The question that makes fundies hostile

[Godlesspanther]

It's neutral. Do you have kids? Have you ever used the term "my kids?" Anyone using that term has expressed ownership of another human being. Even so do we consider this to be an evil thing?

Of course not, what makes ownership of another person good or bad is what you do with the life you have control over.

My kids, my mom, my dad, my sister, my brother... none of which I own. One day my kids will make a choice of staying or leaving. They won't have to pay their way to freedom. Furthermore, I don't use them. They live here, because I gave birth to them and I have love for them plus responsibility. When I get my paycheck, most of it goes towards things they need and I find myself skipping things I want, so they get what they want. I cook, I clean, wash their clothes, teach them, talk to them, play with them, and love them more than I would ever love myself hoping that when it's time for them to leave they miss me enough to want to come and visit.

Would a slave be treated this way? Would a slave get a college fund and a wish list for his birthday? If a slave got anything like this, well, I suppose he's not much of a slave, but family, or even employee if working for you and getting something fair in return. You and I both know that a slave is not like a son or daughter, so your comparison is invalid.

(Edit to correct spelling.)

My people, my society, my culture, my planet -- desperate attempt to justify slavery.

Because and only because it is condoned in an ancient comic book.

Fundies have no morals.

[Kayenneh]

Rawr. Kaye's sexy when she's annoyed.

Heh. Thanks, but the truth is more like this:

[Chas]

But slavery is still bad, just to a lesser degree, correct?

Since you admitted that your god set it up, does it not logically follow that god is bad for having set up something that is bad?

Slavery is not intrinsically bad. It is what man does with slavery that makes it evil..

You are morally stunted.

---

Meh. Just rape his daughter and she has to become your wife (or be stoned to death). No need to spend money on such trivialities.

[whyhiderapehumour]Disclaimer: I do not actually suggest that anyone should go out and rape to get a wife, I made this sarcastic comment to point at the ridiculousness of biblical laws.[itsokweknowitsjustforfun]

Lolol
Rape his daughter. That's hilarious. You atheists and your rape humour. wakkawakka wakka
DISCLAIMER - always issue a disclaimer after you make light of rape. That makes everything OK! Right?

Just referencing the rules in your holy book, dickhead.

[Drich]

My kids, my mom, my dad, my sister, my brother... none of which I own.

...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?

One day my kids will make a choice of staying or leaving.

..And if you look in the biblical example of slavery, a slave (every seven years) had that option as well.

Slavery was a possiable way of comerce, a way a poor person could ensure the safty and room and board for his family, a way for a poor person to buy land, live stock , to pay back a debt, or even marry into a family. in a soceity with little actual physical money, work was often traded for tangable things. a 'slave's agreement' was to ensure that both slave and master got what they orginally agreed to.

They won't have to pay their way to freedom.

'Freedom isn't free.' Every generation since the beginning has had to pay something for their understanding of that word.

Furthermore, I don't use them.

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.

They live here, because I gave birth to them and I have love for them plus responsibility.

Which if you look at the way slaves were to be treated in the bible (not how the Early American treated their slaves) You will find that same sense of responsiablity.

When I get my paycheck, most of it goes towards things they need and I find myself skipping things I want, so they get what they want. I cook, I clean, wash their clothes, teach them, talk to them, play with them, and love them more than I would ever love myself hoping that when it's time for them to leave they miss me enough to want to come and visit.

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.

Would a slave be treated this way?

Again yes many were. they just had to 'service' HHIC (Head Honky In Charge.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillis_Wheatley

Would a slave get a college fund and a wish list for his birthday?

In OT times anything could be bartered for service as a slave. Even in the 1700's some of the 'children of slaves and white men were even educated. see link above.

If a slave got anything like this, well, I suppose he's not much of a slave, but family, or even employee if working for you and getting something fair in return. You and I both know that a slave is not like a son or daughter, so your comparison is invalid.

My whole point is that white guilt propaganda had changed the meaning of the word so much that you/we do not truly understand the word any more. You see the word slaves as always being bad. I see the word to mean one who has to surrender his own will to that of another. Now whether that is a good or bad thing completely depends of 'the other.'

YOUR Children seem to greatly benefit by surrendering their will to you. While we both know there are other kids who are not so fortunate. so is that the institution of parental ownership that has failed them? or was it the indivisual parents that failed them?
The same is true for out and out slavery.


(Edited to incorrect spelling.)

[Godlesspanther]

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.

