(August 22, 2021 at 7:30 am)Mashmont Wrote: It's comical how mortal men, who aren't even capable of traveling to the nearest planet deign to dictate proper behavior to the Being who created the infinite universe.

It's sort of like a gnat trying to explain calculus to Isaac Newton.

No, the real funny thing is how Christians like to say that atheists are morally bankrupt, yet you'll make every excuse for your God to do what he wants because he's more powerful than you. You have been trained by your God and your religion to consider yourself an intellectual gnat compared to God, in order to make you compliant and obedient. Sorry that Newton was too hard for you.

Quote:It's comical how mortal men, who aren't even capable of traveling to the nearest planet deign to dictate proper behavior to the Being who created the infinite universe.

The ability to design a universe does not make a being moral nor does it mean its behavior is proper. 

Quote:It's sort of like a gnat trying to explain calculus to Isaac Newton.

Nah it's more like a child telling the emperor he's naked 

I get you can't actually defend your deity's actions so must resort to primative browbeating. But this won't help you 

(August 22, 2021 at 7:12 am)Mashmont Wrote:

(August 22, 2021 at 6:36 am)Ravenshire Wrote: Bullshit. Slavery of the time was ownership of another human being, Even if it were on par with indentured servitude, as you are falsely trying to claim, indentured servitude is also illegal. Any worker at Walmart (or any other legit busuness) is free to simply walk away from that job, ending their employment. Not so for slaves or indentured servants, but you just keep feeding yourself the same old bullshit in defense of your chosen source of morality.

The Greek word, doulos as used in the Bible can be translated as slave, but also as servant.  They had legal rights,  weren't servants all their lives, and their circumstances weren't based on race.  Often slavery in those times was the alternative to slaughter.  You continue to (intentially) conflate this benign state with the current race-based colonial slavery.

Jesus didn't speak out against a lot of things that did and didn't exist then.  He never specifically mentioned embezzlement, bestiality, arson, or other iniquities.   You're dishonest when you say it means He was immoral for not doing so.

I have no fucks to give about how a Greek word can be translated when the description of the conditions do not support that translation. People were owned. They were property. Many of them for their entire lives, being inherited by heirs. That's not a servant, nor is it an indentured servant, your attempts to twist the language not withstanding. Nor did I claim jeebus was immoral for not speaking out, but since you brought it up, than yes, as, allegedly, the son of gawd, not speaking out against anything evil would make him immoral at best.

Nice try at the dodge though, Mushamint.

(August 22, 2021 at 9:11 am)Ravenshire Wrote:

(August 22, 2021 at 7:12 am)Mashmont Wrote: The Greek word, doulos as used in the Bible can be translated as slave, but also as servant.  They had legal rights,  weren't servants all their lives, and their circumstances weren't based on race.  Often slavery in those times was the alternative to slaughter.  You continue to (intentially) conflate this benign state with the current race-based colonial slavery.

Jesus didn't speak out against a lot of things that did and didn't exist then.  He never specifically mentioned embezzlement, bestiality, arson, or other iniquities.   You're dishonest when you say it means He was immoral for not doing so.

I have no fucks to give about how a Greek word can be translated when the description of the conditions do not support that translation. People were owned. They were property. Many of them for their entire lives, being inherited by heirs. That's not a servant, nor is it an indentured servant, your attempts to twist the language not withstanding. Nor did I claim jeebus was immoral for not speaking out, but since you brought it up, than yes, as, allegedly, the son of gawd, not speaking out against anything evil would make him immoral at best.

Nice try at the dodge though, Mushamint.

And even if it was indentured servitude. There is a reason we banned that too. Because it's also evil.

(August 22, 2021 at 7:30 am)Mashmont Wrote:

(August 22, 2021 at 7:25 am)Ten Wrote: The immorality comes from the fact that God is supposedly eternal, so, should know the rules that will be most relevant for humans to follow throughout time on earth. And in parts of his book, he outlines how best to deal with slaves instead of condemning it. That's why it is Christ's responsibility, coming down here to tell us God's will and not correcting the outline that had been given before. If bestiality and arson were specifically allowed and given the stamp of approval by God in his holy book previously, then yes, I would include those in "If Jesus says nothing about these things and doesn't condemn them, then he is immoral because he's giving his implicit approval for the way the law was set up previously".

It's comical how mortal men, who aren't even capable of traveling to the nearest planet deign to dictate proper behavior to the Being who created the infinite universe.

It's sort of like a gnat trying to explain calculus to Isaac Newton.

Well, somebody needs to explain morality to that sick fuck you call gawd. Obviously, it has no clue.

(August 21, 2021 at 11:09 am)Mashmont Wrote:

(July 24, 2021 at 5:12 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: tackattack made the very good point that the ‘PSA: Rape Apologetics’ is veering off topic. Since this goes against both the spirit and the letter of [Serious] threads, feel free to have that discussion here.

My answer: yup.

Boru

I can speak for the Catholic Church on this.  The Vatican came out very early, 1839, in its denunciation of colonial slavery like was prevalent at that time.  As usual, the RCC was ahead of the game, just like it is now on  abortion which, 100 years hence, will also be viewed as the barbaric practice it is.

As for women, the RCC elevates women.  Its seeks to surround women with protections, aka,  a loving husband and family, with the accompanying support financially and otherwise.
Contrast that with the current secular model which tells us women don't need marriage or men,  are free to have sex outside marriage,  and are better off poor single mothers bearing all the burden themselves.

Yes, it elevates women so much that under church law it considers that married women are the non wasting chattel of their husbands (ie they are property, not people), and also elevates the right to life of a (not yet living) clump of cells over the right to life of living women.

Oh and on the church "opposing slavery" why did it not condemn Brazil, a slaveholding catholic state until 1888? And why did the church own slaves to the bitter end?