Whats so offensive about Christianity

[robvalue]

I'm starting to think we have another deep undercover Poe. How many times can the same problem in his reasoning be pointed out?

Fuckaball sandwich.

[Drich]

The problem with your arguement? You have failed to establish a fallacy of equivocation, because the defination of slavery not only includes what I have identified it encompasses your defination as well. Truth be known to seperate your version of slavery from the dictionary defination which includes people who work for less than a livable wage is infact the very fallacy of equivocation your trying to transfer to me.

[abaris]

Fuckaball sandwich.

Tasty?

[robvalue]

Nah, it tastes of frustration and driveway grit.

[Tonus]

The bible supports slavery. Why? Because God knows we can not live in communities/societies/cities/countries without having these social economic structures being built on the backs of or maintained by active slavery. (If you donot think this is true then here is an oppertunity for you to list out countries that has not been constructed this way or is not being currently being maintained this way.)

Which shows, once again, that a world where there is a god works exactly the same way as a world without one.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The problem with your arguement? You have failed to establish a fallacy of equivocation, because the defination of slavery not only includes what I have identified it encompasses your defination as well.

You're making my argument for me. You're substituting one connotation for the other.

Truth be known to seperate your version of slavery from the dictionary defination which includes people who work for less than a livable wage is infact the very fallacy of equivocation your trying to transfer to me.

Your objection is meaningless, because I am only referring to slavery as human chatteldom. I cannot be equivocating if I am only using one connotation. I'd suggest you look up fallacies before you try noting them in the posts of others. (As an aside, such a study would do wonders for improving your dreadful critical-thinking skills -- or lack thereof, more properly). I recommend The Nizkor Project, myself, or Rational Wiki.

At any rate, we are speaking specifically about Biblical slavery, in which human chatteldom is the connotative meaning. Servants are not slaves, in that context. You are the one who keeps introducing the connotation of modern labor exploitation to justify your god's approval of human chatteldom. That is textbook equivocation.

I can't say I blame you; I'd hate to have to defend the position that owning another human being is morally right, too. But simply because you've staked out a morally untenable position, that doesn't mean you can abuse the language to justify it.

This thread is evidence that you worship a cruel and unjust god. It's a shame more Christians cannot see your argumentation; you are a great advertisement for the moral superiority of ethical atheism.

[Kitty Galore]

Christianity is offensive to me for many reasons. But to keep it short:#1 Because it's a money grubbing Cult that preys on the weak.

---

That applies to more than just Christianity. But it was the first thing that popped in my head.

[The Valkyrie]

The only truly offensive things about the bible and Christianity are the contents of the former and what many of the latter does in the name of the bible.

[Minimalist]

The problem with your arguement? You have failed to establish a fallacy of equivocation, because the defination of slavery not only includes what I have identified it encompasses your defination as well. Truth be known to seperate your version of slavery from the dictionary defination which includes people who work for less than a livable wage is infact the very fallacy of equivocation your trying to transfer to me.

Let's see, drippy...on the one hand we have you and on the other Marcus Porcius Cato. I gotta go with Cato since you are an idiot.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/slaveryrome.htm

The institution of slavery provided a critical pillar that supported the existence of both the republican and empire phases of ancient Roman society. The size of this slave population is estimated in the millions, and comprised between twenty-five and thirty percent of the total Roman population. The majority of these men, women and children worked on the farm - tilling the soil and reaping the harvest. Others, however, labored as artisans, scribes or secretaries.

The Roman slave had no rights. They could not marry nor have a traditional family many did not even have a name. Slaves could not own property.