The Theist Hatred Of Atheists

[Mesogen]

I can't speak for all mankind but speaking only for myself it is my own free-will and decision not to engage in violent actions that keeps me from doing so.

May I interject that it is likely NOT any kind of free will that determines your desire or lack of desire to rape children. I'm going to guess that the thought of raping children is totally revolting to you on a visceral level. You might rationalize to yourself why you came to the "decision" not to rape children, but the "decision" was actually a result of your "gut."

Try getting empathy from someone who has significant damage to their cerebral cortex sometime, and get back to us on how well they respond.

Isn't it the frontal lobe? Don't they say that psychopaths have different "wiring" in their frontal lobe and they have trouble connecting with other people or empathizing at all with them?

 

[WilliamC]

May I interject that it is likely NOT any kind of free will that determines your desire or lack of desire to rape children. I'm going to guess that the thought of raping children is totally revolting to you on a visceral level. You might rationalize to yourself why you came to the "decision" not to rape children, but the "decision" was actually a result of your "gut."

I can assure you that my intestines play no role in my thought processes.

It is a brain function. And also very much a product of my upbringing.

Sad but true, were I or most any other person raised from infancy in a society where atrocities were taught as normal and right, we would participate in them with little, if any self-doubts about the morality of our actions.

There is a reason that most of humanities history has been one of violence and brutality towards our fellow man.

The period of enlightenment we find ourselves in here in the Westernized world today is rather unique in the idea that all individuals have an intrinsic self-worth and should be treated equally under the law.

And yes, religion has played a large role in the development of this enlightened world-view, as has science and advancements in technology that allow some people to actually have the spare time to devote to thinking about these abstract ideas, as opposed to struggling every day just to stay alive.

One of the great achievements of humanity is our cultural evolution, which occurres on time scales vastly more rapid than our biological evolution.

And now with the advent of the internet and true instantaneous global communications, we humans are at the beginning of another cultural revolution that none of us, from the most wealthy and powerful to the most poor and oppressed, can really comprehend or control.

Isn't it the frontal lobe? Don't they say that psychopaths have different "wiring" in their frontal lobe and they have trouble connecting with other people or empathizing at all with them?

Yes, our morals are the product of brain activity in our cerebral cortex, but I don't pretend to know the exact regions responsible. The references I provided in my last response to Theocrat seem to be excellent starting points for those wishing to learn more about this.

Or just google "empathy evolution brain damage" as I did and go from there.

 

[sophocles07]

May I interject that it is likely NOT any kind of free will that determines your desire or lack of desire to rape children. I'm going to guess that the thought of raping children is totally revolting to you on a visceral level. You might rationalize to yourself why you came to the "decision" not to rape children, but the "decision" was actually a result of your "gut."

I agree. This revulsion at a practice is what I mean when I say that ethical and social standards can be "evolved" into innate qualities.

I can assure you that my intestines play no role in my thought processes.

I think he meant the term in the sense of the Greek “thumos”—“liver” but also “heart,” i.e. it is natural.

It is a brain function. And also very much a product of my upbringing.

True. But I’m not aware of any culture that bred their children to see “raping children” as ok. Extreme patriarchy has existed, where it is “ok” to rape women; but this is not exactly the same.

Sad but true, were I or most any other person raised from infancy in a society where atrocities were taught as normal and right, we would participate in them with little, if any self-doubts about the morality of our actions.

One can be taught to do anything. This is, though, not an argument against an innate moral compass.

The period of enlightenment we find ourselves in here in the Westernized world today is rather unique in the idea that all individuals have an intrinsic self-worth and should be treated equally under the law.

I wouldn’t put it so simply. Romans, for example, had an extreme amount of rights under the law. So did male Greeks. The enlightenment merely extended this to meet all (or at least all whites); and in the 20th century ALL people were included.

 

[Macon GA]

God's Law is liberating.

