(February 8, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Drich Wrote: No. What I have said IS THIS CULTURE HAS ADOPTED SLAVERY AND GENOCIDE, But Relabled it so it seems 'morally just.' Which is extremely dangerous because without being honest with  ourselves we put no terms or limits on slavery or our genocidal war.

I don't know about yall, but when I think of things taken to be morally just by my society ..........exploitative migrant labor conditions and foreign sweatshops just jump right up at me as great examples.  I mean, think about it...every day on the news we see opinion pieces extolling the moral justness of sub par wages and substandard working conditions.  People and businesses clamor to attach their names to productive sweatshops and the worst illegal labor violations, there are committees which hand out citations to the most cruel and usory of sweatshop operations and labor law violations...so we can know who these great americans are. When we discover them in our midst, they're universally loved and respected for their involvement with such morally just endeavors, and news broadcasts hound them constantly for an opportunity to praise them for their efforts and ethics.....................

Quote:I am waving the flag, bring attention to how this society is actively participating in no restriction Slavery and is gearing up for a genocidal war, and in your mind I'm the one who endorses it?? What kind of broken mind do you have?
The problem little miss doesn't thinks she wrong, is that without owning your immoral behaivor/Changing your immorality to judtify your actions, you are making it ok to literally do the things you yourself claim is immoral!

How can you not see that?

I think that there's a little man waving a flag in your christian head, trying to get your attention....but he hasn't seen the outside world in so long he doesn't have a representative picture of reality anymore.

(February 8, 2016 at 11:10 am)Drich Wrote:

(February 7, 2016 at 3:26 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Red herring?  I'm asking you what Deuteronomy 23:18 has to do with marriage and you cite me some bullshit website that I can't know is legitimate or not.  I'm going by what the Bible SAYS.  Anything else is a red herring.  So please find me a collection of verses that outlaw any of the elements of heterosexual infant rape.  BIBLE VERSES.  In prain Engrish.  If you're so sure the English version has it wrong, please explain WHY all English versions are wrong, or else find an English version that has it right.

Try harder.. This is still a red herring because the explanation you seek was given in post 331 when i Identified the Hebrew word and gave you the definition. Nice to see you finally catching up (your logic and reasoning seems to only be about 4 pages behind at this point.)

You told me about hoe Zanah can refer to a whore that doesn't change the fact that the verse is talking about MONEY.

(February 7, 2016 at 2:53 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 7, 2016 at 6:00 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: There are always nuts running around killing people, I can't really see what's so urgent now. There's the Christian nuts in Africa Joseph Kony etc, Islamic Boko Haram and ISIS etc and the political/criminals accross the world, it has always been this way, in fact more so in the past, so I see no need for exterminations "to the last child", which is what you seem to be having a hard on for.

Again, I'm just a student of history that is identifying a pattern that plays out ever so many generations in the United States. I see the pattern already in motion and to date has yet to disappoint in it's completion of the cycle.

This is why it's been said those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it. History is the record of human nature. In society we always think ourselves better than everyone else. (even the bad guys.) When this self righteousness takes over a society it allows for all sorts of evil justifications. When two large soceities develop this at the same time it always means the same thing. Genocide.

Now, 'the west' is one self righteous society. and the middle East is the other. Ask yourself will one adopt the 'evil' acts of the other? will either ever back down or will it escalate? And so goes the pattern.

I bristle at the suggestion I do not know history. I like to think I know rather more on the subject than you.

We're skipping one of the most important elements of Drippy's argument, namely that he points to horrible actions done by society and thinks that we approve of whatever society says is okay, rather than using our own sense of empathy-based morality to determine what we feel is actually better for all involved*. Sometimes, powerful people get their way and try to excuse their actions based on jingoism, or religion, or whatever philosophical means they feel can help them achieve their ends... since you're referring to Nazis constantly, I'd point out that the intellectuals (even among his own party) were among the first people Hitler-and-company targeted, since they spoke out against his ideas, his abuse of science, and his violent rhetoric.

What's being skipped here is that the Bible is also (clearly, to an outside observer) a construct of society; in particular, two societies. One was an extremely violent, patriarchal warrior-tribe that believed in slavery, genocide, and blood rituals, among other things we in post-Enlightenment circles consider morally abhorrent. The second was a post-Hellenic Judea and Asia Minor under Roman control, and the reaction of people as they tried to reconcile the ancient teachings with more modern philosophical influences (particularly Paul, of course). All were written by the hands of men--they claimed to be inspired by Gawd, of course, according to Drippy and his kind--and all were constructs of their societies, with all the obvious baggage.

