to the
first two numerals in a year.
panam...@hotmail.com
It speaks volumes about your view of humanity that you would use that
analogy. Substance abuse vs. treating human beings as property. Were
you one of those folks that cut themselves as a kid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-harm
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Joe Bruno
> On Sun, 15 May 2011 09:33:19 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net>
Illogical. The use of alcohol and tobacco is metioned and heavily
regulated, but no organization says it is good for us-it is tolerated,
nothing more.
>
> Your Bible is useless as a moral tract.
Morals change.The morals of the time the bible was written allowed
slavery.
Look up the Age of Enlightenment, when the moral codes of all of
Europe changed.
That was when Great Britain banned slavery and the advocacy of human
rights culminated
In the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. That was when the French
Revolution took place with it's motto of "Liberty,
equality,fraternity".
The blatant ignorance of the atheists who post here, while
simultaneously claiming they are smarter than theists is the biggest
joke on USENET.If you could eavesdrop on conversations
in private homes after people have read your foolishness, you'd be
shocked.
Joe Bruno
His discussion was purposely incomplete, intended to leave the
impression that Jews today do.
You cannot, in all honesty discuss Jewish law without mentioning the
Talmud.
If you do that, you are either(1)ignorant of the subject or
(2)intentionally spewing propaganda.
That would be as honest as discussing the US Constitution without
mentioning the amendments.
James Dale Guckert
Much, much more than tolerated.
>> Your Bible is useless as a moral tract.
>
> Morals change.The morals of the time the bible was written allowed
> slavery.
I thought the Bibble was the revealed word of the divine creator of all
and the universal measure of all that's moral.
> Look up the Age of Enlightenment, when the moral codes of all of
> Europe changed.
Irrelevant.
> That was when Great Britain banned slavery and the advocacy of human
> rights culminated
> In the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. That was when the French
> Revolution took place with it's motto of "Liberty,
> equality,fraternity".
In other words, these ideas post-date the revealed word of the divine
creator of all and the universal measure of all that's moral.
Hmmm...
> The blatant ignorance of the atheists who post here, while
> simultaneously claiming they are smarter than theists is the biggest
> joke on USENET.If you could eavesdrop on conversations
> in private homes after people have read your foolishness, you'd be
> shocked.
Not really.
--
JDG
James Dale Guckert
> American law also heavily regulates the use of alcohol and tobacco,
> but nowhere does it tell us that it is good for us or approve of it.
Not outright. Yet the tobacco lobbyists in D.C. are *hardly* a
depressed, ineffectual lot, are they?
--
JDG
Wombat
> On May 15, 8:03 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 3:15 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> > > > Budikka
>
> > > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>
> > Hey monuMENTAL Moron, where did I say it was? Since I was quite
> > clearly talking about the Biblical support for slavery, clearly - that
> > is, for anyone who is actually paying attention - aiming my comments
> > at jackass creationuts such as Loirbaj-the-asshole's LIES about Darwin
> > and slavery, then your response shows nothing save for what a
> > monuMENTAL knee-jerk you truly are. Do everyone a favor: get your
> > doctor to adjust your chlorpromazine dosage, huh?
>
> > Budikka
>
> Slavery was banned by Britain throughout the British Empire in the
> 17th century.
1833 is not in the 17th century.
Wombat
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
So, where does the Bible tell us that slavery is bad, but must be
tolerated? Jesus told us that divorce was bad but was tolerated. Where
is the comparable statement about slavery in the Bible?
>> Your Bible is useless as a moral tract.
>
>Morals change.The morals of the time the bible was written allowed
>slavery.
That makes you brighter than most Bible worshippers around here.
Joe Bruno
> > On May 15, 3:15 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> >> > > Budikka
>
> >> > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>
> >> Hey monuMENTAL Moron, where did I say it was? Since I was quite
> >> clearly talking about the Biblical support for slavery, clearly - that
> >> is, for anyone who is actually paying attention - aiming my comments
> >> at jackass creationuts such as Loirbaj-the-asshole's LIES about Darwin
> >> and slavery, then your response shows nothing save for what a
> >> monuMENTAL knee-jerk you truly are. Do everyone a favor: get your
> >> doctor to adjust your chlorpromazine dosage, huh?
>
> >> Budikka
>
> >Slavery was banned by Britain throughout the British Empire in the
> >17th century.
>
>
> >You're just too fucking ignorant to know that, either.
>
>
> >is valuable didn't arrive on the world scene untl the Enlightenment in
> >the 18th century. It wasn't just Jews and Christians who practiced
> >slavery in ancient times. The A rabs in the middle east, the ancient
> >Romans and Greeks and the Vikings in Scandinavia also did it.
>
You did, by trying to apply 20th century morality to ancient times.
Is it possible that you don't even see the contradiction in your
claims?
Nobody could be that stupid.
>
>
>
> --
Joe Bruno
Apparently you are a dumbshit motherfucker who cannot understand what
he reads,
Joe Bruno
> On 5/15/11 11:44 AM, Joe Bruno wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On Sun, 15 May 2011 09:33:19 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno<ajta...@att.net>
> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >>> On May 15, 9:30 am, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 15 May 2011 09:11:14 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno<ajta...@att.net>
> >>>> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >>>>> On May 15, 9:02 am, Budikka666<budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On May 15, 8:03 am, Budikka666<budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On May 15, 3:15 am, Joe Bruno<ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666<budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Budikka
>
> >>>>>>>>> Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>
> >>>>>>>> Hey monuMENTAL Moron, where did I say it was? Since I was quite
> >>>>>>>> clearly talking about the Biblical support for slavery, clearly - that
> >>>>>>>> is, for anyone who is actually paying attention - aiming my comments
> >>>>>>>> at jackass creationuts such as Loirbaj-the-asshole's LIES about Darwin
> >>>>>>>> and slavery, then your response shows nothing save for what a
> >>>>>>>> monuMENTAL knee-jerk you truly are. Do everyone a favor: get your
> >>>>>>>> doctor to adjust your chlorpromazine dosage, huh?
>
> >>>>>>>> Budikka
>
> >>>>>>> Slavery was banned by Britain throughout the British Empire in the
> >>>>>>> 17th century.
>
> >>>>>> what the Bible says about slavery, or are you going to keep running
> >>>>>> from it like the stinking diarrhea that you are?
>
> >>>>> existing practice.
>
> >>>> So the morality that supposedly came from God is so backward that God
> >>>> didn't even think to tell people that slavery was a very great evil? Or
> >>>> that treating women as little better than slaves is also evil?
>
> >>>>> Nowhere in the Bible does it say slavery is good.
>
> >>>> Where does it say that slavery is bad?
>
> >>> It doesn't but the claim made by the Budikka idiot was that the Bible
> >>> condones slavery.
>
> >> Since it does not condemn slavery, it is clear that it condones slavery
> >> that follows the rules that are set down.
>
> > Illogical. The use of alcohol and tobacco is metioned and heavily
> > regulated, but no organization says it is good for us-it is tolerated,
> > nothing more.
>
>
>
> > Morals change.The morals of the time the bible was written allowed
> > slavery.
>
> and the universal measure of all that's moral.
>
> > Europe changed.
>
Only to a lying fool afraid of the truth and the exposure of his own
stupidity,
> h
> > That was when Great Britain banned slavery and the advocacy of human
> > rights culminated
> > In the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. That was when the French
> > Revolution took place with it's motto of "Liberty,
> > equality,fraternity".
>
> In other words, these ideas post-date the revealed word of the divine
> creator of all and the universal measure of all that's moral.
Just because God did not forbid slavery in the bible does not mean he
condoned it.
You are demanding that he adopt the same priorities as you have.
I suppose you've rewritten the Ten Commandments, too. When will you
demand that He accept your version?This is Arrogant Atheism at it's
very worst. You fools are too ignorant to even umderstand what a deity
is all about. His decisions are not subject to your approval.
>
Mike Jones
[...]
> The blatant ignorance of the atheists who post here, while
> simultaneously claiming they are smarter than theists is the biggest
> joke on USENET.If you could eavesdrop on conversations in private homes
> after people have read your foolishness, you'd be shocked.
We don't tend to claim we are smarter, we tend to state that /in our
experience/, theists are dumber. There is a critical difference there
ArtieJoe, and plenty of evidence to support the proposal (including your
continuing sideshow on alt.atheism).
And how do /you/ "eavesdrop on conversations in private homes"?
Or are you just talking utter bollocks, as usual? (Chortle!)
Buddythunder
Sure would be nice to see it condemmed though, wouldn't it? That would
be a reasonable improvement, right there.
Buddythunder
Well indeed, so why cleave to bronze age writings at all? Their truth
claims are notoriously unreliable (and sometimes flat-out absurd), and
the values belong to a more savage age. We have moved beyond it, and
thank whatever gods you wish to venerate.
Buddythunder
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The ten commandments are supposedly an abridged distillation of the
OT's rules. It's a pitiful list. We could come up with a better list
over lunch on a napkin with a couple of beers.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On May 15, 12:06 pm, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.Invalid> wrote:
>> On 5/15/11 11:44 AM, Joe Bruno wrote:
>>
>> > On May 15, 9:47 am, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 15 May 2011 09:33:19 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno<ajta...@att.net>
>> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
...