Instead of going over every law written in the bible, laws which are purported to come from God... there are just so many of them.. how to treat your slaves, how to treat women, etc., so many that I could ask you to comment on as to their revelance in today's society, let's just keep it simple and stick for now with that most basic set of laws known as the 10 commandments.

Actually.... according to rabbinic reckoning, the Torah has 613 laws. In terms of Christian tallies, the number may be less because the ancient rabbinic count sometimes divides a single statement into more than one law. Of these "613" many are not even enforceable by man, but by God only. This greatly restricts the jurisdictions of the state, thus producing a Godly libertarianism which limits the powers of all human agencies.

Do you think the laws of any particular state or nation presently could be comprehended in only 613 laws? You want to talk about slavery and bondage... Look at the oppression we live under because we have set man up as lawgiver.

Biblical Law seems oppressive to only those who want freedom to sin, or to those who have set themselves up as their own gods. Because we have excluded God.... we have man and the state playing God. The results are oppressive and tyrannical.

Did you know that Ted Bundy raised the question about law? In 1989, "he rambled on once about hunters who stalked and killed deer and were never plagued by a guilty conscience. Why are we so moralistic, Bundy wanted to know, when it comes to human life? Why is a human life worth more than a deer's life?" He also challenged any and all laws banning the pursuit and rape-murder of young women.

There is freedom under God's Law. He set the limits; they are fixed. Man's law and statist law have no limits. The next session of any legislative body will increase the number of laws. The humanistic state constantly expands its power, because its goal and the goal of its citizenry is to accrue enough power to play (or be) God. Humanistic law is a plan of salvation for the people.... the means of gaining a "good" society according to the Humanist. When we neglect God's Law, we are in truth neglecting our liberty; falling in bondage to the state becomes inevitable.

And here we are today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For the Lord is our JUDGE, the Lord is our LAWGIVER, the Lord is our KING; He will save us." (Isaiah 33:22)

This remind you of anything?

Judge - Judicial
Lawgiver - Legislative
King - Executive

 

[sophocles07]

You want to talk about slavery and bondage... Look at the oppression we live under because we have set man up as lawgiver.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is called 'skirting the argument.'

Let me repeat the question: WHAT ABOUT SLAVERY--SLAVERY IS CONDONED IN THE BIBLE?

 

[amy31416]

That, ladies and gentlemen, is called 'skirting the argument.'

Let me repeat the question: WHAT ABOUT SLAVERY--SLAVERY IS CONDONED IN THE BIBLE?

This thread is very, very long and I admittedly didn't read through the entire thing, but I will say this--lots of horrible things are condoned in the bible. It is not something to live your life by. Your moral compass, if you have one, is far better.

 

[Macon GA]

Even if the sperm/egg fertilization barrier would prevent in vivo fertilization between us and chimpanzees, it is very likely that if some sick individual injected human sperm into a chimpanzee egg (or vice versa) the resulting embryo would be viable and, if transplanted into a surrogate mother, could develop until birth.

Hey....now I remember. I read about a little monkey boy in one of Michael Crichton's novels... He was the best tree climber in his class. I can't remember for sure, but I would be willing to bet that bananas were his favorite fruit.

This is a very common misconception. Humans have not evolved from the modern monkey you see today; we share a common ancestor (so we're more like cousins).

And that is evidenced where? Who observed this incredible phenomenon?

Piltdown Man: fake, human skull with a few key parts missing, jaw of an ape whose teeth had been filed down and stained

Java Man: Bones found over fifty feet apart in gravel. Who knows if bones came from the same individual. Regular human skulls also evidenced in gravel (which were conveniently forgotten for 30 years).

Nutcracker Man: Skull ape-like, but buried with evidence of human tools.... must be evidence of an apeman using tools? Or perhaps the human tools were used on the ape skulls, not by the apes. Ape meat may be too tough, so the ape brain is considered the real delicacy. 30 years later Leakey finds bones like modern man buried deeper. Hmmmmmmm...

We also have other mistakes made.... supposed ape-men's bones turning out to be other things like: alligator's upper leg bone, dolphin's rib, horse's toe.

