What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Huggy Bear]

It really just boils down to the same tactics they all use to defend their bible. When they don't like what it says, it's just an analogy and we should look deeper in to the true meaning. When they do like what it says, than its god's word and we should blindly obey.

Total nonsense either way.

A Parable IS an analogy, That's what Jesus is known for.

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. - Matthew 13:13
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parable

Parable
noun
1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
2. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.

You guys try to twist an ANALOGY into a license for beating servants, yet got all bent out of shape when Randy "implied" the quote from Sam Harris condones rape.

DO ATHEISTS CONDONE RAPE?

"If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion."

Atheist Sam Harris, Interview at The Sun: The Temple of Reason

If you honestly believe that the contention of that quote is "rape is good," then you are a bigger fool than even I'd taken you for.

So I want to hear you say it. I want to hear you actually assert your position regarding this quote: just say "I believe that Sam Harris is saying that he thinks rape is good, in the quote I supplied."

It's either that, or back down from your smug little bolded opening...  

Apparently all you guys took from Jesus PARABLE is that he condoned the beating of slaves.....

The  verses explaining his parable make Jesus' analogy worse because he doesn't even address the issue of a man beating his slaves so apparently, Jesus wasn't against slavery or beating slaves.

Hypocrites  

[Thumpalumpacus]

To "imply" something and to actually "state" something are two different things, not even close to being semantics .Or is it your position. they are the same?

Just because something is implicit does not mean it is unsaid -- in order to understand the subtext, one has to think about what was said.

Wait, I think I've just discovered your problem here.

Oh wait.... I forgot who I was talking to. You're the one that misconstrued me speaking in general terminology into speaking of you personally...

When you quote a post of mine, your reply necessarily includes me. You falsely lumped me in on a conversation that I hadn't taken part in, imputing a position to me which I didn't espouse, and when that was pointed out to you, you lacked the moral fiber and integrity to admit your mistake and apologize, a refusal which speak volumes about your lack of character. You're pathetic, and merit only pity, or contempt. I'd feel sorry for you but generally speaking I refuse to pity dipshits who bring their difficulties upon themselves, so for you it's scorn and contempt.

Do yourself a favor also, go back to your Jello™, and sit down somewhere...

I'm sure when you typed that out, it sounded like a devastating rejoinder.

[Huggy Bear]

Just because something is implicit does not mean it is unsaid --

Let me stop you there, That is EXACTLY what it means. In case you don't believe me which i already know you don't, i'll include the definition of implicit for you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/implicit

implicit
1.
implied, rather than expressly stated:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imply

imply
1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated:

in order to understand the subtext, one has to think about what was said.

Therefor leaving room for misinterpretation.

Bottom line is, Esquilax claimed the bible SAID something it does not SAY. Stop trying to "shift the goalposts" like you guys accuse theists of doing (e.g. talking about "implications") and admit he was incorrect.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Just because something is implicit does not mean it is unsaid --

Let me stop you there, That is EXACTLY what it means. In case you don't believe me which i already know you don't, i'll include the definition of implicit for you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/implicit

implicit
1.
implied, rather than expressly stated:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imply

imply
1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated:

From the Oxford English dictionary; I have emboldened the relevant point:

Definition of imply in English:
verb (implies, implying, implied)


1 Strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated):
the salesmen who uses jargon to imply his superior knowledge


1.1 (Of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence

in order to understand the subtext, one has to think about what was said.

Therefor leaving room for misinterpretation.

Bottom line is, Esquilax claimed the bible SAID something it does not SAY. Stop trying to "shift the goalposts" like you guys accuse theists of doing (e.g. talking about "implications") and admit he was incorrect.

No goalposts are being shifted here. But since you're being such a literal-minded dolt, how can the Bible say anything at all? It can't speak!

Now, you don't seem to have a problem with interpreting stuff yourself, and gleaning implications when it suits your fancy. Quit being a hypocrite and read the passage not only literally, but also for subtext ... assuming that you are able to read for subtext.

This concludes your English lesson for the day.

[Easy Guns]

Therefor leaving room for misinterpretation.

Bottom line is, Esquilax claimed the bible SAID something it does not SAY. Stop trying to "shift the goalposts" like you guys accuse theists of doing (e.g. talking about "implications") and admit he was incorrect.

One more time, and if you pretend that's not EXACTLY WHAT THESE VERSES SAY, it doesn't matter. You can pretend all you like. But we both know you're just full of shit.


Exodus 21

20- Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21- but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

[Esquilax]

*EDIT*
I should add, Esquilax knew he messed up which is why he changed his position from

you do not have a passage that says they "CAN" be beaten, you have a passage that says what happens "IF" they are beaten.

to

Now who's being dishonest
this was your exact quote..

I believe you guys refer to that as "moving the goal posts"...

You dishonest ass. The second quote, read in context, is me expanding upon my initial claim, not changing it. Your self serving unwillingness to think through the consequences of your scriptures is not an argument, just a testament to your own willful ignorance and lack of honesty. Do you really need me to walk you down the garden path?