So you now claim. The Southern Baptists and other Christians who joined
in the War to Protect Slavery had no question in their minds that God
condoned slavery.
>You are demanding that he adopt the same priorities as you have.
I don't believe in any gods. It is quite clear that the Bible is just a
human work and that those who claim that the Bible
> I suppose you've rewritten the Ten Commandments, too.
The first ones are totally useless. The others are common to almost all
human moral systems. The Bible is not a moral compass.
>When will you demand that He accept your version?
Why would I make a demand of a nonexistent fantasy being?
>This is Arrogant Atheism at it's
>very worst. You fools are too ignorant to even umderstand what a deity
>is all about. His decisions are not subject to your approval.
Yet you keep making excuses for the moral failings of the Bible, while I
see no reason to consider the Bible useful in considering moral
questions.
Rockinghorse Winner
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Paul's letter to Philemon was epoch-changing and was really the genesis of
abolitionism in the West, which, btw, was largely composed of church
members (at least here in the States).
But morals do change, as the OP stated. God's law, as eternal as it is, must
be adopted to the ability of a people to hear and assimilate it. Thus, the
need for God's Word (not just the Bible, but the teaching of the Church
Apostles, as handed down through the Church) to be taught differently
depending on the culture in which it is taught. That is the reason for
different traditions in different countries and cultures, and the reason for
why the Church teaches differently now than it did 1000 or 2000 years ago.
Even the definition of murder or stealing or profanation changes over time
and between cultures. However, having said this, there is the caveat that
the teachings of religion must avoid having it's teachings watered down or
compromised by whatever is current in the culture. I.e., it must avoid being
assimilated into the cuture, but must remain a prophetic voice in a culture
that has lost it's moral bearings.
>
>>> Your Bible is useless as a moral tract.
>>
>>Morals change.The morals of the time the bible was written allowed
>>slavery.
>
> That makes you brighter than most Bible worshippers around here.
>
>>Look up the Age of Enlightenment, when the moral codes of all of
>>Europe changed.
>>That was when Great Britain banned slavery and the advocacy of human
>>rights culminated
>>In the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. That was when the French
>>Revolution took place with it's motto of "Liberty,
>>equality,fraternity".
>>
>>The blatant ignorance of the atheists who post here, while
>>simultaneously claiming they are smarter than theists is the biggest
>>joke on USENET.If you could eavesdrop on conversations
>>in private homes after people have read your foolishness, you'd be
>>shocked.
>>
*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.catholicscomehome.org |/Mutt 1.5.21 slrn 0.9.9p1 Irssi 0.8.15
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis
Rockinghorse Winner
We look to these writings because they reveal truths about humanity not
expressed as well anywhere else, and because humanity does not change in an
essential way over time.
Look through any book of Greek literature and you will find the same themes
on the human striving for freedom, morality, virtue, respect as you do
today. Thumb through the Bible, and in spite of the cultural surface
differences , the same universal themes of human frailty, forgiveness and
redemption that define our lives are given sublime voice.
In throwing off the wisdom of the past, we risk entering a brave new world
in which morality is informed solely by the digital age. I don't think that
is a world you or I would desire to live in, were it fully implemented. It
is only through the human-centered cycles of life/death, of the slower
cycles of the rising and setting of the sun, the change of seasons and slow
march of centuries, not the 1GHz hum of the digital cpu, that we feel
comfortable and connected to life, and in which we have the possibility of
finding TRUE peace and TRUE happiness.
That is the true import of morality - not that religious people want
everyone to think like them, but because these principles are able to bring
true peace to the soul. Sin only disturbs our peace, alienates us from each
other, and brings disharmony into the world. Love and the virtues reconcile
us to God and to each other, and increase our happiness in a way that
material objects, sex, drugs, money, success or any of the other things that
keep us from hearing the God who calls us to Himself, does not.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On May 15, 10:48 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Anyone who claims that the Bible tells us God's unchanging moral
standards for us is exactly that stupid.
Rockinghorse Winner
So? Are you now requiring that all religious people everywhere and at all
times to be perfect? That would be quite a world. However, it wouldn't be
the real world. People, religious and non-religious, are imperfect
creatures, with imperfect knowledge, imperfect moral practices, imperfect
beliefs. If you want perfection, don't look to humans for it.
>
>>You are demanding that he adopt the same priorities as you have.
>
> I don't believe in any gods. It is quite clear that the Bible is just a
> human work and that those who claim that the Bible
>
>> I suppose you've rewritten the Ten Commandments, too.
>
> The first ones are totally useless. The others are common to almost all
> human moral systems. The Bible is not a moral compass.
>
>>When will you demand that He accept your version?
>
> Why would I make a demand of a nonexistent fantasy being?
>
>>This is Arrogant Atheism at it's
>>very worst. You fools are too ignorant to even umderstand what a deity
>>is all about. His decisions are not subject to your approval.
>
> Yet you keep making excuses for the moral failings of the Bible, while I
> see no reason to consider the Bible useful in considering moral
> questions.
All your moral sense is just the assimilation of your culture, which is
thoroughly informed by Christian morality. Your stress on religious
hypocrisy, social evils, everything, is essentially Christian in nature. You
are a Christian - a heretical Christian, no doubt - but a Christian through
and through.
Your atheism or agnosticism is more pose than anything else. Chances are
you are someone who doesn't want to or know how to come to terms with their
moral failings. You run away from God and religion because you don't know
how or want to face yourself. One day you will, one way or another. :)
Free Lunch
<rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
No.
>That would be quite a world. However, it wouldn't be
>the real world. People, religious and non-religious, are imperfect
>creatures, with imperfect knowledge, imperfect moral practices, imperfect
>beliefs. If you want perfection, don't look to humans for it.
And they make claims and insist that their claims came from God by
selective use of the Bible. I have learned to distrust all claims about
what God wants because it is reliably what the person making the claim
wants. God is their sockpuppet.
>>>You are demanding that he adopt the same priorities as you have.
>>
>> I don't believe in any gods. It is quite clear that the Bible is just a
>> human work and that those who claim that the Bible
>>
>>> I suppose you've rewritten the Ten Commandments, too.
>>
>> The first ones are totally useless. The others are common to almost all
>> human moral systems. The Bible is not a moral compass.
>>
>>>When will you demand that He accept your version?
>>
>> Why would I make a demand of a nonexistent fantasy being?
>>
>>>This is Arrogant Atheism at it's
>>>very worst. You fools are too ignorant to even umderstand what a deity
>>>is all about. His decisions are not subject to your approval.
>>
>> Yet you keep making excuses for the moral failings of the Bible, while I
>> see no reason to consider the Bible useful in considering moral
>> questions.
>
>All your moral sense is just the assimilation of your culture, which is
>thoroughly informed by Christian morality. Your stress on religious
>hypocrisy, social evils, everything, is essentially Christian in nature. You
>are a Christian - a heretical Christian, no doubt - but a Christian through
>and through.
Aside from not believing in any gods (including the very important one
in Christianity called Satan) and not believing in a soul or an
afterlife or fantasy justice from God or any of the other unsupported
claims of Christianity, sure. I think that the teachings of Jesus (as
opposed to the reactionary teachings of Paul) were very good teachings,
though not unique to Christianity.
>Your atheism or agnosticism is more pose than anything else. Chances are
>you are someone who doesn't want to or know how to come to terms with their
>moral failings. You run away from God and religion because you don't know
>how or want to face yourself. One day you will, one way or another. :)
No, I don't run away from nonexistent beings. I don't believe in any
gods because there is no evidence to support the doctrines about those
gods.
John Baker
Christ, what an arrogant piece of shit you are.
Here's a free clue, Artie Joe, since you seem to be suffering a
terminal shortage of them. Any (alleged) adult who still hasn't
outgrown imaginary friends has no room to call anyone else ignorant.
And as for *your* intellectual acumen - or lack of it as the case may
be - if your posts are anything to go by, I'd imagine you'd have
difficulty grasping 'sit', 'fetch' and 'roll over.'
>
>>
Joe Bruno
> Responding to: Joe Bruno
>
> [...]
>
> > The blatant ignorance of the atheists who post here, while
> > simultaneously claiming they are smarter than theists is the biggest
> > joke on USENET.If you couldeavesdropon conversations inprivatehomes
> > after people have read your foolishness, you'd be shocked.
>
> We don't tend to claim we are smarter, we tend to state that /in our
> experience/, theists are dumber. There is a critical difference there
> ArtieJoe, and plenty of evidence to support the proposal (including your
> continuing sideshow on alt.atheism).
>
>
> Or are you just talking utter bollocks, as usual? (Chortle!)
>
> --
> *=(http://www.churchofreality.org/
The Police do it all the time:
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance
You have just been selected as the No1 Ignorant Atheist Motherfucker
Joe Bruno
Rockinghorse Winner
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
...snipped
>>>>Just because God did not forbid slavery in the bible does not mean he
>>>>condoned it.