Nebraska Man (including his whole family): based on a single TOOTH.... that is good science. Remember the Scopes Trial? An identical tooth was found later with its real skull attached to its real skeleton..... Pig's tooth.

Ramapithecus: first ape to walk upright????? This based on pieces of jaws and teeth. Soon after whole jaw is found and as it turns out Rama was just an ape after all.

How come Evolutionist's are so eager to use the tiniest bit of "evidence" to support their Scientific endeavors?

How about the tooth that wasn't there? Discover magazine's cover story on a jaw that had the canine teeth missing. The hole where they should have been was small, so the pointed teeth must have been small, which means they couldn't have been used as weapons, which means the animal must have had its hands free to hold weapons, which PROVES it walked upright....

Evolution is not science. It is a belief about the past. A belief made up by men and women who weren't there. Men and women who are not omniscient, and who have made some HUGE mistakes about the past already.

 

[beachmaster]

You want to talk about slavery and bondage... Look at the oppression we live under because we have set man up as lawgiver.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. - Exodus 21:2-6


When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. - Exodus 21:7-11


When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. - Exodus 21:20-21


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. - Leviticus 25:44-46​

Maybe the New Testament changed God's laws on this issue as it supposedly did with so many other laws? Let's see.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. - Ephesians 6:5


Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. - 1 Timothy 6:1-2
​

I don't know about you Macon (or Theocrat), but to me, slavery is immoral. Assuming you agree, then the bible isn't a very good guide for morality is it?

How hard would it have been to include amongst the Old Testament commands, "Thou shall not own a man or woman as property."

How hard would it have been for Jesus to say "You have heard it said that you may purchase male or female slaves, but I say unto you, no man shall own another"?

No, it's definitely not in there. I've searched.

Let's see how you folks justify the bible's take on slavery. After that, we can get into the subject of the treatment of women in the bible.

[Edited to add:

Biblical Law seems oppressive to only those who want freedom to sin, or to those who have set themselves up as their own gods. Because we have excluded God.... we have man and the state playing God. The results are oppressive and tyrannical.

Biblical law probably seems even more oppressive to slaves. We have man, claiming that he's got the word of a living god telling him it's ok to own and beat slaves (even to their death, so long as they live a day or so after the beating, because they are his property). Because we have allowed people to think they have the word of an almighty god, the results are oppressive and tyrannical.]

 

[Macon GA]

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. - Exodus 21:2-6

Actually the Hebrew word (ebed) in v.2 should be translated "servant, or bondsman." This references someone who either because of debt or poverty entered the service of a man for a six-year period. The seventh year was the year of Jubilee where he could go out freely. His presence in the house was a form of welfarism with a work program (unlike what we currently have in the U.S. where welfare recipients are rewarded for their laziness and often times immoral lifestyles). Bondservants were even considered part of the family and could inherit. Before Ishamael and Isaac, Abraham's heir was a man born in his household of such a bondservant.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. - Exodus 21:7-11

These laws are relative to women and bondservants... If a man were deeply in debt, he could settle his debt by means of his daughter's bondservice. This depended on the willingness of the man to whom the money was owed to receive the young girl as a POTENTIAL wife for himself, or a son. She was to be treated as a daughter until such marriage. If the girl did not please the man, she was to be redeemed.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (for he is his money) - Exodus 21:20-21

If the angry mistress or master beats such a person to death, then they too MUST DIE. If the victim doesn't die, but is bedridden for a time, the offender must pay for the loss of his time and for his medical expenses.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. - Leviticus 25:44-46

There is no denying that this law was abused in Israel both in OT time and NT. Israelites could CHOOSE to become bondservants, with the understanding that they would be released in the 7th year. An unconverted foreigner could walk away if conditions were unjust, or convert and become eligible for Sabbath year release. In the U.S. , in the early colonial era, blacks who converted gained freedom.