The difference is that we look to society and try to correct it onto an ever-better course, one that takes the maximal good for everyone involved and reduces harm to everyone. They take what was constructed 2500-1700 years ago and try to massage it until they can still tolerate the intolerable things contained within, while simultaneously trying to claim it is we who need to correct our path back onto the program set out by that ancient society. Thus all this bizarre chatter about "obedience to the will of God", which no one can quite discern in a way that everyone else agrees upon, but all seem to agree that it really is The Will of God™ that they've personally tapped into, they have a strong emotional motive for clinging desperately to it and refusing to even listen to others who try to tell them the problem with their Bronze Age moral constructs.

Because they quite literally think of the Bible as "dictated-by-God-to-His-secretaries", they refuse to see the obvious and instead must claim that is is we who "don't get it".

But we do get it. It's as plain as noses on faces. And it's pathetic.

*Edit to Add: When I say "for all involved", I mean that sometimes rights are a trade-off, or they are not supported by the majority but must be minority rights protected against the majority (see both the Federalist papers and the US Constitution). For instance, with your example of abortion and the emotional trap of "sucking baby brains out" (or however you phrased it), our courts determined that it was a far worse evil for the government to dictate to women and their doctors what they were allowed to do to their reproductive systems. They went to great lengths to explain why, and it's available online if you care enough to read Roe or Casey. Another cited example is homosexual behavior, which you referenced earlier... it's another case of there being no harm except to the people who follow a religious book, so their right to liberty was determined to be more important, as was also the case with the recent decision on gay marriage. More people get rights, and while some are offended by that fact for ideological reasons, it really is the greatest good versus the degree of harm, a fairly simple moral/social system that we have developed in this country which should be lauded, not scorned. You Christers whine and scream about it, but the fact is all that is happening is that people are no longer being forced to follow the social constructs of a Bronze Age blood-sacrificing, genocidal sheepherder tribe, and we think that's A Good Thing™.

(February 7, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Drich Wrote: It is about obedience, yes. I don't think one can classify it as mindless obedience because just look how much time and effort it has taken to get you to understand this 'simple' principle.

Right and wrong to play a role, but the 'test' is not about right or wrong, the test is to be obediant, once we are we will be given the Holy Spirit to help us live 'right.' Not the trivial 'right' of the culture but truly set apart/holy.

If you honestly think I didn't "understand" it before then you are not listening. To anyone. Or perhaps resorting to condescension in desperation.
You do not know what Gods instruction is. You have your best guess. You conceded this. Your "obedience" is to your own interpretation which you have gone so far as to say doesn't matter whether its correct or not. By your own rules you can do no wrong. Either in terms of facts or morality. This is important because the point made was that Gods morality being perfect should be obvious to everyone that it is the path to follow. The interpretation you offer is that not only is it not obvious its unknowable and we will get into heaven by doing what we think is the right thing... which sounds like the flawed human moral compass has more influence and more clarity than the God moral compass.

Quote:No, this is not about us righting a wrong. Atonement and Redemption is about what Christ did on the cross to right a wrong. We are give these tools so we may not boast about our deeds to 'right a wrong.'

Again, I thought you couldn't make judgement on Gods morality. Yet this sounds like what you're doing when you announce to everyone that Christ dying on the cross was redemption for mankind. That statement not only requires a moral compass to have any weight but a moral compass that has an understanding of Gods moral compass. Otherwise you're just parroting words from the Bible without any understanding of what they mean. Do you have an understanding of Gods moral compass?
If so would you care to share it?

Quote:That is the problem with people like you. you need a 1:1 correlative ratio to compare societal evil. Because we do not employ the same exact tactics and tools the Nazi's use or 19th slave owners use Things like human brutality does not exist! If you were to take the act of sucking the brain out of a viable baby and looked at nothing else, and were ask to judge the act, how would you judge it? Is this a moral act? Now ask yourself If a random person was scooping up 3rd trimester women and performing this act on unwilling mothers, how would you judge that man? Now, change the mother's mind and now this VERY SAME ACT becomes moral?!?!?

The act does not change. The fully developed baby still feels the pain, fear, and terror no matter what the mother decides, yet to you to society this is a moral act.

