The question that makes fundies hostile

[Raven]

I hope you are wrong about that, fff.

[Lion IRC]

I have noticed that if you ask a fundie whether they would prefer to live in a society in which same-sex marriage is legal or a society that allows slavery -- they get mad.

Please define slavery.

Work for nothing more than is needed to keep you alive.

Pretty much what the greedy Western money worshippers force upon slum dwellers in India and Bangladesh and China. Work or die.

Same as in ancient times when rich powerful countries dominated the weak.
Sounds just like Darwinian natural selection.

Perhaps we should be asking atheists to explain slavery to US instead of the other way around.

The biblical context of slavery is "harm minimisation" of an EXISTING practical reality - not an endorsement of it.

To say that the bible supports slavery is like saying that government funded safe injecting rooms for heroin users amounts to...encouraging ppl to use heroin.

[kiwimac]

We have a winner here. An honest and direct answer. Psychotic, but honest.

One thing that is clear here, Drich, is that you are making an assumption -- you are assuming that in this slavery-allowing society that you would be on the preferable end of the slavery. So let's throw something in to make it more difficult for you. YOU are the slave. But in the same-sex marriage society there would be no requirement for you to participate in a same-sex marriage, it would be just to allow others that freedom.

Does that change your answer?

Not a hard choice to make. God set up a soceity that allowed for slavery, and condemned homosexuality. Therefore slavery is not as bad as homosexuality. The fact that soceity says that your intolerance should be reversed only speaks to declining 'morality' in soceity.

Whether that makes me a slave, slave owner or none of the above if we were forced to pick one of the two societies I will pick slavery.

Nonsense!

[Godlesspanther]

Wow -- I present a choice of same-sex marriage or slavery and I get a response of "please define slavery."

Some of you fundies make Joseph McCarthy look like Jimi Hendrix.

And this, folks, is what they call "family values." Seriously -- they really do use that term.

I think I will present another one just for Drich.

OK, Drich, given the choice between a society in which slavey is an established institution, and a society in which slavery is illegal, which would you prefer?

[MitchBenn]

Please define slavery.

Work for nothing more than is needed to keep you alive.

Pretty much what the greedy Western money worshippers force upon slum dwellers in India and Bangladesh and China. Work or die.

Same as in ancient times when rich powerful countries dominated the weak.
Sounds just like Darwinian natural selection.

Perhaps we should be asking atheists to explain slavery to US instead of the other way around.

The biblical context of slavery is "harm minimisation" of an EXISTING practical reality - not an endorsement of it.

To say that the bible supports slavery is like saying that government funded safe injecting rooms for heroin users amounts to...encouraging ppl to use heroin.

So wait, GOD is powerless to alter "existing practical realities", merely to suggest ways to ameliorate them?

God, who by his word created the universe and all things in it, who can bend the laws of time and space to hold the sun still in the sky, who can raise the dead and part the seas, GOD, when confronted with the human institution of slavery, thinks "Well there's nothing I can do about that. Better just issue some guidelines as to how to do it nicely."

What's that? Free will, you say?

Fine, then couldn't he at least have condemned it? Even if it's against his "rules" (and we'll overlook for now the ridiculousness of the being who can bend reality to his will being bound by "rules") to actually change the MINDS of men to understand the immorality of slavery, he could have said something - ANYTHING - to express his disapproval?

You're not going to tell me that God's reluctant to say so when he disapproves of something? That this also contravenes his rules?

Have the integrity to admit that the Bible is at least passively pro-slavery, and the REASON it's pro-slavery is that it is NOT the work of a morally perfect God, but the work of MEN. Morally fallible men, who, well-meaning as they may have been, WERE a product of the mores and standards of their time, and could no more conceive of a world without slavery than they could conceive of air conditioning.

[Lion IRC]

Slavery is a function of greed.
Guess what God says about greed?

[Godscreated]

I did not use it as a scare tactic, if you got scared you should find out why. This is a truth from scripture and it is unavoidable.

'If you do not change you will be the one in a very uncomfortable situation some day.'

Yea fuck you, you liar. What part of that isn't a threat and scare tactic?