As I see it, they reason that this question bothers them so much is that it puts them in a bind. They are forced to admit that contemporary secular morality is obviously more advanced and rational than Biblical barbarism, or admit to being psychotic.

You make up a question that purposely backs a Christian in a corner if it has to be answered by your criteria. That is an unfair circumstance because no one has control over either situation. We live in a world to day that allows both slavery and homosexual marriage, so your question is altogether faulty. Then once some does answer the question to your delight, you move the goal post, not once but twice. You in my opinion are a dishonest person who enjoys to see people in situations that make them uncomfortable. If you do not change you will be the one in a very uncomfortable situation some day.

GC

The question is designed to open your eyes to the fact that contemporary progressive morality based on human rights and justice is obviously superior to the immoral barbarism that is described in your favorite ancient comic book.

Drich's answer is anything but delightful. It is truly sickening.

You lost the battle over same-sex marriage and once again the ignorant troglodytes are on the wrong side of history. If you ever wake up to the fact that your Bible is not a moral guide, but an idiotic crock of shit -- you will see just how much your cult has destroyed your integrity and sense of morality.

And BTW -- your hell is a joke -- does not scare me at all.

[Bad Wolf]

My kids, my mom, my dad, my sister, my brother... none of which I own.

...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?

This is really pathetic, that we are actually arguing over this. No she does not own them like you would a slave. She cares for them, is responsible for them and probably would not want them to get in your van. But she would not have any authority over her mom, dad, sister or brother as they are responsible adults and can think and reason for themselves. A child, on the other hand, cannot reason and think effectively and are unaware of such concepts of paedophilia as your van scenario implies. It would therefore be incredibly irresponsible and morally wrong to allow a child to get into a van with a stranger

One day my kids will make a choice of staying or leaving.

..And if you look in the biblical example of slavery, a slave (every seven years) had that option as well.

Yea, thats if the slaver hadn't used the loophole of giving the slave a wife while he was a slave. Then he had to make a choice. Leave, without his wife, or stay. Not exactly the same thing as children growing up and leaving.

Slavery was a possiable way of comerce, a way a poor person could ensure the safty and room and board for his family, a way for a poor person to buy land, live stock , to pay back a debt, or even marry into a family. in a soceity with little actual physical money, work was often traded for tangable things. a 'slave's agreement' was to ensure that both slave and master got what they orginally agreed to.

Yea and part of that 'slaves agreement' was that their master could beat them. But not so bad that they died immediately. If they died in a few days it would be OK though. Wouldn't you love a job like that?

They won't have to pay their way to freedom.

'Freedom isn't free.' Every generation since the beginning has had to pay something for their understanding of that word.

Yea but not every generation has been owned by another person as an object.

Furthermore, I don't use them.

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.

Utterly ridiculous, for reasons i explained above.

They live here, because I gave birth to them and I have love for them plus responsibility.

Which if you look at the way slaves were to be treated in the bible (not how the Early American treated their slaves) You will find that same sense of responsiablity.

Bullshit. Anyway, she doesn't beat her children because she can. And if she did, they would get taken away from her.

YOUR Children seem to greatly benefit by surrendering their will to you. While we both know there are other kids who are not so fortunate. so is that the institution of parental ownership that has failed them? or was it the indivisual parents that failed them?
The same is true for out and out slavery.

This whole 'comparing having children to owning a slave' bullshit is exactly that: bullshit. You argue that slaves couldn't take care of their families or themselves? Well you are wrong, they could, they just sucked at life to the point where they couldn't. Children on the other hand, are physically incapable of looking after themselves. Their bodies are small and weak and their brains have not developed enough. Comparing the two situations is absolutely absurd

[Drich]

You make up a question that purposely backs a Christian in a corner if it has to be answered by your criteria. That is an unfair circumstance because no one has control over either situation. We live in a world to day that allows both slavery and homosexual marriage, so your question is altogether faulty. Then once some does answer the question to your delight, you move the goal post, not once but twice. You in my opinion are a dishonest person who enjoys to see people in situations that make them uncomfortable. If you do not change you will be the one in a very uncomfortable situation some day.

GC

The question is designed to open your eyes to the fact that contemporary progressive morality based on human rights and justice is obviously superior to the immoral barbarism that is described in your favorite ancient comic book.

Drich's answer is anything but delightful. It is truly sickening.

You lost the battle over same-sex marriage and once again the ignorant troglodytes are on the wrong side of history. If you ever wake up to the fact that your Bible is not a moral guide, but an idiotic crock of shit -- you will see just how much your cult has destroyed your integrity and sense of morality.

And BTW -- your hell is a joke -- does not scare me at all.