The U.S. then passed legislation against the Biblical law, which was common law, to establish slavery in America.

We do see regulations governing the treatment of all kinds of servants. God's law requires man to be mindful that all men are God's creatures and His servants.

Kidnapping was punished with DEATH (Ex. 11:16).
Foreign slaves were encouraged to become proselytes (Ex. 12:44).
He might be set free (Ex. 11:26,27).
Special rules were laid down for the security of his life and limbs (Ex. 11:20,21,26).

Slavery is immoral when a person is stolen and sold. "Man Stealing" is a capital offense. When the Africans sold their own people into slavery, and the Europeans bought them.... that was NOT Biblical slavery. Had these offenders (both the sellers and the buyers) been punished biblically, I wonder how long American Slavery would have lasted.

However, if a person willingly agrees to be sold into slavery, then that is his choice. Surely a good "libertarian-minded" person would agree to that. I guess you would want to be careful about who you "sold yourself" to....

 

[Macon GA]

More Food for Thought...

The 'slavery' of the OT was essentially designed to serve the poor!:

"`If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. 38 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God. _39 "`If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. (Lev 25.35-43)

Notice that the sole motive--in the above text-- for allowing 'slavery' is so the poor can continue in the land, and that it is NEVER 'forever' (indeed, other passages indicate that it was 6 years at the most!).

Many of God's commands to Israel about treatment of 'slaves' are cast in light of Israel's experience of harsh slavery in Egypt. She is told to remember her slavery and to not oppress the slave or the alien in the Land. There are many, many verses relative to this (e.g. Deut 5.6; 6.12, 21; 7.8; 15.15; 16.12; 24.18, 19). Just to cite a couple:

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. (Deut 5.13f)

When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this. (Deut 24.21)

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.

 

[beachmaster]

Actually the Hebrew word (ebed) in v.2 should be translated "servant, or bondsman." This references someone who either because of debt or poverty entered the service of a man for a six-year period. The seventh year was the year of Jubilee where he could go out freely. His presence in the house was a form of welfarism with a work program (unlike what we currently have in the U.S. where welfare recipients are rewarded for their laziness and often times immoral lifestyles). Bondservants were even considered part of the family and could inherit. Before Ishamael and Isaac, Abraham's heir was a man born in his household of such a bondservant.

You conveniently didn't address all of the passage... let me highlight for you:

If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.​

It's not quite as rosy a picture as you paint.

These laws are relative to women and bondservants... If a man were deeply in debt, he could settle his debt by means of his daughter's bondservice. This depended on the willingness of the man to whom the money was owed to receive the young girl as a POTENTIAL wife for himself, or a son. She was to be treated as a daughter until such marriage. If the girl did not please the man, she was to be redeemed.

Again, not quite the rosy picture you paint.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.​

Seems a little sexist doesn't it? The daughter will not be freed as the men are. That's pretty cut and dried.

If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.​

If she does not please the man who bought her? Please, are you really trying to justify this? Are you now going to say, "yeah but at least he isn't allowed to sell her to foreigners since he broke the contract with her". Yeah, that's real sweet of God to command that for her sake. Sure, whatever.

And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.​

What if she doesn't want to marry her owner's son?

If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.​

But if he doesn't fail in these things, she is NOT free to leave. She'll remain a wife/slave, mere property of the man.

If the angry mistress or master beats such a person to death, then they too MUST DIE. If the victim doesn't die, but is bedridden for a time, the offender must pay for the loss of his time and for his medical expenses.

In our country, if you beat someone, morals and law dictate that the man be punished in addition to paying restitution. In the bible law, if the slave dies after a day or two, the slave owner is NOT charged with murder, nor punished in any way. Do you think this is good? Seriously?

There is no denying that this law was abused in Israel both in OT time and NT. Israelites could CHOOSE to become bondservants, with the understanding that they would be released in the 7th year. An unconverted foreigner could walk away if conditions were unjust, or convert and become eligible for Sabbath year release. In the U.S. , in the early colonial era, blacks who converted gained freedom.