>>>
>>> So you now claim. The Southern Baptists and other Christians who joined
>>> in the War to Protect Slavery had no question in their minds that God
>>> condoned slavery.
>>
>>So? Are you now requiring that all religious people everywhere and at all
>>times to be perfect?
>
> No.
>
>>That would be quite a world. However, it wouldn't be
>>the real world. People, religious and non-religious, are imperfect
>>creatures, with imperfect knowledge, imperfect moral practices, imperfect
>>beliefs. If you want perfection, don't look to humans for it.
>
> And they make claims and insist that their claims came from God by
> selective use of the Bible. I have learned to distrust all claims about
> what God wants because it is reliably what the person making the claim
> wants. God is their sockpuppet.
yes, God uses imperfect creatures like man to get Himself across to other
imperfect creatures. Why? Maybe it's because man can only understand things
through language and symbols, and God's message must be 'translated' into
language and symbols first before it can be assimilated. Language and
symbols is 'man's' department.
Sure, there are times that the message gets corrupted. The people supposedly
speaking for God insert their own agendas, fall prey to sin; anything.
Still, there is no better way for man to understand God than to receive it
through the spoken or written word. So, this is the method God chooses, in
spite of the risks.
Don't take God's 'absence' or 'silence' in your life to be anything more
than a pause, while he lets you consider the import of your decision.
>>Your atheism or agnosticism is more pose than anything else. Chances are
>>you are someone who doesn't want to or know how to come to terms with their
>>moral failings. You run away from God and religion because you don't know
>>how or want to face yourself. One day you will, one way or another. :)
>
> No, I don't run away from nonexistent beings. I don't believe in any
> gods because there is no evidence to support the doctrines about those
> gods.
Exactly: you don't run away from non-existent beings. ;)
Take care.
Mike Painter
What a numbing retort. I am almost speechless. Except to point out you still
have not answered the question.
As for that motherfucker claim, can I drop the "O" from your name and call
you Ed?
thomas p.
>>
>> >> > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>>
>> >> > > Budikka
>>
>> >> > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>>
>> >> Hey monuMENTAL Moron, where did I say it was? Since I was quite
>> >> clearly talking about the Biblical support for slavery, clearly - that
>> >> is, for anyone who is actually paying attention - aiming my comments
>> >> at jackass creationuts such as Loirbaj-the-asshole's LIES about Darwin
>> >> and slavery, then your response shows nothing save for what a
>> >> monuMENTAL knee-jerk you truly are. Do everyone a favor: get your
>> >> doctor to adjust your chlorpromazine dosage, huh?
>>
>> >> Budikka
>>
>> >Liar. You were basing religion as you always do, by implying that
>> >Judaism still condones slavery.
>> >In fact, it was banned from Jewish law centries ago.
>>
>> Please point out where he said that Jews today condone slavery. Your lies
>> are becoming rather silly.
>
>His discussion was purposely incomplete, intended to leave the
>impression that Jews today do.
Ah, he didn't say it, but he was thinking it. Is that your argument?
>You cannot, in all honesty discuss Jewish law without mentioning the
>Talmud.
>If you do that, you are either(1)ignorant of the subject or
>(2)intentionally spewing propaganda.
On the other hand you can honestly discuss what is in the Bible, and that is
what he did.
>
>That would be as honest as discussing the US Constitution without
>mentioning the amendments.
>
>
Since he was discussing the Bible, not Jewish law, your argument is based on
what you claim he was thinking about.
thomas p.
news:jj60t6tjk5h1r5b4m...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 May 2011 19:48:52 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>> On May 15, 3:15 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>>>>
>>>> > > Budikka
>>>>
>>>> > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>>>>
>>>> Hey monuMENTAL Moron, where did I say it was? Since I was quite
>>>> clearly talking about the Biblical support for slavery, clearly - that
>>>> is, for anyone who is actually paying attention - aiming my comments
>>>> at jackass creationuts such as Loirbaj-the-asshole's LIES about Darwin
>>>> and slavery, then your response shows nothing save for what a
>>>> monuMENTAL knee-jerk you truly are. Do everyone a favor: get your
>>>> doctor to adjust your chlorpromazine dosage, huh?
>>>>
>>>> Budikka
>>>
>>>17th century.
>>
>>
> Some folks still cannot manage to map the number of the century to the
> first two numerals in a year.
Especially obvious in this case, since Britain did not abolish slavery until
1833. No doubt that is what he mean, and I am just too ignorant to
understand it.
snip
thomas p.
>> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 15, 9:30 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 15 May 2011 09:11:14 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net>
>> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>> >> >On May 15, 9:02 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On May 15, 8:03 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> >> > > > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>>
>> >> >> > > > > Budikka
>>
>> >> >> > > > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on
>> >> >> > > > Jewish law:
>>
>> >> >> > > Hey monuMENTAL Moron, where did I say it was? Since I was quite
>> >> >> > > clearly talking about the Biblical support for slavery,
>> >> >> > > clearly - that
>> >> >> > > is, for anyone who is actually paying attention - aiming my
>> >> >> > > comments
>> >> >> > > at jackass creationuts such as Loirbaj-the-asshole's LIES about
>> >> >> > > Darwin
>> >> >> > > and slavery, then your response shows nothing save for what a
>> >> >> > > monuMENTAL knee-jerk you truly are. Do everyone a favor: get
>> >> >> > > your
>> >> >> > > doctor to adjust your chlorpromazine dosage, huh?
>>
>> >> >> > > Budikka
>>
>> >> >> > Slavery was banned by Britain throughout the British Empire in
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > 17th century.
>>
>> >> >> stated
>> >> >> what the Bible says about slavery, or are you going to keep running
>> >> >> from it like the stinking diarrhea that you are?
>>
>> >> >existing practice.
>>
>> >> So the morality that supposedly came from God is so backward that God
>> >> didn't even think to tell people that slavery was a very great evil?
>> >> Or
>> >> that treating women as little better than slaves is also evil?
>>
>> >> >Nowhere in the Bible does it say slavery is good.
>>
>> >> Where does it say that slavery is bad?
>>
>> >It doesn't but the claim made by the Budikka idiot was that the Bible
>> >condones slavery.
>>
>> Since it does not condemn slavery, it is clear that it condones slavery
>> that follows the rules that are set down.
>
>Illogical. The use of alcohol and tobacco is metioned and heavily
>regulated, but no organization says it is good for us-it is tolerated,
>nothing more.
>>
>
>Morals change.The morals of the time the bible was written allowed
>slavery.
Yes, the Bible responded to morals of the time; it had nothing to do with
creating them. It did, however, have a lot to do with obstructing efforts
to improve them, since people were told it was the unchanging word of god.
>
>Look up the Age of Enlightenment, when the moral codes of all of
>Europe changed.
>That was when Great Britain banned slavery
Once again Joe: No that was not when it banned slavery.
and the advocacy of human
>rights culminated
>In the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. That was when the French
>Revolution took place with it's motto of "Liberty,
>equality,fraternity".
>
>The blatant ignorance of the atheists who post here, while
>simultaneously claiming they are smarter than theists is the biggest
>joke on USENET.If you could eavesdrop on conversations
>in private homes after people have read your foolishness, you'd be
>shocked.
The irony of your insults is breathtaking.
thomas p.
Is it possible that you do not know you are misrepresenting what I said?
>
>Nobody could be that stupid.
As your strawment? Well I think their creator might be a good example.
thomas p.
news:slrnit0rq8....@8600.edu...
>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 May 2011 14:31:28 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno <ajt...@att.net>
>> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>>>> > rights culminated
>>>> > In the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. That was when the French
>>>> > Revolution took place with it's motto of "Liberty,
>>>> > equality,fraternity".
>>>>
>>>> In other words, these ideas post-date the revealed word of the divine
>>>> creator of all and the universal measure of all that's moral.
>>>
>>>Just because God did not forbid slavery in the bible does not mean he
>>>condoned it.
>>
>> So you now claim. The Southern Baptists and other Christians who joined
>> in the War to Protect Slavery had no question in their minds that God
>> condoned slavery.
>
> So? Are you now requiring that all religious people everywhere and at all
> times to be perfect?
Why do you insist on not understanding what has been said? Are you afraid?
That would be quite a world. However, it wouldn't be
> the real world. People, religious and non-religious, are imperfect
> creatures, with imperfect knowledge, imperfect moral practices, imperfect
> beliefs. If you want perfection, don't look to humans for it.
Exactly so. Since the Bible was written by men, it is subject to the same
faults and errors of any other such production. That is the point being
made. That is the point you keep running from.
And your dishonesty and cowardice continues.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Because it would mean conceding the point.
Which being a narcissist he cannot do.
He has to pretend he doesn't understand it, ignore it and claim you
never answered his ""point" or twist it into something else/he csn't
do
Rockinghorse Winner
> "Rockinghorse Winner" <rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:slrnit0rq8....@8600.edu...
>>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 15 May 2011 14:31:28 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno <ajt...@att.net>
>>> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>>
>>>>> > That was when Great Britain banned slavery  and the advocacy of
>>>>> > human
>>>>> > rights culminated
>>>>> > In the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. That was when the French
>>>>> > Revolution took place with it's motto of "Liberty,
>>>>> > equality,fraternity".