Explain to me how this is any different than the gas chambers of Nazi Germany. You can't cite numbers because since 1972 we have killed more babies than Germany killed jews.

ALL USING THE SAME BASIC FORMAT! We put our evil brutality out as a basic human right, and as a result a dehumanized portion of the population is turned into fodder for our medical incinerators.

Oh you mean people who need a comparison to be comparable? Yeah, total bastards. So unreasonable.
There is a world of difference between a woman who makes a choice with her body and a woman who does not. There is as much a difference between a fetus whos brain has barely developed and a baby. The only reason you can't see it is because you have this moronic delusion that every cluster of cells that might become a human has an immortal soul. There are no fully developed babies being legally murdered in the U.S or the U.K. The refugee camps you are talking about are in countries outside of our control, outside our societies and so should be outside of this conversation.
If you want to make another thread on abortion then do so but I will retain focus inside this thread on the subject we started with. That subject is the "superior" morality of Yahweh and why in all its perfection, from your perspective, it eludes the vast majority.

Quote:So do you enjoy this totally independent freedom where you live? or are their rules that govern what you can and can not do with your freedoms? or do you live on a longer leash?

That said God makes no bones about our new role or our old one. we are either slaves to Sin or we are slaves to God. Jesus said if we belong to Him His burden is easy and our load will be light. Meaning in this case we are free from the law.

While it is true we all suffer bonds of one form or another. I am more bound by my principles than I am by the law. The law can be evaded, my principles can't. That leash extends as much as I do.

Quote:But that's the thing... how can you say one sin is greater or less than the other? Just because one sin effects you less from a physical perspective does it indeed make less of a sin? From an eternal perspective death is nothing. Death no matter how we die is ultimately our birth into eternity, Death or how we die does not effect the soul. Yet something as trivial as lies and gossip can poison a soul and embitter a person resulting in their eternal separation from God.

Now from an eternal perspective which one of the sinners you described has a greater chance of destroying someone forever/Which one has the greatest chance of committing the bigger wrong against someone else. The one who ended a life, or the one who poisoned a soul and destroyed that soul's place with God?

Your sense of right and wrong is all backwards. You worry and center everything around here and now. Not giving thought to what is still to come.

Then it sounds like God is as much a craftsman as he is an orator. Crafting a soul with full knowledge of what will happen to it and making it so fragile seems either grossly incompetent or breathtakingly cruel. Like placing a slug on a floor littered with broken glass and salt.
You know nothing of my sense of right and wrong. You have asked me no questions on the matter.

Quote:You are the 1 talent guy because where God actually gave you one talent or 10 you've burried what he has given you. (You are not using what he has given for his glory.) The story is not about how much the servants were given but what they did with what they were given. Stop looking to be offended, and maybe you will stop seeing offence in what I am trying to share with you.

I'm not looking to be offended. I'm pointing out presumptions and unbacked judgement. If I am made as I am, on the path I am then who are you to suggest what I am doesn't fully fall inline with Gods moral compass?

Quote:third trimester is not the planning stage of car construction, The build is complete and the car is waiting to be delivered.

If someone delivered a car to me with a frame and three quarters of the engine missing I would ask for my money back. Thats what the third trimester is. The beginning of the process to conscious life. Not the middle, not the end. If left alittle longer then yes, it could be argued to be a viable human being but at that point it is no- why am I still debating this? Its unrelated. This is not the subject.

Quote:So what a million? 10 million?? 100 Million? a billion In the WHole bible that spans 4 or 5000 years??
how about 1.4 billion since 1980. In just 36 years we have more than likely doubled/quadrupled  All of the infant deaths that anyone could ever attribute to God, and yet Idiots claim god is a monster because he kills babies...
This is what Jesus meant by take the friggen plank out of your eye before you worry about the speck in the eye of your neighbor.
http://www.numberofabortions.com/
You keep calling me shameless... what's actually shameful is you appealing to my modesty when you do not want to look at immoral truths of pop culture/morality that would force you to reconsile the propaganda you have adopted that affords you the level of self righteousness you lord over everyone and every thing that challenges your 'moral security.'

That sport is shame full or rather you should be ashamed of hiding from the truth just because it challenges your 'moral foundation.'

A 'moral foundation' that you yourself can not live up to. a 'moral foundation' that you will be judged by, and be found wanting.

Yeah, I guess I'd be trying to shut down the conversation too if someone hit a never that close to home. I'd call everything they believe into question and I would try and shame them off topic as well.