So you are saying that if they didn't convert, it's ok to keep them as slaves, or if they are treated in a certain way, they still are to remain as slaves and are not free to leave. Do you really think this is good? I doubt Ron Paul would endorse a system like this in America today.



I'm running late and can't address the rest of your post right now. I don't see the point in it anyway, as I think I've made my case. I've had this same exact discussion many times with bible believers including my wife. My wife can't and doesn't justify it. She is starting to think that some parts of the bible were not of God I think... she sort of avoids the touchy issues if you know what I mean.

Anyway, I may come back to finish... or not as time dictates.

 

[wv@SC]

Well said, Macon. The facts from the Bible show that God provided slavery for the welfare of the poor (which if the poor was an Israelite, he would go free in the jubilee) and the occupation for conquered POWs.

In the year of jubilee, the master wasn't able to just kick out the person who had been his slave, either. He was to send him away full.

The point is is that the institution of slavery in the Bible was strictly regulated by God himself. If you (as a master) struck your slave and knocked out a tooth, you would have to release him/her from bondage. I don't think people would go around beating and whipping their slaves if that was the penalty, especially if you invested lots of money!

 

[wv@SC]

I have to add that this probably isn't the place to try and teach people about Biblical slavery. I'm not trying to flame anyone (or get flamed), but if people don't have respect for God's Word (and think they know better than He does), then the result will only be argument because there's no common ground for discussion.

 

[beachmaster]

If there really is a God, the bible blasphemes It (Him/Her, whatever).

 

[wv@SC]

If there really is a God, the bible blasphemes It (Him/Her, whatever).

You, sir, would be better off if you would not say things against the Bible.

To say that the Bible blasphemes God Himself is to make God at odds with Himself (which is impossible). The Bible is God's inerrant, infallible Word and everything in it is absolutely true.

If you don't agree with God, say so if you must. But do not persist in your unwise words, especially because it will neither do you any good, nor any that might read them.

 

[beachmaster]

You, sir, would be better off if you would not say things against the Bible.

To say that the Bible blasphemes God Himself is to make God at odds with Himself (which is impossible). The Bible is God's inerrant, infallible Word and everything in it is absolutely true.

If you don't agree with God, say so if you must. But do not persist in your unwise words, especially because it will neither do you any good, nor any that might read them.

Prove the bible came from a god, any god.

Do that and I'll shut up.

 

[Macon GA]

If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.

I guess it would be o.k. to assume that when such a man married, he would know the alternatives. He could decide whether or not to remain, or to work to redeem his family.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.

I read in Exodus 21:7: And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she SHALL NOT GO OUT AS THE MANSERVANTS DO.

My understanding is that she is NOT to be treated as the Manservants like a field hand, nor should she be subjected to hard labor. She became betrothed to the man (or a son) and a bride price was paid. Her period of "bondservice" was a time of training within the family circle for marriage. She was to be treated as a daughter (v.9). In this way, a poor family's daughter was able marry even though she did not have a dowry.

In the bible law, if the slave dies after a day or two, the slave owner is NOT charged with murder, nor punished in any way.

"Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money."

It doesn't say if he DIES after a day or two.... A slave's death at the hand of his master meant the master's death. It means if he is "bedridden" or unable to work.

The beating of slaves would not have been the "norm" in Hebrew culture. Who would indenture themselves to a man known by his abusive character?

I have to run too. I will check back later.

 

[Kade]

Paaleeeze! This thread title and subject is a joke!!!

I am a christian who's been in several churches for close to two decades. There is no "hate" among christians for aitheists and all the churches I've been a part of have expressed hate for the sin, but not hate for the sinner.,.........and if you choose to continue in this, you love and make a lie, just like the politicians you despise!
there is no inbread hatetred for aitheists.....in fact, it was christians who signed the bill of rights for freedom of religion, which includes the religion of atheism

More craziness. Just read through the thread, Macon missed out on it too, the few Atheists here have been relatively peaceful... I think it is very fair to call certain beliefs insane, for instance, just take a look at our friend Theocrat;

You're right, WilliamC. I do need God to tell me it's wrong to rape children because of my sinful nature, but guess what. So do you and all of mankind. That's why God has given us a conscience to know right from wrong by means of His holy laws being "written on our hearts" (Romans 1:18-23; Romans 2:11-16).