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, these ideas post-date the revealed word of the divine
>>>>> creator of all and the universal measure of all that's moral.
>>>>
>>>>Just because God did not forbid slavery in the bible does not mean he
>>>>condoned it.
>>>
>>> So you now claim. The Southern Baptists and other Christians who joined
>>> in the War to Protect Slavery had no question in their minds that God
>>> condoned slavery.
>>
>
>> So? Are you now requiring that all religious people everywhere and at all
>> times to be perfect?
>
> Why do you insist on not understanding what has been said? Are you afraid?
>
> That would be quite a world. However, it wouldn't be
>> the real world. People, religious and non-religious, are imperfect
>> creatures, with imperfect knowledge, imperfect moral practices, imperfect
>> beliefs. If you want perfection, don't look to humans for it.
>
> Exactly so. Since the Bible was written by men, it is subject to the same
> faults and errors of any other such production. That is the point being
> made. That is the point you keep running from.
Yes, but those errors do not extend to the religious truth that God wants to
convey through the human author, which is guaranteed by the authority of God
Himself.
I am not going to be drawn into a name-calling match with you, as you
undoubtedly wish I would. I prefer to remain civil in spite of my
disagreements with you.
Christopher A. Lee
<rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> wrote:
>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
>thomas p. <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> So? Are you now requiring that all religious people everywhere and at all
>>> times to be perfect?
>>
>> Why do you insist on not understanding what has been said? Are you afraid?
Because it would mean conceding the point.
Which he lacks the intelligence to realise he just did anyway.
>> That would be quite a world. However, it wouldn't be
>>> the real world. People, religious and non-religious, are imperfect
>>> creatures, with imperfect knowledge, imperfect moral practices, imperfect
>>> beliefs. If you want perfection, don't look to humans for it.
>>
>> Exactly so. Since the Bible was written by men, it is subject to the same
>> faults and errors of any other such production. That is the point being
>> made. That is the point you keep running from.
>
>Yes, but those errors do not extend to the religious truth
What "religious truth", liar?
> that God
Idiot.
> wants to
Idiot.
>convey through the human author,
Liar.
> which is guaranteed by the authority of
Liar.
> God
>Himself.
Idiot.
Joe Bruno
The bible IS Jewish law, moron, but only part of it.How did you miss
that after I have explained it numerous times? Your retardation is
getting worse.
Joe Bruno
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> skrev i meddelelsennews:jj60t6tjk5h1r5b4m...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 15 May 2011 19:48:52 +0200, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >>> On May 15, 3:15 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> >>>> > > Budikka
>
> >>>> > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>
> >>>> Hey monuMENTAL Moron, where did I say it was? Since I was quite
> >>>> clearly talking about the Biblical support for slavery, clearly - that
> >>>> is, for anyone who is actually paying attention - aiming my comments
> >>>> at jackass creationuts such as Loirbaj-the-asshole's LIES about Darwin
> >>>> and slavery, then your response shows nothing save for what a
> >>>> monuMENTAL knee-jerk you truly are. Do everyone a favor: get your
> >>>> doctor to adjust your chlorpromazine dosage, huh?
>
> >>>> Budikka
>
> >>>Slavery was banned by Britain throughout the British Empire in the
> >>>17th century.
>
> >>No it was not.
>
> > Some folks still cannot manage to map the number of the century to the
> > first two numerals in a year.
>
> Especially obvious in this case, since Britain did not abolish slavery until
> 1833. No doubt that is what he mean, and I am just too ignorant to
> understand it.
>
> snip
Show us evidence of Britain's use of slaves during the American
revolution.
The colonists in the South had them, but not the British.
Joe Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 15 May 2011 19:48:52 +0200, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >>> On May 15, 3:15 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> >>>> > > Budikka
>
> >>>> > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>
> >>>> Hey monuMENTAL Moron, where did I say it was? Since I was quite
> >>>> clearly talking about the Biblical support for slavery, clearly - that
> >>>> is, for anyone who is actually paying attention - aiming my comments
> >>>> at jackass creationuts such as Loirbaj-the-asshole's LIES about Darwin
> >>>> and slavery, then your response shows nothing save for what a
> >>>> monuMENTAL knee-jerk you truly are. Do everyone a favor: get your
> >>>> doctor to adjust your chlorpromazine dosage, huh?
>
> >>>> Budikka
>
> >>>Slavery was banned by Britain throughout the British Empire in the
> >>>17th century.
>
> >>No it was not.
>
> > Some folks still cannot manage to map the number of the century to the
> > first two numerals in a year.
>
> Especially obvious in this case, since Britain did not abolish slavery until
> 1833. No doubt that is what he mean, and I am just too ignorant to
> understand it.
>
> snip
WRONG. Slavery was illegal in Britain at the time of the American
revolution.
Joe Bruno
Your abysmal ignorance is not an insult, but a proven fact.
I just highlight it to make sure nobody overlooks it.
Devils Advocaat
> On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> > Budikka
>
> Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>
> often.Talmud rulings after the bible was written have banned slavery
>
> You just exposed yourself to be an ignorant motherfucker.
>
> http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/30790
However when people speak of "The Bible" they are usually referring to
the Christian Bible and not the Jewish Scriptures.
So as the Christian Bible hasn't changed in all these centuries it
still contains verses that indicate that at various times in the past
history of the Jewish culture, slavery was condoned.
And there is the difference between what Budikka post means and what
you took it to mean.
Joe Bruno
> On May 15, 9:15 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> > > Budikka
>
> > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>
> > We have also the Talmud, which brings Jewish law up to date every so
> > often.Talmud rulings after the bible was written have banned slavery
>
> > You just exposed yourself to be an ignorant motherfucker.
>
> >http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/30790
>
> However when people speak of "The Bible" they are usually referring to
> the Christian Bible and not the Jewish Scriptures.
Impossible. The Torah is included in every Christian bible.
>
Yap
> On Sun, 15 May 2011 11:44:40 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net>
> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 15, 9:47 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 May 2011 09:33:19 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net>
> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >> >On May 15, 9:30 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 15 May 2011 09:11:14 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net>
> >> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >> >> >On May 15, 9:02 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On May 15, 10:37 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > On May 15, 8:03 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >> > > > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > > > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> >> >> >> > > > > Budikka
>
> >> >> >> > > > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>
> tolerated? Jesus told us that divorce was bad but was tolerated. Where
> is the comparable statement about slavery in the Bible?
>
>
> >Morals change.The morals of the time the bible was written allowed
> >slavery.
>
Not true.....the bible is supposed to be words of their sky pixie and
evergreen.
This idiotic Bruno is making an excuse for the stupidity of his bible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Look up the Age of Enlightenment, when the moral codes of all of
> >Europe changed.
> >That was when Great Britain banned slavery and the advocacy of human
Yap
> On May 15, 12:06 pm, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.Invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/15/11 11:44 AM, Joe Bruno wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Morals change.The morals of the time the bible was written allowed
> > > slavery.
>
> > and the universal measure of all that's moral.
>
> > > Europe changed.
>
>
> Only to a lying fool afraid of the truth and the exposure of his own
> stupidity,
>
> > h
> > > rights culminated
> > > In the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. That was when the French
> > > Revolution took place with it's motto of "Liberty,
> > > equality,fraternity".
>
> > creator of all and the universal measure of all that's moral.
>
> Just because God did not forbid slavery in the bible does not mean he
> condoned it.
> demand that He accept your version?This is Arrogant Atheism at it's
> very worst. You fools are too ignorant to even umderstand what a deity
> is all about. His decisions are not subject to your approval.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
And a fool is one who does not even know he has been conned.....by
those dead shepherds....hahahahhahaha.
Yap
> On May 15, 10:48 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On May 15, 3:15 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> > >> > > Budikka
>
> > >> > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>
> > >> Hey monuMENTAL Moron, where did I say it was? Since I was quite
> > >> clearly talking about the Biblical support for slavery, clearly - that
> > >> is, for anyone who is actually paying attention - aiming my comments
> > >> at jackass creationuts such as Loirbaj-the-asshole's LIES about Darwin
> > >> and slavery, then your response shows nothing save for what a
> > >> monuMENTAL knee-jerk you truly are. Do everyone a favor: get your
> > >> doctor to adjust your chlorpromazine dosage, huh?
>
> > >> Budikka
>
> > >Slavery was banned by Britain throughout the British Empire in the
> > >17th century.
>
>
> > >You're just too fucking ignorant to know that, either.
>
>
> > >Matter of fact, the ideas that humans have rights and that human life
> > >is valuable didn't arrive on the world scene untl the Enlightenment in
> > >the 18th century. It wasn't just Jews and Christians who practiced
> > >slavery in ancient times. The A rabs in the middle east, the ancient
> > >Romans and Greeks and the Vikings in Scandinavia also did it.
>
> > Who said otherwise?
>
> You did, by trying to apply 20th century morality to ancient times.
> Is it possible that you don't even see the contradiction in your
> claims?
>
And you are the real idiot who is defending your bible.
