Could anyone tell me if this is true?

[justlookinla]

Its a deep dark secret. It is only able to be revealed to people with empathy.

No, it's not a deep dark secret. It's easily revealed to those who read the bible.

Wouldn't promoting an antichrist viewpoint be sin?

 

[justlookinla]

Why? Just because he thinks it is just and good to own people (and only mere non-Hebrews, mind you) in perpetuity regardless of their own desires? Just because he thinks it is just and good for a child born to a slave to become a slave himself for the rest of his life? Why are you so judgemental? I'm sure he'll come up with a reason why that isn't as disgusting as it seems.

Where are you getting your value system from?

 

[justlookinla]

I must confess I am keen to see how he ends up rationalizing (if he ever does) the enslavement of a child from birth to death.

A child is just another life form, no different than a worm, right?

 

[HitchSlap]

About what?

NVM

 

[justlookinla]

NVM

K

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, it's not a deep dark secret. It's easily revealed to those who read the bible.

Wouldn't promoting an antichrist viewpoint be sin?

Only those with the ability to empathize can understand my post correctly.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Where are you getting your value system from?

This is an interesting question and one that deserves (and has on many occasions had) its own thread. In this context however it is a deflection from the issue at hand. You were attempting to argue that slavery as outlined in the Bible is a perfectly just and good system. So please do so.

In your view a child is not merely another another animal, "no different from a worm". This being your belief, how to you justify the ensalvement of a child from birth to death?

 

[justlookinla]

Only those with the ability to empathize can understand my post correctly.

What's not to understand about the promotion of Godless Darwinist evolution being a sin? It directly denies the Father and the Son.

 

[justlookinla]

This is an interesting question and one that deserves (and has on many occasions had) its own thread. In this context however it is a deflection from the issue at hand. You were attempting to argue that slavery as outlined in the Bible is a perfectly just and good system. So please do so.

You're suggesting that a life form can form and embrace social values within itself. The issue is where do those values come from. Cold firing of synapes in the brain? Somewhere else.

The issue isn't about slavery or no slavery, the issue is concerning the source of the subjective view in a life form which is nothing more than the result of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms.

Looks as if there is purpose in the formation of the life form after all? And meaning?

In your view a child is not merely another another animal, "no different from a worm". This being your belief, how to you justify the ensalvement of a child from birth to death?

It's the view of atheistic Darwinist evolutionists. Isn't it?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You're suggesting that a life form can form and embrace social values within itself. The issue is where do those values come from. Cold firing of synapes in the brain? Somewhere else.

The issue isn't about slavery or no slavery, the issue is concerning the source of the subjective view in a life form which is nothing more than the result of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms.

Looks as if there is purpose in the formation of the life form after all? And meaning?



It's the view of atheistic Darwinist evolutionists. Isn't it?

The topic of discussion my original comment referenced was very clearly a discussion of how slavery is described in the Bible and to what extent that is justifiable. At no point was the topic of non-theistic morality under discussion. You have only initiated this diversion in response to the challenge to defend the morality of enslaving children forever.

Should I take this as a concession that you cannot in fact make such a defence? If so I would be happy to discus non-theistic morality. If not, you should really have the courtesy to answer the question originally under discussion before trying to change directions.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What's not to understand about the promotion of Godless Darwinist evolution being a sin? It directly denies the Father and the Son.

Well, "Darwinism" (and by that I mean the study of biology including evolution) is not Godless. Rather, it doesn't have God as its subject of study. It does not deny the Father or the Son; those are not its subject of study. So people who believe those things to be true are believing a lie. And that's something they clearly don't understand.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You're suggesting that a life form can form and embrace social values within itself. The issue is where do those values come from. Cold firing of synapes in the brain? Somewhere else.

We humans are warm blooded. Our synapses fire at 98.6 degrees which is not cold firing.

The issue isn't about slavery or no slavery, the issue is concerning the source of the subjective view in a life form which is nothing more than the result of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms.

Just because you can't suppose how natural mechanisms can give rise to meaning and morality doesn't give you the right to deny others their morality and their meanings.

It's the view of atheistic Darwinist evolutionists. Isn't it?