You do know that comic books by defination HAVE to be subdivided into panels and illustrated right? And you do know that the bible is not? If yes to both or if no maybe spend a few mins with google and try and find a more approeiate way to disparrage the bible than by calling it a comic book...
-Or maybe share the illustrated version that you seem to be reading from, that way you won't seem like a poe.

[Godlesspanther]

The question is designed to open your eyes to the fact that contemporary progressive morality based on human rights and justice is obviously superior to the immoral barbarism that is described in your favorite ancient comic book.

Drich's answer is anything but delightful. It is truly sickening.

You lost the battle over same-sex marriage and once again the ignorant troglodytes are on the wrong side of history. If you ever wake up to the fact that your Bible is not a moral guide, but an idiotic crock of shit -- you will see just how much your cult has destroyed your integrity and sense of morality.

And BTW -- your hell is a joke -- does not scare me at all.

You do know that comic books by defination HAVE to be subdivided into panels and illustrated right? And you do know that the bible is not? If yes to both or if no maybe spend a few mins with google and try and find a more approeiate way to disparrage the bible than by calling it a comic book...
-Or maybe share the illustrated version that you seem to be reading from, that way you won't seem like a poe.

Wow -- you said something that is actually correct. A comic book does have a particular format and the Bible does not fit that format.

I have to apologize.

There are some really great comic books and I am sorry that I called a vile, offensive, piece of shit like the Bible a 'comic book.'

I'm sorry, comic book fans -- I wont do it again.

[Mister Agenda]

Here is a question for you....would you rather worship Allah or Moloch?

It depends. What's the difference?

---

Here is a question for you....would you rather worship Allah or Moloch?

I'd rather live next door to a muslim than an atheist.

Is it your designated day for non sequiturs?

---

I'd rather live next door to a muslim than an atheist.

It really depends on the person, doesn't it?

It should.

---

It really depends on the person, doesn't it?

All things being equal, yes. Sure.
But atheism and (Abrahamic) monotheism are very very far apart.
How many of the Ten Commandments does an atheist regard as morally righteous?

Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not perjure, and thou shalt not commit adultery. All available evidence points to the averageWestern atheist taking those as seriously as the average Western Christian.

---

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.

As I see it, they reason that this question bothers them so much is that it puts them in a bind. They are forced to admit that contemporary secular morality is obviously more advanced and rational than Biblical barbarism, or admit to being psychotic.

You make up a question that purposely backs a Christian in a corner if it has to be answered by your criteria.

It doesn't back Christians in general into a corner. Just fundy ones.

That is an unfair circumstance because no one has control over either situation.

You have control over what you think would be preferable in a hypothetical situation.

We live in a world to day that allows both slavery and homosexual marriage, so your question is altogether faulty.

We live in a world today where both slavery and (in most places) homosexual marriage are illegal. That slavery still occurs is a failure of character and law enforcement, but irrelevant to the question, which is about which circumstance you think would be better.

Then once some does answer the question to your delight, you move the goal post, not once but twice.

Let's see: Lion dodged the question, so you can't be talking about him. Jacob answered that homosexual marriage being legal was preferable to slavery being legal, which wasn't a problem for him since he's not a fundamentalist. Drich answered in the affirmative and was consistent with his stated beliefs, for which he got some grudging respect for his honest in additon to the natural dismay that he would prefer a world where slavery is legal to one where homosexual marriage is legal. I don't see how the goalposts were shifted once, let alone twice. Would you be more specific about that, please?

You in my opinion are a dishonest person who enjoys to see people in situations that make them uncomfortable.

What makes them uncomfortable is their cognitive dissonance between something they think is wrong because of the Bible and something they think is wrong because they are basically decent being in conflict. The question didn't give Jacob or Drich a second's pause. Jacob trusts that if something in the Bible contradicts what he believes is right, the Bible is wrong. Drich trusts that if something in the Bible contradicts what he believes is right, he is wrong. It's only a dilemma if you're unsure of your convictions.

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

And that is a threat, the refuge of a scoundrel.

[tokutter]

Claiming ownership of another human being and using them for your own wants is not intrinsically bad? How is it good? Or is it not intrinsically good or bad? It's neutral?

It's neutral. Do you have kids? Have you ever used the term "my kids?" Anyone using that term has expressed ownership of another human being. Even so do we consider this to be an evil thing?

Of course not, what makes ownership of another person good or bad is what you do with the life you have control over.

So it's ok to take a rod and beat your kids/slaves as long as they don't die within 2 days????


.