Is your bible stupid valid only in ancient times?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
Yap
Hahahahahaha......you are talking as if there is no deity in existence
then to check on those mistakes?
Right?
Sorry, assuming there is a sky pixie does not tally with reality when
>200,000 Haitian Christians were killed in quake.
>
> >>Your atheism or agnosticism is more pose than anything else. Chances are
> >>you are someone who doesn't want to or know how to come to terms with their
> >>moral failings. You run away from God and religion because you don't know
> >>how or want to face yourself. One day you will, one way or another. :)
>
> > No, I don't run away from nonexistent beings. I don't believe in any
> > gods because there is no evidence to support the doctrines about those
> > gods.
>
> Exactly: you don't run away from non-existent beings. ;)
Yes, normal human is not going to be controlled by non-existent being,
are we?
Yap
<rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> wrote:
> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> thomas p. <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Rockinghorse Winner" <rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:slrnit0rq8....@8600.edu...
> >>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
> >> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
Oh, so the stupidity of the bible errors and contradictions are
actually been guaranteed by your sky daddy?
You assume things to be in line with ancient writers, and this is your
mistake of dishonesty.\
And you do not have the courage to right yourself.
Yap
They were all British, you idiot.
All the Americans are even speaking English now.
Rockinghorse Winner
I dunno. Look to yourself....
Rockinghorse Winner
Perhaps, but the claims of dishonesty on this ng are so frequent that I am
beginning to suspect that atheism skewers your sense of truth and falsity.
How else to explain so many atheists wrongly attributing dishonest motives
to me?
Mike Jones
> On May 15, 2:55 pm, Mike Jones <l...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
>> Responding to: Joe Bruno
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > The blatant ignorance of the atheists who post here, while
>> > simultaneously claiming they are smarter than theists is the biggest
>> > joke on USENET.If you couldeavesdropon conversations inprivatehomes
>> > after people have read your foolishness, you'd be shocked.
>>
>> We don't tend to claim we are smarter, we tend to state that /in our
>> experience/, theists are dumber. There is a critical difference there
>> ArtieJoe, and plenty of evidence to support the proposal (including
>> your continuing sideshow on alt.atheism).
>>
>> And how do /you/ "eavesdropon conversations inprivatehomes"?
>>
>> Or are you just talking utter bollocks, as usual? (Chortle!)
>>
>> --
>> *=(http://www.churchofreality.org/
>
> The Police do it all the time:
>
> http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance
>
> You have just been selected as the No1 Ignorant Atheist Motherfucker
So you plant covert surveilance equipment in peoples homes?
You have more problems than we are qualified to handle Artie.
Seek professional help, before its too late.
Mike Jones
> On May 15, 6:41 pm, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>> On May 15, 2:55 pm, Mike Jones <l...@dasteem.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Responding to: Joe Bruno
>>
>> > [...]
>>
>> > > The blatant ignorance of the atheists who post here, while
>> > > simultaneously claiming they are smarter than theists is the
>> > > biggest joke on USENET.If you couldeavesdropon conversations
>> > > inprivatehomes after people have read your foolishness, you'd be
>> > > shocked.
>>
>> > We don't tend to claim we are smarter, we tend to state that /in our
>> > experience/, theists are dumber. There is a critical difference there
>> > ArtieJoe, and plenty of evidence to support the proposal (including
>> > your continuing sideshow on alt.atheism).
>>
>> > And how do /you/ "eavesdropon conversations inprivatehomes"?
>>
>> > Or are you just talking utter bollocks, as usual? (Chortle!)
>>
>> > --
>> > *=(http://www.churchofreality.org/
>>
>> The Police do it all the time:
>>
>> http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/electronic_surveillance
>>
>> You have just been selected as the No1Stupid Ignorant Atheist
>> Motherfucker
From you, this is a compliment.
Ta. :)
Mike Jones
[...]
> But morals do change, as the OP stated. God's law, as eternal as it is,
Er, a heads-up for ya...
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
...and you're posting this debunked nonsense to alt.atheism.
Mike Jones
[...]
> In throwing off the wisdom of the past, we risk entering a brave new
> world in which morality is informed solely by the digital age.
You do post some utterly pompous garbage sometimes dude.
Pull your sanctimonious head out of your arse for a day or two, ok?
Idiot.
Alex W.
>
> yes, God uses imperfect creatures like man to get Himself across to other
> imperfect creatures. Why? Maybe it's because man can only understand things
> through language and symbols, and God's message must be 'translated' into
> language and symbols first before it can be assimilated. Language and
> symbols is 'man's' department.
Which would disqualify Jesus as a means of transmitting any
divine message.
It would also disallow any and all miracles which are, after all,
claimed to be instances of direct divine intervention.
Not to mention those momentous occasions -- the bible is littered
with them -- when god himself spoke directly to someone.
And lastly, your argument denies divine omnipotence because it
requires a god who cannot make himself understood.
Alex W.
> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> thomas p. <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Rockinghorse Winner" <rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:slrnit0rq8....@8600.edu...
>>> People, religious and non-religious, are imperfect
>>> creatures, with imperfect knowledge, imperfect moral practices, imperfect
>>> beliefs. If you want perfection, don't look to humans for it.
>>
>> Exactly so. Since the Bible was written by men, it is subject to the same
>> faults and errors of any other such production. That is the point being
>> made. That is the point you keep running from.
>
> Yes, but those errors do not extend to the religious truth that God wants to
> convey through the human author, which is guaranteed by the authority of God
> Himself.
If god cannot avoid or eliminate errors in transmission, he
cannot extend a meaningful guarantee.
Furthermore, this being the fundamental text alleged to contain
the sum of religious truth, *all* errors are automatically also
errors in the religious truth.
Andre Lieven
Wrong:
-The Church of England was implicated in slavery. Slaves were owned
by the Anglican Church's Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in
Foreign Parts (SPGFP), which had sugar plantations in the West
Indies.
When slaves were emancipated by Act of the British Parliament in
1834, the British government paid compensation to slave owners.
Among those they paid were the Bishop of Exeter and three business
colleagues, who received compensation for 665 slaves.[24]
William Wilberforce’s Slave Trade Act 1807 abolished the slave trade
in
the British Empire. It was not until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833
that
the institution finally was abolished.-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain_and_Ireland
1807 and 1833, years AFTER the US Revolution (1776).
Once again, BooBoo Bruno shows that he doesn't know...
anything.
Andre
Rockinghorse Winner
> On Sun, 15 May 2011 18:49:19 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
>
>>
>> yes, God uses imperfect creatures like man to get Himself across to other
>> imperfect creatures. Why? Maybe it's because man can only understand things
>> through language and symbols, and God's message must be 'translated' into
>> language and symbols first before it can be assimilated. Language and
>> symbols is 'man's' department.
>
> Which would disqualify Jesus as a means of transmitting any
> divine message.
Why?
>
> It would also disallow any and all miracles which are, after all,
> claimed to be instances of direct divine intervention.
Why?
>
> Not to mention those momentous occasions -- the bible is littered
> with them -- when god himself spoke directly to someone.
just because God usually uses a human medium to convey His wishes for mankind,
this does not mean He cannot take extraordinary measures if He wants, such
as miracles.
> And lastly, your argument denies divine omnipotence because it
> requires a god who cannot make himself understood.
>
Not at all. Omnipotence does not mean God must take a certain course. E.g.,
perhaps it is for the ultimate good of mankind that man initially stumbled
and had to leave paradise and make his own way 'by the sweat of his brow.'
If he had not left paradise, he would not have been able to mature. God
often turns adversity into the means for further growth. A child may be
happy by his parent's side, but unless he leave the home and experience
disappointment, he will never be the person he was meant to be.
Perhaps God would prefer man to reach knowledge of him through other people,
so that he can learn the religious benefits of community, worship, and
obedience. If man is unable to love his neighbor, whom he sees, how can he
learn to love God, whom he cannot?
Rockinghorse Winner
> On Sun, 15 May 2011 22:02:33 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
>
>> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
>> thomas p. <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Rockinghorse Winner" <rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:slrnit0rq8....@8600.edu...
>
>>>> People, religious and non-religious, are imperfect
>>>> creatures, with imperfect knowledge, imperfect moral practices, imperfect
>>>> beliefs. If you want perfection, don't look to humans for it.
>>>
>>> Exactly so. Since the Bible was written by men, it is subject to the same
>>> faults and errors of any other such production. That is the point being
>>> made. That is the point you keep running from.
>>
>> Yes, but those errors do not extend to the religious truth that God wants to
>> convey through the human author, which is guaranteed by the authority of God
>> Himself.
>
> If god cannot avoid or eliminate errors in transmission, he
> cannot extend a meaningful guarantee.
God could eliminate errors, but it would mean limiting the freedom of
conscience of man. If God forced man's hand, man would not be able to sin;
but he would also not be able to be a saint.
>
> Furthermore, this being the fundamental text alleged to contain
> the sum of religious truth, *all* errors are automatically also
> errors in the religious truth.
The religious truth is the truth that God wants to convey through the text.
The Bible contains everything that God wants man to know through the sacred
text. That is guaranteed by the authority of God Himself, who cannot
deceive or be deceived.