Nice try, but no. the facts remain, and if you don't like talking about them then i suggest that you find someone else to try and defend you morality to them. Maybe they will let you manipulate the topic so you are not faced with a hard reality to answer for.

Seriously? Thats your estimate from that description? Countless. Literally countless. Is abortion literally the only thing you're capable of discussing? Like, I get what you're doing. "Oh yeah, you think Gods bad? Check out how bad your society is! " Putting aside the abortion example is invalid for the U.K. and the U.S, our societies, how do you think thats a good arguement? "Oh well, we can't really know Gods morality... and from what we do know its horrible... but quick! Look at this! This is also horrible!"
Seriously? Is that seriously the best counter you have?

Quote:What are you talking about? We are judged against the Law that was given to moses.
Then Christ in Mat 5 extended the law to include thought. So the whole Law.
Plus sinful thoughts that break that law.

Not what you typed. You typed about that which transcends rules. If this is the perfect moral compass then why all the different interpretations? Aside from the ten commandments (three of them are basically the same thing) there are all types of commandments moses handed down which you would happily ignore.
Sinful thoughts? Like what?

Quote:If you don't want me to use the roflol emoji then why say stupid stuff like this? Do you still not understand it's not about 'morality?' It seemed like you were getting it in the beginning, and then you went back and defaulted to arguing against a catholic priest.

Again, God has given us the freedom to 'create morality' based on what we understand/can fathom his wants to be.

Do you understand that sentence? Their is no limit once you become Christian. If you need to be catholic and that is what you understand of God, and can ever understand of God, then you must follow the catholic set of rules. However if you don't need to live that way, and can serve God with all you 'talents' another way then to you being catholic is the same as burying your talents and will be punished for their misuse.

Can you fathom what this means? It means God does not demand we all be made to understand everything He has decreed. He just wants you to do your best with what you have. In that sense God does not need to communicate this to everyone. The only thing that people need to understand is to be devoute to their understanding of the Jesus Christ centered religion of choice. To which All do understand. So God's communication skills from the 1st to the 21st century 100% (because again we all understand that our religions are the only way to heaven no matter how different they are)

Actually the roflol emoji was more helpful advice. It does not help you.
Then God is not a moral authority, he has no morality. All he requires is that we live as we will based on moral codes we would likely form anyway and worship him. The most successful followers spread their interpretation and that becomes gospel among the religious. Through guile, through cunning, through force or through sheer numbers. Its all good. The right interpretation can justify anything. Ultimately might makes right. God is power, it is all he is.

(February 7, 2016 at 4:01 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Your first error is in thinking that there is a god and you personally understand his will. Your second error is in thinking that a being who would create the system you describe is worthy of worship.  Your third error is in thinking that the fact moral consensus changes over time makes it valueless.  Your fourth error is in thinking atheists don't believe in god for the purpose of avoiding god's stricter later.

I agree that the fourth is speculation although I do think it applies to most atheists even if only as a contributing factor. The third has more to do with epistemology. First people must agree that something is before determining what it is. Either there is universally applicable moral standards or not. Consensus morality is no morality at all. But the first two are are not errors, just wishful thinking and rationalization on your part.

(February 9, 2016 at 9:47 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(February 7, 2016 at 4:01 pm)Jenny A Wrote:   Your fourth error is in thinking atheists don't believe in god for the purpose of avoiding god's stricter later.

I agree that the fourth is speculation although I do think it applies to most atheists even if only as a contributing factor. 

Edited for relevance/brevity. Sorry, both of you.

Chad- we constantly say  that we find "God's Laws", as written by priests and prophets of old, to be immoral, not just something we don't want to follow. It's a bit like someone from Eritrea telling you that the reason you find female genital mutilation immoral is because you "just don't want to obey the Laws of God". When you reply no, you find the practice abhorrent on its own, no matter what his God supposedly says about it, he replies, "No, you just don't want to obey God. At least, it's a contributing factor to your nonbelief."

What can you say to a person who accuses you of immorality because you don't follow his religious practices (because you find them degrading to women and the ridiculous vestiges of a Patriarchal culture that should have died out long ago, except for the religious part of that culture's memetic survival properties), and tells you that you are just being defiant of God?