Listen stupid, if you're even capable of such a feat, I'm not the one who put that option in place nor am I able to perform it, so how is that a threat, Sir Scared Pup.

GC

[MitchBenn]

'If you do not change you will be the one in a very uncomfortable situation some day.'

Yea fuck you, you liar. What part of that isn't a threat and scare tactic?

Listen stupid, if you're even capable of such a feat, I'm not the one who put that option in place nor am I able to perform it, so how is that a threat, Sir Scared Pup.

GC

No, you're not threatening us, GOD is. Just like YOU don't hate queers, GOD does.

God's a bully and you're the kid who stands behind the bully saying "Yeah! So watch it! Yeah!"

God's sole redeeming feature is his non- existence. Threatening us with something that isn't there and wondering why we don't fall to the ground in gibbering repentance is like pointing two fingers at us in a gun-shape and saying "stick 'em up". You've got NOTHING, and more and more people are seeing that.

---

Slavery is a function of greed.
Guess what God says about greed?

Well in the case of slavery he says it's fine. Long as you only beat them so hard it takes them a few days to die.

[Fruity]

Drich wrote:

So i would be free to take one of YOUR Kids if they are willing to get into my van and help me look for my lost puppy?

Dude, seriously? I am their protector. I look out for them. Not because I own them, but because they need me to do for them what they are still incapable of doing for themselves. A person does not purchase a slave, because, hey, they need me to love and protect them. Your whole yada yada about slaves being treated well is pointless. The starting point of even getting a slave is for the owner's benefit, and what the slave can do for the owner.

It does not matter what you do with the people you own, you still own them. I have begals, they were orginally breed for hunting, but I do not use them for hunting. even so they still have that inclination to hunt. Meaning whether I use them for hunting or not they can not escape their nature. Like wise you own your kids, and whether you work them as slaves or not, they too can not escape your ownership. Your will takes precedence over their own. They must surrender themselves to you and your rules.

If I worked them as slaves they could report me and since they do not belong to me, they would be taken. I have participated in this process for other families personally through work. That some parents treat their kids like shit does not mean that it's acceptable, hence we have laws to protect the children.

I could draw a paralell between how field hands were used in the 1700's verses how well some of the 'kept' women/slaves were used and how they were treated, and compare that to how you/we treat our kids. But I do not want to risk you taking it the wrong way. So I will just make my point.

Bottom line, is that it does not matter how you treat a slave. If you have ownership of another human being, If your will and want for their lives, superceed their own, that is the second Merrium webster's defination for the word Slave.

Nope. I'm not taking it the wrong way. I'm taking it just the way you intend it do be understood and by whom it's coming from.

Your comparison is beyond ridiculous to begin with; it's not even worth taking seriously. I'm disgusted by your bigotry and arrogance. That you rather live in a society with slavery than allow others to be happy is mind blowing. I'm pretty sure that if you lived in such society and were purchased as a slave you would change your mind. It's all about me, me, me. What do I want and believe? Everyone else can fuck off, huh? yeah, let's trade people as long as queers don't get a chance to be happy. Douche.

Edit to clarify that this is in response to Drich.

[Lion IRC]

...Threatening us with something that isn't there and wondering why we don't fall to the ground in gibbering repentance is like pointing two fingers at us in a gun-shape and saying "stick 'em up".

You make a pretty strong case that it shouldnt matter even if Christians harmlessly DID warn of Gods punishment.

But thats not the unanimous view of every atheist here. Many object strongly to even the slightest inference of the divine argumentum ad baculum even if it is presented the way Pascals Wager is framed.

You should know that, IMHO, it's the threat of hell and damnation which keeps people away from Church.

What the Good News, Gospel of Jesus offers is the opposite of threats and damnation - namely, forgiveness and grace and a chance to clear the slate - and it is an offer to everyone and anyone who wants.

Slavery is a function of greed.
Guess what God says about greed?

Well in the case of slavery he says it's fine. Long as you only beat them so hard it takes them a few days to die.

No He doesnt say it's fine.
He says greed - the love of money - is the root of all evil.
He says you must not deny a person their rightful wage.

---

Denying a person their wage is theft.

Thou shalt not steal