Christopher A. Lee
<rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> wrote:
>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
>Alex W. <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 May 2011 22:02:33 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote:
>>
>>> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
>>> thomas p. <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Rockinghorse Winner" <rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>> news:slrnit0rq8....@8600.edu...
>>
>>>>> People, religious and non-religious, are imperfect
>>>>> creatures, with imperfect knowledge, imperfect moral practices, imperfect
>>>>> beliefs. If you want perfection, don't look to humans for it.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly so. Since the Bible was written by men, it is subject to the same
>>>> faults and errors of any other such production. That is the point being
>>>> made. That is the point you keep running from.
>>>
>>> Yes, but those errors do not extend to the religious truth that God wants to
>>> convey through the human author, which is guaranteed by the authority of God
>>> Himself.
>>
>> If god cannot avoid or eliminate errors in transmission, he
>> cannot extend a meaningful guarantee.
>
>God could eliminate errors, but it would mean limiting the freedom of
>conscience of man. If God forced man's hand, man would not be able to sin;
>but he would also not be able to be a saint.
Bu8t not until you demonstrate its existence with those atributes,
imbecile.
Wombat
I think he may be referring to R v. Knowles, ex parte Somersett (1772)
20 State Tr 1 which freed a slave imported into England. He was,
after all, saying *IN* England.
Wombat
thomas p.
You still have not shown that he was doing anything but discussing what is
in the Bible. You certainly have not shown any shade of a hint that he was
claiming Jews today support slavery. I have no idea if you are actually
serious, but that is irrelevant; your charge is absurd and based on nothing
real.
thomas p.
The colonists in the South held them legally under British law. The
planters in Jamaica held them legally under British law. Slavery was legal
in the British empire up until 1833. That is a simple, historical fact.
You made a mistake. Just admit it; it is not the end of the world.
thomas p.
How odd then that slaves were being held in the colonies. Are you really
being serious, or are you just playing silly games. Either way you are
being absurd.
thomas p.
You are making a public fool of yourself. Why?
thomas p.
>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
> thomas p. <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Rockinghorse Winner" <rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> skrev i
>> meddelelsen
>> news:slrnit0rq8....@8600.edu...
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 15 May 2011 14:31:28 -0700 (PDT), Joe Bruno <ajt...@att.net>
>>>> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>>>
>>>>>On May 15, 12:06Ã, pm, James Dale Guckert <Dipt...@Yahoo.Invalid>
>>>>>> On 5/15/11 11:44 AM, Joe Bruno wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> On Sun, 15 May 2011 09:33:19 -0700 (PDT), Joe
>>>>>> >> Bruno<ajta...@att.net>
>>>>>> >> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> >>> It doesn't but the claim made by the Budikka idiot was that the
>>>>>> >>> Bible
>>>>>> >>> condones slavery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> Since it does not condemn slavery, it is clear that it condones
>>>>>> >> slavery
>>>>>> >> that follows the rules that are set down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Illogical. The use of alcohol and tobacco is metioned and heavily
>>>>>> > regulated, but no organization says it is good for us-it is
>>>>>> > tolerated,
>>>>>> > nothing more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Morals change.The morals of the time the bible was written allowed
>>>>>> > slavery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> and the universal measure of all that's moral.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Europe changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Only to a lying fool afraid of the truth and the exposure of his own
>>>>>stupidity,
>>>>>> h
>>>>>> > human
>>>>>> > rights culminated
>>>>>> > In the US Constitution's Bill of Rights. That was when the French
>>>>>> > Revolution took place with it's motto of "Liberty,
>>>>>> > equality,fraternity".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> creator of all and the universal measure of all that's moral.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just because God did not forbid slavery in the bible does not mean he
>>>>>condoned it.
>>>>
>>>> So you now claim. The Southern Baptists and other Christians who joined
>>>> in the War to Protect Slavery had no question in their minds that God
>>>> condoned slavery.
>>>
>>
>>> So? Are you now requiring that all religious people everywhere and at
>>> all
>>> times to be perfect?
>>
>> Why do you insist on not understanding what has been said? Are you
>> afraid?
>>
>> That would be quite a world. However, it wouldn't be
>>> creatures, with imperfect knowledge, imperfect moral practices,
>>> imperfect
>>> beliefs. If you want perfection, don't look to humans for it.
>>
>> Exactly so. Since the Bible was written by men, it is subject to the
>> same
>> faults and errors of any other such production. That is the point being
>> made. That is the point you keep running from.
>
> Yes, but those errors do not extend to the religious truth that God wants
> to
> convey through the human author, which is guaranteed by the authority of
> God
> Himself.
If there are errors in the Bible, how exactly do you pick the parts that
are free of errors?
No, I wish that you would respond to what is said instead of your stawmen.
Your posts are objective evidence that you do constantly create strawmen to
avoid a real discussion, your above nasty and arrogant ad hominem attack in
which you claim that another poster's atheism is a pose is just one piece of
evidence of your evasive behavior.
thomas p.
Exactly, it is part of the Christian Bible.
Andre Lieven
The problem there is that, with no written decision, it's effect
was in some doubt:
-Several different reports of Mansfield's decision appeared. Most
disagree
as to what was said. The decision was only given orally; no formal
written
record of it was issued by the court. Abolitionists widely circulated
the
view that it was declared that the condition of slavery did not exist
under
English law, although Mansfield later said that all that he decided
was
that a slave could not be forcibly removed from England against his
will.[23]-
There's also the fact that BooBoo said 'Britain', and this case covers
'England'...
Andre
The Magpie
>
> The colonists in the South held them legally under British law. The
> planters in Jamaica held them legally under British law. Slavery was legal
> in the British empire up until 1833. That is a simple, historical fact.
> You made a mistake. Just admit it; it is not the end of the world.
>
1783, not 4th July 1776 - despite what many schools tell American
kids) they were no longer British. They were AMERICAN and came under
AMERICAN law.
Jamaica, of course, is a different issue.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Rockinghorse Winner" <rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:slrnit1bvc....@8600.edu...
>> Yes, but those errors do not extend to the religious truth that God wants
What "religious truth"?
What "god"?
Two things he should have proved before assuming them where he knows
they don't believe his religion.
Which was pointed out the first time he did it, a couple of years ago
at least.
>> to
>> convey through the human author, which is guaranteed by the authority of
>> God
>> Himself.
Again, what "God"?
Until he proves it, it's merely somebody else's religious myth like
Zeus, Odin and all the others.
>If there are errors in the Bible, how exactly do you pick the parts that
>are free of errors?
>
>>>>>>You are demanding that he adopt the same priorities as you have.
A remarkably stupid thing to say because nobody is "demanding"
anything of what the poster has yet to demonstrate is anything more
than a figment of his imagination.
He was talking to the poster, not the poster's pretend friend.
And the poster used a standard, transparently dishonest cop out that
shouldn't even fool himself, that again assumes the very thing he
copped out of proving in the first place.
>>>>> I don't believe in any gods. It is quite clear that the Bible is just a
>>>>> human work and that those who claim that the Bible
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose you've rewritten the Ten Commandments, too.
Another piece of incredible stupidity to say to somebody he knows sees
the OT as just another book of ancient myths and legends.
the Bible has no
Which is part and parcel of the same problem - his refusal to grant
that we don't believe any of it because we're not Christians and are
therefore part of the world beyond Christianity.
>>>>> The first ones are totally useless. The others are common to almost all
>>>>> human moral systems. The Bible is not a moral compass.
>>>>>
>>>>>>When will you demand that He accept your version?
Sheer insanity when the liar knows we don't believe in his "He" in the
first place and haven't that we haven't rewritten anything.
I suspect he thinks he is being clever asking a loaded question he
thinks can't be answered.
>>>>> Why would I make a demand of a nonexistent fantasy being?
Exactly.
>>>>>>This is Arrogant Atheism at it's
>>>>>>very worst. You fools are too ignorant to even umderstand what a deity
>>>>>>is all about. His decisions are not subject to your approval.
And this is dishonest, nasty theism at its worst.
The liar is too self-centred to admit that in the real world, deities
are merely religious beliefs and that his isn't substantively
different than any of the hundreds of others.
And once again he rudely and stupidly assumes what he should have
proved a long time ago, the first time he talked about it as if it
were real.
As well as lying about us when he invents things we aren't doing
because we are talking to him not his pretend friend.
>>>>> Yet you keep making excuses for the moral failings of the Bible, while
>>>>> I
>>>>> see no reason to consider the Bible useful in considering moral
>>>>> questions.
Especially when it comes via those with no moral scruples themselves,
from dishonest arguments and personal lies used as a rhetorical tool,
all the way up to a corrupt organisation that covered up and
facilitated the pedophile priest scandal.
>>>> All your moral sense is just the assimilation of your culture, which is
>>>> thoroughly informed by Christian morality. Your stress on religious
What "Christian morality"?
If the poster is acting according to "Christian morality" then it is
worthless.
>>>> hypocrisy, social evils, everything, is essentially Christian in nature.
>>>> You
>>>> are a Christian - a heretical Christian, no doubt - but a Christian
>>>> through
>>>> and through.