The part that amazes me the most is that America is so culturally isolated, despite the modern communications age, that our Christians cannot even see that the same Bronze Age "values" you find abhorrent in other Mideast religions are also present in your own religion from the same region... yet no matter how many times we point it out, you continue to insist that you have moral clarity from (that one set of) scriptures that originated in that time/place/culture, and that it is we who cannot understand morality.

We understand just fine. Enough to reject Patriarchal morality-systems and try to press for ones that value all human beings equally, ones that don't involve blood-sacrifice-magic or genocide or slavery or destroying free speech via the Death Penalty (et cetera). The genetic roots of your faith are plain as day to anyone who reads your scriptures and compares them to others-- that's why we say the surest way to become an atheist is to really read the Bible.

(February 9, 2016 at 9:47 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(February 7, 2016 at 4:01 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Your first error is in thinking that there is a god and you personally understand his will. Your second error is in thinking that a being who would create the system you describe is worthy of worship.  Your third error is in thinking that the fact moral consensus changes over time makes it valueless.  Your fourth error is in thinking atheists don't believe in god for the purpose of avoiding god's stricter later.

Quote:I agree that the fourth is speculation although I do think it applies to most atheists even if only as a contributing factor.

I have zero belief in god. 
Never had, I also do not believe in fairies or pixies so why would I have any part of my thought process given over to avoiding later punishment from a being who is as likely to exist as a purple elephant oribitting the just outside the realm of pluto.
I find the claim that we do not believe because we don't we are fearful or sinful to be quite condescending. I do not believe because I can't. And I can't because it is silly.

Quote:The third has more to do with epistemology. First people must agree that something is before determining what it is.

Indeed, and you could turn this to god, which is something I have never had a god description of. despite asking for one many many times.

Quote: Either there is universally applicable moral standards or not. Consensus morality is no morality at all.

All there is is consensus morality and empathy, that is all.

Quote: But the first two are are not errors, just wishful thinking and rationalization on your part.

They seemed perfectly reasonable to me, there has never been a good explanation of god. if you understood god you could explain it so that I could comprehend and yet I remain completely in the dark as to this god character.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icTrzUuWlHI

(February 8, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 7, 2016 at 4:01 pm)Jenny A Wrote: @ Dritch I went to some effort to understand you.  Above is your recognition that I do indeed understand.  I think most of the rest of us do too. We just think you are wrong.

If you do understand my position, it doesn't mean your logic or final conclusion is correct.
Besides if you will note I had to make several key changes to your understanding. (I said NO Several times) Your last post suggests that you did not incorporate those changes into your final conclusion, because as this post seems to suggest you feel that you are 'close enough.

Yes you did.  I gave you that opportunity by summarizing what I thought your position was.  You clarified.  That is how we reach understanding.  And I did pay attention to that clarification.

[

(February 8, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 7, 2016 at 4:01 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Your first error is in thinking that there is a god and you personally understand his will.

and this is evidenced by what?? Wishful thinking on your part?
God's will is not a mystery. It is laid out in our very own language word for word. All any need do to know this will is to study and read the bible.

Surely, you've been on this site long enough to know what I desire is evidence.  The bible is a story about a what men think god is and nothing more.  It is one such story among many.  All lack confirmation.  I freely admit, I think yours is an ugly story.  I don't wish for it to be true.  But whether I or you wish it, there is not evidence of it.

(February 8, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 7, 2016 at 4:01 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Your second error is in thinking that a being who would create the system you describe is worthy of worship.

and what is this empty assertion based on? Snips and snails and puppy Dog tails? Boy oh boy, someone really thinks highly of her opinion to just put it out there and not back it with anything.. As if her word was enough to just 'wake someone up.'
So Sorry Jen-a, but people who are not related to you don't generally work that way. It would be pretty difficult to get me to just blindly follow your direction on a good day, but here God has directly given me sooo much, their is next to nothing you could do to change my mind on that.

God, according to you has planned a world in which people suffer randomly, and in which he punishes people for not obeying a law "purposely" (your word) designed to be impossible to obey.  If you find that admirable and worthy of worship, there's no arguing with you.  I, however do not.

(February 8, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 7, 2016 at 4:01 pm)Jenny A Wrote:  Your third error is in thinking that the fact moral consensus changes over time makes it valueless.

---

:Roflol:

---

Seriously... just for a moment think about what you just said...
" that the fact moral consensus changes over time (doesn't) makes it valueless"

If it had value why would it need to change? What happens to the 'old moral consensus? does it still retain value? So what will happen to the current 'moral consensus' when it changes again will it retain any value, what so ever?