1. Within the bible, there is no explicit law against the beating of slaves.
2. Insofar as the bible addresses the issue at all, it excuses it, offering no consequences for an act that, in most other contexts, it would consider murder and actually offer consequences for.
3. These two facts, taken together, mean that the verse in the bible that addresses the beating of slaves does in fact say that you CAN beat them, in that it doesn't require one not to, provides no pressure to abstain from doing so, and excuses the action if it does happen. This is a binary proposition: either the bible specifically states that you cannot do something, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then the act is permissible under the biblical commandments. There is no third state: you either CAN do something, or you CANNOT do something, and the bible does not state that you CANNOT beat your slaves, in the area where it addresses that subject. Therefore, the verse in exodus has at its conclusion that you CAN beat your slaves.

Please, do disagree with this: you're going to anyway, to appease the shuddering core of dishonesty that I think you have instead of a mind, but it'll at least be instrumental in scuttling your credibility yet further.

[Esquilax]

Let's revue some facts. The Bible, best selling book of all time, was authored or inspired by God. No? The Bible clearly depicts this God character ordering rape. Yet you say God condoning rape is stupid.

Let me guess Randy, God told the vanquishers to keep virgin girls because of their superior knitting skills.

Your eisegesis is required by your presuppositions.

Under what basis are you accusing Cato of having presuppositions?

Just so you know, Randy, that question isn't going away. I'm going to ask it every time you toss out this lazy, self reinforcing delusional apologetic, until I get an- no doubt completely self serving and underwhelming- answer. If you keep avoiding it you're only going to look like you have something to hide; maybe it's the fact that you have no basis at all for making that accusation, and you're just doing it as a crass defense mechanism to ad hom your opposition into silence without ever offering a real argument?

[Cato]

Your eisegesis is required by your presuppositions.

By all means, please tell me what presupposition(s) are required to conclude God orders rape based on the following:

2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB: Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.' Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." [The child dies seven days later.]

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB: "When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Judges 5:30 NAB: They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.

Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB: Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.

No presuppositions required; it's plain as day straight from your good book. Your God character is an immoral cunt and you are despicable for trying to excuse it.

[Esquilax]

No presuppositions required; it's plain as day straight from your good book. Your God character is an immoral cunt and you are despicable for trying to excuse it.

"Presupposition" is just Randy's escape hatch whenever he can't answer an argument, but still wants to feel like he's won. But he has no justifiable reason for bringing it up beyond that. It's just a tool for the ego, in this case.

[Huggy Bear]

*EDIT*
I should add, Esquilax knew he messed up which is why he changed his position from
to
I believe you guys refer to that as "moving the goal posts"...

You dishonest ass. The second quote, read in context, is me expanding upon my initial claim, not changing it. Your self serving unwillingness to think through the consequences of your scriptures is not an argument, just a testament to your own willful ignorance and lack of honesty. Do you really need me to walk you down the garden path?

1. Within the bible, there is no explicit law against the beating of slaves.

Taking another stroll down the path of dishonesty are we? There is no explicit law against beating ANYONE period! remember the story of Jesus beating the money changers in the temple?

2. Insofar as the bible addresses the issue at all, it excuses it, offering no consequences for an act that, in most other contexts, it would consider murder and actually offer consequences for.

Wrong again!
Hebrew law is very clear on distinguishing murder from killing someone unintentionally (manslaughter). If you commit murder then you were punished by the authorities, In the case of manslaughter the family of the victim had a right to kill you (eye for an eye) unless you made it to a city of refuge. Beating a slave and him dying days later show that the death wasn't intentional, and though the law doesn't punish you, it doesn't mean the victims family won't come after you.

I'll post the relevant scriptures from the NIV since it's dumbed down enough for you mouth-breathers to understand.

Deuteronomy 19
4 This is the rule concerning anyone who kills a person and flees there for safety—anyone who kills a neighbor unintentionally, without malice aforethought. 5 For instance, a man may go into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and as he swings his ax to fell a tree, the head may fly off and hit his neighbor and kill him. That man may flee to one of these cities and save his life. 6 Otherwise, the avenger of blood might pursue him in a rage, overtake him if the distance is too great, and kill him even though he is not deserving of death, since he did it to his neighbor without malice aforethought. 7 This is why I command you to set aside for yourselves three cities.

Deuteronomy 19
11 But if out of hate someone lies in wait, assaults and kills a neighbor, and then flees to one of these cities, 12 the killer shall be sent for by the town elders, be brought back from the city, and be handed over to the avenger of blood to die. 13 Show no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_of_Refuge

The Cities of Refuge were towns in the Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah in which the perpetrators of manslaughter could claim the right of asylum; outside of these cities, blood vengeance against such perpetrators was allowed by law.

3. These two facts, taken together, mean that the verse in the bible that addresses the beating of slaves does in fact say that you CAN beat them, in that it doesn't require one not to, provides no pressure to abstain from doing so, and excuses the action if it does happen. This is a binary proposition: either the bible specifically states that you cannot do something, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then the act is permissible under the biblical commandments. There is no third state: you either CAN do something, or you CANNOT do something, and the bible does not state that you CANNOT beat your slaves, in the area where it addresses that subject. Therefore, the verse in exodus has at its conclusion that you CAN beat your slaves.

I guess since I debunked your two "facts" this is irrelevant? But I must ask, since there is no law against beating ANYONE, do you think that means it's ok to walk around beating people without cause?

Please, do disagree with this: you're going to anyway, to appease the shuddering core of dishonesty that I think you have instead of a mind, but it'll at least be instrumental in scuttling your credibility yet further.  

You were saying?

Just admit you messed up.. sheesh