How do you even refute this nonsense?

The title of this thread was mostly about the article... there is severe distrust and hate in the church towards non-Christians, that as a Christian none of you see this is not surprising... again, speck in the eye... of course Christians are loving people who can't do no wrong... why is there such a strong and open political attack against Secularism?

Even in Romney's speech, all people of faith are free and peaceful, we should beware the people of non-faith, they are the danger to society...

Don't any of you dare sit here and tell me that this country's Christians are liberty loving and peaceful people... I call, without the essence of my very being, bullshit.

 

[beachmaster]

I guess it would be o.k. to assume that when such a man married, he would know the alternatives. He could decide whether or not to remain, or to work to redeem his family.

There's some family values for you! Having a choice of whether to buy your wife and kids or leaving them as slaves. I'll pass on that sort of system thank you.

I read in Exodus 21:7: And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she SHALL NOT GO OUT AS THE MANSERVANTS DO.

My understanding is

That's part of the problem with the bible. Millions of Christians have different understandings of what it's saying, what is applicable for today, what is metaphorical versus what is literal, which translations are more accurate, etc. There just is no clear standard. It boils down to you having to arbitrarily decide what it is saying. Another Christian does the same, and comes up with something different. How is that a way to run a nation?

that she is NOT to be treated as the Manservants like a field hand, nor should she be subjected to hard labor. She became betrothed to the man (or a son) and a bride price was paid.

Don't you think there is something wrong with someone paying a price for another human being? Isn't that just immoral on the very face of it? Can you not understand why we do not do these things in America, and why if we did, we would have no rights to claim that we stand for liberty?

"Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money."

It doesn't say if he DIES after a day or two....

It says if he survives a day or two... it says this RIGHT AFTER saying if he dies right away. If the slave were to just continue living out the rest of his or her natural life, there would be no point in saying "If, however he survives a day or two" now would there? Clearly this is referring to the slave who dies shortly after his beating. Here's another translation...

If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. - Exodus 21: 20,21 (New American Standard)​

Still, even if it didn't mean that... the slave owner gets no punishment for beating a slave to within an inch of his life. How exactly is that moral? The slave is referred to as the "property" of the master. How exactly can you reconcile this with our modern standards of morality?

A slave's death at the hand of his master meant the master's death. It means if he is "bedridden" or unable to work.

Only if the slave dies within a day or two. See above. Read the plain meaning of the text and stop trying to make it say something it doesn't.

The beating of slaves would not have been the "norm" in Hebrew culture. Who would indenture themselves to a man known by his abusive character?

Are you forgetting about the forcible taking of slaves from other nations? Even the taking of the virgin young ladies to be made "wives" like the Midianites (which actually by law the Israelites could not marry Midianites... so what exactly were they doing with these young virgin slaves they captured right after slaughtering their families? Will you seriously continue trying to justify this as moral behavior? Is your God really that callus? I mean seriously, we've only just begun here. There's much more (as I'm sure you are aware).

I have to run too. I will check back later.

Any time... (my time is limited as well lately).

 

[beachmaster]

Who would indenture themselves to a man known by his abusive character?

By the way, in case you still think the Declaration of Independence is based on the bible, it says We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights


Our declaration is in direct conflict with the bible on the point of bond servanthood.

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523.

Under our founding document, you can not sell your rights to life and liberty. It's also why we don't have debtor prisons.

Our founding documents are more moral to me than the bible. They certainly are not equivalent in any way.

If our nation was to be founded on biblical law, the Constitution could have been written to include bible quotes... at least one! But it doesn't do that (thank god!).