So then what value is their in the current 'moral consensus' outside the fact that it is the current moral consensus?

...And that's what i am talking about when I trivialize 'pop morality.' it only has value to those who currently live by the standard.. What's more (the reason I bring up the Nazis) no culture or society deems themselves evil by their own pop moral standard. Not even the Nazis.

So again, If two completely polar opposite standards stand in complete contradiction to one another, are you saying both retain equal value?

What if right now the Nazi standard was the way of the world outside of history books. could this 'morality' be ever truly deemed just?

My question is then how do we know we are selves haven't already crossed the Nazi line of pop morality?
(Doing truly EVIL things and morally justifying them.)

Seriously?  You can't see the value in the consensus that keeps us all from each others throats (to the extent we aren't at each other's throats), the consensus that makes civilization possible.  If you throw out moral consensus, life is in the words of Thomas Hobbs, "nasty, brutish, and short."  

We have this moral consensus, because it works.  Evolution has given us empathy, a sense of fairness, and reason.  These three are sufficient to create societies that work.  They worked where Jesus and Yahweh were never  heard of and work where there have never been heard of.  Morality exists in every society because without it, there is no society.  

But the moral consensus changes with society.  The needs of illiterate agrarians who live in multi-generational family units differs from that needed by industrialized nations.  Travel between nations and across the globe, adds complications.  As does mass communication, birth control, excess food (a rather new thing), the ability of people to destroy the planet, and so on.

(February 8, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 7, 2016 at 4:01 pm)Jenny A Wrote:  Your fourth error is in thinking atheists don't believe in god for the purpose of avoiding god's stricter law. 

This is your 4th error. I don't think atheists even know what I am talking about when I say "we are to live apart from God's law as Christians. If they did they would not accuse me of 'thinking atheist dont believe in God's law to avoid a stricter law.'

(tell me again how you understand my position)

If you think I don't understand, you should clarify plainly.  I certainly don't understand what you mean by living "apart from God's law as Christians."  If you mean you don't have to follow god's law by being Christians, then what is the point of the law other than to force people to god?  It's of no value here on earth.  If that's not what you mean, explain it, or shut up about it.

(February 8, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 7, 2016 at 4:01 pm)Jenny A Wrote: My only concern is that you appear to believe genocide and slavery are necessary or even morally neutral. Other than sociopathic positions like that, I have no interest in god's law absent credible evidence of god. To the extent you and others believe such things, I think your god story is morally abhorrent and a danger to society.

Do you understand my position? Have you tried to understand it?

No. What I have said IS THIS CULTURE HAS ADOPTED SLAVERY AND GENOCIDE, But Relabled it so it seems 'morally just.' Which is extremely dangerous because without being honest with  ourselves we put no terms or limits on slavery or our genocidal war.

OOOOkay.  That's new and different.  You spent several posts arguing that slavery in the U.S. South was good because of Hitler (can't really follow your argument there but you really did make the argument).  You also said that slavery and genocide are morally neutral under god's law.  

Any justification for slavery and genocide (absent an unchanging god's law) can be fought as immoral, and arguments (not to mention) used to stop that behavior.  But if we just say, oh god's law says it's okay, then we will never end it. And god's law certainly allows it, if that law is the law of the Bible.  Or are you really just suggesting that employment is slavery, in which case, I suggest your understanding of all of what slavery entails is rather limited.

(February 8, 2016 at 12:01 pm)Drich Wrote: I am waving the flag, bring attention to how this society is actively participating in no restriction Slavery and is gearing up for a genocidal war, and in your mind I'm the one who endorses it?? What kind of broken mind do you have?
The problem little miss doesn't thinks she wrong, is that without owning your immoral behaivor/Changing your immorality to judtify your actions, you are making it ok to literally do the things you yourself claim is immoral!

How can you not see that?

Better include some signage with that flag.  CLARIFY.  What slavery?  Which war?  What the hell are you talking about?

(January 29, 2016 at 12:00 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Drich, you're right about pederasty. In Plato's Symposium, some of the participants rationalized the practice of older men taking young lovers by claiming that the youths benefited from the relationship. I predict that we will start to see attempts by some perverts to soon do the same. After all, aren't they helping the vulnerable boys to embrace their budding sexuality? They did it "for the children!"

What is it about informed consent that leave you religiousites so absolutely clueless?