Shooing us just what "Christian morality" is.
>>>> Your atheism or agnosticism is more pose than anything else. Chances
With lies like that.
But he's a Christian - his own commandments don't apply to him.
>>>> are
>>>> you are someone who doesn't want to or know how to come to terms with
>>>> their
>>>> moral failings. You run away from God and religion because you don't
>>>> know
>>>> how or want to face yourself. One day you will, one way or another. :)
What makes Christians such amoral sociopaths at the same time they
talk about "Christian morality"?
>>> And your dishonesty and cowardice continues.
>>
>> I am not going to be drawn into a name-calling match with you, as you
>> undoubtedly wish I would. I prefer to remain civil in spite of my
>> disagreements with you.
Another lie rather than admit the point.
Does he really thing his amateur-psychologised stupid nastiness is
"being civil"?
So much for this alleged "Christian morality".
>No, I wish that you would respond to what is said instead of your stawmen.
>Your posts are objective evidence that you do constantly create strawmen to
>avoid a real discussion, your above nasty and arrogant ad hominem attack in
>which you claim that another poster's atheism is a pose is just one piece of
>evidence of your evasive behavior.
Don't expect any honesty or human decency from him.
And don't expect to pin him down.
Because his pretend friend and its scriptures aren't up for question
so he sees nothing wrong with talking about them as if everybody else
already grants his view of them.
Even when he brings it up in the first place.
Where he knows his audience doesn't even believe in it anyway because
(for the umpteenth time) it is merely somebody else's religion in the
same way the Hindu, Greek, Norse and other gods are to him.
So when he expects them to take it seriously they point out the
obvious problems.
Starting with the blatantly obvious fact that they don't grant it so
he first has to prove it before presuming it.
Because that's what it would take before it is mutually granted.
Which he keeps ignoring.
Eventually he goes on to the details about what he still has to prove
anyway, introducing other basic logic errors and fallacies. Typically
using other things he has yet to prove, to "prove" what he's saying,
or ignoring contradictions he himself made.
He has no idea of the most basic use of logic because he dismissed it
the first time it showed the difficulties in his unshakeable belief.
And he can't seem to grasp that we're only treating it as an abstract
logic exercise about what he insisted on telling us.
Because in his mind he's talking about something real so we are as
well.
When he hasn't even got past the first step.
Until he demonstrates it is real it is no different than arguing the
exact length and shade of Santa's beard with somebody who insists
Santa is real.
And who tells us at different times the beard is trimmed and
untrimmed, black and white, etc.
But when we point out the obvious he rationalises that he dyes it,
cuts it etc.
When he hasn't even proven Santa let alone his beard.
Unfortunately Rockinghorse Whiner isn't the only one.
Far too many other theists do this and the rest let them get away with
it, which is one of the things that gives us such a low opinion of
theists in general.
Has anybody _ever_ seen an honest argument from any of them about
their theism?
Rockinghorse Winner
thomas p. <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Exactly so. Since the Bible was written by men, it is subject to the
>>> same
>>> faults and errors of any other such production. That is the point being
>>> made. That is the point you keep running from.
>>
>> Yes, but those errors do not extend to the religious truth that God wants
>> to
>> convey through the human author, which is guaranteed by the authority of
>> God
>> Himself.
>
> If there are errors in the Bible, how exactly do you pick the parts that
> are free of errors?
That is why individual conscience is not the ultimate guide for
understanding the divine texts. Christ set up his Church for precisely this
reason, to inspire them to write the texts of the New Testament, to decide
which texts are canonical, and to interpret the divine texts for the benefit
of the whole world, to pass on the Truths which God wants man to know.
That is why Christianity is lived communally, not individually. Well, it's
one of many reasons.
...snip
>> I am not going to be drawn into a name-calling match with you, as you
>> undoubtedly wish I would. I prefer to remain civil in spite of my
>> disagreements with you.
>
> No, I wish that you would respond to what is said instead of your stawmen.
> Your posts are objective evidence that you do constantly create strawmen to
> avoid a real discussion, your above nasty and arrogant ad hominem attack in
> which you claim that another poster's atheism is a pose is just one piece of
> evidence of your evasive behavior.
Rockinghorse Winner
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 16:45:25 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Rockinghorse Winner" <rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>news:slrnit1bvc....@8600.edu...
>
>>> Yes, but those errors do not extend to the religious truth that God wants
>
> What "religious truth"?
Religious truth is the truth about God and how this relates to man and the
rest of creation.
>
> What "god"?
God is the Creator of the universe - The Big Cheese - The Major Dude - who
gives life it's beauty, seriousness and sublimity. Sin and pride separate
us from God, and humility and meekness, and a mild submission to His mercy
for us, reconcile us to Him, through the grace of His Son, Jesus Christ.
*R* *H*
Christopher A. Lee
<rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> wrote:
>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
>thomas p. <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Exactly so. Since the Bible was written by men, it is subject to the
>>>> same
>>>> faults and errors of any other such production. That is the point being
>>>> made. That is the point you keep running from.
>>>
>>> Yes, but those errors do not extend to the religious truth that God wants
>>> to
>>> convey through the human author, which is guaranteed by the authority of
>>> God
>>> Himself.
>>
>> If there are errors in the Bible, how exactly do you pick the parts that
>> are free of errors?
>
>That is why individual conscience is not the ultimate guide for
>understanding the divine texts.
What "divine texts"?
It's up to you to show they are before rudely and stupidly presuming
it where you know they are merely the scripture of somebody else's
religion.
> Christ
What "Christ"?
It's up to you do demonstrate that he is more than merely a character
from the myths and legends of somebody else's religion before rudely
and stupidly presuming it to peopke outside that religion.
> set up his Church for precisely this
This stupidty rests on the unjustified presumption of Christ.
>reason, to inspire them to write the texts of the New Testament, to decide
As does this.
If you haven't yet demonstrated this hypothetical Christ it is just
plain stupid to say it inspired anything.
>which texts are canonical, and to interpret the divine texts for the benefit
What "divine texts"? Again you are presuming what you haven't yet
proven, to people for whom they are just the scriptures of somebody
else's religion.
No different to us than eg the Book of Mormon or the Greek myths are
to you.
>of the whole world,
Where did you demonstrate they have any relevance outside
Christianity, imbecile?
> to pass on the Truths
Why do you liars call what are merely your religious beliefs,
"truths"?
> which God wants man to know.
Where did you demonstrate its existence to want anything,
question-begging moron?
>That is why Christianity is lived communally, not individually. Well, it's
>one of many reasons.
It is lived communally because they are deluded, sociopathic and
stupid?
>...snip
>
>>> I am not going to be drawn into a name-calling match with you, as you
>>> undoubtedly wish I would. I prefer to remain civil in spite of my
>>> disagreements with you.
>>
>> No, I wish that you would respond to what is said instead of your stawmen.
>> Your posts are objective evidence that you do constantly create strawmen to
>> avoid a real discussion, your above nasty and arrogant ad hominem attack in
>> which you claim that another poster's atheism is a pose is just one piece of
>> evidence of your evasive behavior.
Failure to acknowledge this was tacit acceptance.
>*R* *H*
Christopher A. Lee
<rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> wrote:
>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
>Christopher A Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 May 2011 16:45:25 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Rockinghorse Winner" <rwinner@remove_this.hmamail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>news:slrnit1bvc....@8600.edu...
>>
>>>> Yes, but those errors do not extend to the religious truth that God wants
>>
>> What "religious truth"?
>
>Religious truth is the truth about God and how this relates to man and the
>rest of creation.
What "truth" about what "God", dishonest moron who begs the same
question again?
>>
>> What "god"?
>
>God is the Creator of the universe -
What "Creator of the universe", question-begging moron who is too
stupid to realise that when he bullshits about this hypothetical god
outside his religion, his answers have to be outside it as well?
> The Big Cheese - The Major Dude - who
>gives life it's beauty, seriousness and sublimity.
More bullshit that presumes it instead of demonstrating its existence
outside your deluded imagination.
> Sin and pride separate
>us from God,
No, liar. The fact that until you demonstrate its existence, it
remains merely somebody else's ridiculous belief they neither put up
nor shut up about, does that.
> and humility and meekness, and a mild submission to His mercy
>for us,
Not until you demonstrate there is something that has mercy to submit
to, question-begging moron.
> reconcile us to Him,
What "Him". imbecile who begs the original question yet again?
> through the grace of His Son,
What "grace" of what "His Son", moron?
> Jesus Christ.
Another figment of your deluded imagination until you demonstrate
otherwise.
Now answer the question honestly without rudely and stupidly preaching
about it and again assuming what you are supposed to be proving.
>> Two things he should have proved before assuming them where he knows
>> they don't believe his religion.
>>
>> Which was pointed out the first time he did it, a couple of years ago
>> at least.
Couldn't acknowledge this?
>>>> to
>>>> convey through the human author, which is guaranteed by the authority of
>>>> God
>>>> Himself.
>>
>> Again, what "God"?
>>
>> Until he proves it, it's merely somebody else's religious myth like
>> Zeus, Odin and all the others.
>>
>>>If there are errors in the Bible, how exactly do you pick the parts that
>>>are free of errors?
Well, moron?
>>>>>>>>You are demanding that he adopt the same priorities as you have.
>>
>> A remarkably stupid thing to say because nobody is "demanding"
>> anything of what the poster has yet to demonstrate is anything more
>> than a figment of his imagination.
>>
>> He was talking to the poster, not the poster's pretend friend.
Couldn't answer this?
>> And the poster used a standard, transparently dishonest cop out that
>> shouldn't even fool himself, that again assumes the very thing he
>> copped out of proving in the first place.
Or this?
>>>>>>> I don't believe in any gods. It is quite clear that the Bible is just a
>>>>>>> human work and that those who claim that the Bible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose you've rewritten the Ten Commandments, too.
>>
>> Another piece of incredible stupidity to say to somebody he knows sees
>> the OT as just another book of ancient myths and legends.
Well?
>> Which is part and parcel of the same problem - his refusal to grant
>> that we don't believe any of it because we're not Christians and are
>> therefore part of the world beyond Christianity.
Which you just demonstrate again.
>>>>>>> The first ones are totally useless. The others are common to almost all
>>>>>>> human moral systems. The Bible is not a moral compass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>When will you demand that He accept your version?
>>
>> Sheer insanity when the liar knows we don't believe in his "He" in the
>> first place and haven't that we haven't rewritten anything.
>>
>> I suspect he thinks he is being clever asking a loaded question he
>> thinks can't be answered.
>
You just tacitly admitted that.
>>>>>>> Why would I make a demand of a nonexistent fantasy being?
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>>>>>>>This is Arrogant Atheism at it's
>>>>>>>>very worst. You fools are too ignorant to even umderstand what a deity
>>>>>>>>is all about. His decisions are not subject to your approval.
>>
>> And this is dishonest, nasty theism at its worst.
>>
>> The liar is too self-centred to admit that in the real world, deities
>> are merely religious beliefs and that his isn't substantively
>> different than any of the hundreds of others.
I'm glad you agree, because otherwise you would have tried to refute
this.
But it would have required you to concede the point.
>> And once again he rudely and stupidly assumes what he should have
>> proved a long time ago, the first time he talked about it as if it
>> were real.
>>
>> As well as lying about us when he invents things we aren't doing
>> because we are talking to him not his pretend friend.
>>
>>>>>>> Yet you keep making excuses for the moral failings of the Bible, while
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> see no reason to consider the Bible useful in considering moral
>>>>>>> questions.
>>
>> Especially when it comes via those with no moral scruples themselves,
>> from dishonest arguments and personal lies used as a rhetorical tool,
>> all the way up to a corrupt organisation that covered up and
>> facilitated the pedophile priest scandal.
Well?
>>>>>> All your moral sense is just the assimilation of your culture, which is
>>>>>> thoroughly informed by Christian morality. Your stress on religious
>>
>> What "Christian morality"?
>>
>> If the poster is acting according to "Christian morality" then it is
>> worthless.
Cat got your tongue?
>>>>>> hypocrisy, social evils, everything, is essentially Christian in nature.
>>>>>> You
>>>>>> are a Christian - a heretical Christian, no doubt - but a Christian
>>>>>> through
>>>>>> and through.
>>
>> Showing us just what "Christian morality" is.
More silence.
>>>>>> Your atheism or agnosticism is more pose than anything else. Chances
>>
>> With lies like that.
And he pretends he isn't a liar in spite of these
>> But he's a Christian - his own commandments don't apply to him.
>>
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> you are someone who doesn't want to or know how to come to terms with
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> moral failings. You run away from God and religion because you don't
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> how or want to face yourself. One day you will, one way or another. :)
>>
>> What makes Christians such amoral sociopaths at the same time they
>> talk about "Christian morality"?
Well?
>>>>> And your dishonesty and cowardice continues.
Which we wouldn't even have known if he had the intelligence to keep
it to himself in the first place, instead of lecturing us and lying
about us as if his pretend friend were universally granted.
>>>> I am not going to be drawn into a name-calling match with you, as you
>>>> undoubtedly wish I would. I prefer to remain civil in spite of my
>>>> disagreements with you.
>>
>> Another lie rather than admit the point.
>>
>> Does he really thing his amateur-psychologised stupid nastiness is
>> "being civil"?
>>
>> So much for this alleged "Christian morality".
>>
>>>No, I wish that you would respond to what is said instead of your stawmen.
>>>Your posts are objective evidence that you do constantly create strawmen to
>>>avoid a real discussion, your above nasty and arrogant ad hominem attack in
>>>which you claim that another poster's atheism is a pose is just one piece of
>>>evidence of your evasive behavior.
>>
>> Don't expect any honesty or human decency from him.
>>
>> And don't expect to pin him down.
He addressed none of the following either, whih is a summation of what
we have observed about him from his own behaviour.
Joe Bruno
You can't read, idiot.Slavery was illegal in Britain years before
Britain banned it throughout the Empire.If it was legal in Britain,
nobody would have given a shit if the Church of England was involved
in it.
You didn't know anything about it, either, moron.That's why you had to
look it up and even when you did you misread what you found.You're a
retarded lying worthless piece of shit.
Where are those legal answers to prove what you claim-that you are an
expert on Americna law?
Devils Advocaat
> On May 15, 11:10 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 9:15 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> > > > Budikka
>
> > > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>
> > > often.Talmud rulings after the bible was written have banned slavery
>
> > > You just exposed yourself to be an ignorant motherfucker.
>
> > >http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/30790
>
> > However when people speak of "The Bible" they are usually referring to
> > the Christian Bible and not the Jewish Scriptures.
>
> Impossible. The Torah is included in every Christian bible.
>
Here it is again ...
"So as the Christian Bible hasn't changed in all these centuries it
still contains verses that indicate that at various times in the past
history of the Jewish culture, slavery was condoned.
And there is the difference between what Budikka post means and what
you took it to mean."
Perhaps you can address this part of my post instead of ignoring it?
Joe Bruno
> On May 16, 7:12 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 11:10 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 9:15 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> > > > > Budikka
>
> > > > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>
> > > > We have also the Talmud, which brings Jewish law up to date every so
> > > > often.Talmud rulings after the bible was written have banned slavery
>
> > > > You just exposed yourself to be an ignorant motherfucker.
>
> > > >http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/30790
>
> > > However when people speak of "The Bible" they are usually referring to
> > > the Christian Bible and not the Jewish Scriptures.
>
> > Impossible. The Torah is included in every Christian bible.
>
> I notice you snipped and ignored the remainder of my post.
I'll do it again whenever I think it is appropriate and you have no
say in the matter.
>
> Here it is again ...
>
> "So as the Christian Bible hasn't changed in all these centuries it
> still contains verses that indicate that at various times in the past
> history of the Jewish culture, slavery was condoned.
Nope, just tolerated.Nowhere in the bible will you find a statement
that slavery is good.
Of course, I made this point before, but you missed it completely or
ignored it.
>
Joe Bruno
Sez you. So what?
.
Devils Advocaat
> On May 16, 11:02 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 7:12 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 11:10 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 15, 9:15 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 14, 4:49 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://etori.tripod.com/slave-verses.html
>
> > > > > > Budikka
>
> > > > > Hey, ignoramus!The Old Testament is not the only book on Jewish law:
>
> > > > > We have also the Talmud, which brings Jewish law up to date every so
> > > > > often.Talmud rulings after the bible was written have banned slavery
>
> > > > > You just exposed yourself to be an ignorant motherfucker.
>
> > > > >http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/30790
>
> > > > However when people speak of "The Bible" they are usually referring to
> > > > the Christian Bible and not the Jewish Scriptures.
>
> > > Impossible. The Torah is included in every Christian bible.
>
> > I notice you snipped and ignored the remainder of my post.
>
> I'll do it again whenever I think it is appropriate and you have no
> say in the matter.
>
>
> > Here it is again ...
>
> > "So as the Christian Bible hasn't changed in all these centuries it
> > still contains verses that indicate that at various times in the past
> > history of the Jewish culture, slavery was condoned.
>
> Nope, just tolerated.Nowhere in the bible will you find a statement
> that slavery is good.
You seem to have misunderstood what I posted.
Did I say that the Bible said slavery is good?
No, I did not.
Get yourself a dictionary and look up the word "condoned".
You may learn something.
> Of course, I made this point before, but you missed it completely or
> ignored it.
>
No, I didn't miss or ignore it.
I saw what you posted previously and that is what prompted me to
respond.
Andre Lieven
Just like no one 'gave a shit' about slavery in the US until
it was banned ? So, in Bruno world the civil war never happened...
<Laughs> At you...
> You didn't know anything about it, either, moron.That's why you had to
> look it up and even when you did you misread what you found.You're a
> retarded lying worthless piece of shit.
<Massive Loon Projection>
> Where are those legal answers to prove what you claim-that you are an
> expert on Americna law?
I've never studied Americna law. I don't believe that Americna
exists...
<Laughs> At you still...
Andre
Joe Bruno
You said it was "condoned".That includes approval.
I said it was tolerated, which means they put up with it without
approving it.
>
>