No it is not. And you can't make them have that view. What's more, it's wrong for you to continually conflate atheism with accepting reality. You have no right to tell any acceptor of reality he is an atheist without bothering to find out. It is not necessary to deny reality, including the reality of evolution, to believe in God.

 

[justlookinla]

The topic of discussion my original comment referenced was very clearly a discussion of how slavery is described in the Bible and to what extent that is justifiable. At no point was the topic of non-theistic morality under discussion. You have only initiated this diversion in response to the challenge to defend the morality of enslaving children forever.

Should I take this as a concession that you cannot in fact make such a defence? If so I would be happy to discus non-theistic morality. If not, you should really have the courtesy to answer the question originally under discussion before trying to change directions.

This is no diversion, I'm simply attempting to understand where your ability to form a viewpoint concerning slavery is coming from. You seem to be not only opposed to slavery, but opposed to the teaching concerning slavery in the bible.

If you believe yourself to be just a randomly evolved life form of a mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism 'creating' you, your opinion concerning slavery is also mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless. It's simply the product of the firing of evolved synapses in your brain. Your thoughts are really not your thoughts, but simply naturalistic mechanisms interacting with each other.

 

[justlookinla]

Well, "Darwinism" (and by that I mean the study of biology including evolution) is not Godless.

Yes it is. Darwinism (and by that I mean the view that humanity is the product of solely naturalistic mechanisms) is inherently Godless.

Rather, it doesn't have God as its subject of study.

It eliminates God in favor of an entirely naturalistic process.

It does not deny the Father or the Son; those are not its subject of study.

It eliminates the Father and the Son. Not needed, wanted or allowed. Total and complete denial.

So people who believe those things to be true are believing a lie. And that's something they clearly don't understand.

The lie of humanity being the 'creation' of a solely naturalistic mechanism is the foundation lie of Darwinism.

It's antichrist. And, like it or not, embracing the antichrist position is sin.

 

[justlookinla]

We humans are warm blooded. Our synapses fire at 98.6 degrees which is not cold firing.

Go play games with someone else.

Just because you can't suppose how natural mechanisms can give rise to meaning and morality doesn't give you the right to deny others their morality and their meanings.

What meaning? What morality?

No it is not. And you can't make them have that view.

When the basis for their worldview is denying God, I don't make them have that view. It's their free choice to have that view.

What's more, it's wrong for you to continually conflate atheism with accepting reality.

Atheists and theists have differing views of reality.

You have no right to tell any acceptor of reality he is an atheist without bothering to find out. It is not necessary to deny reality, including the reality of evolution, to believe in God.

The atheistic Darwinist evolutionary view is reality to the atheist, but it's not reality to the theist. They're incompatible views.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

This is no diversion, I'm simply attempting to understand where your ability to form a viewpoint concerning slavery is coming from. You seem to be not only opposed to slavery, but opposed to the teaching concerning slavery in the bible.

If you believe yourself to be just a randomly evolved life form of a mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism 'creating' you, your opinion concerning slavery is also mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless. It's simply the product of the firing of evolved synapses in your brain. Your thoughts are really not your thoughts, but simply naturalistic mechanisms interacting with each other.

I would be happy to discuss these matters once you have addressed the discussion I actually engaged with. What bearing does my source for morality have on your ability to defend the position that slavery as outlined in the Bible fits with your personal concept of what is moral?

If you feel you can make a case for why it is actually acceptable to enslave a child from birth to death then do so. If you don't think you are able to mount such a defence then just say so and we can move on.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you feel you can make a case for why it is actually acceptable to enslave a child from birth to death then do so. If you don't think you are able to mount such a defence then just say so and we can move on.

Perhaps by "enslave," he means:

"Place someone under your umbrella of protection and forge a relationship that lasts a lifetime."

 

[justlookinla]

I would be happy to discuss these matters once you have addressed the discussion I actually engaged with. What bearing does my source for morality have on your ability to defend the position that slavery as outlined in the Bible fits with your personal concept of what is moral?

If you feel you can make a case for why it is actually acceptable to enslave a child from birth to death then do so. If you don't think you are able to mount such a defence then just say so and we can move on.

I'm attempting to understand the source of your morality. I'm attempting to discuss morality with someone who only view themselves as just another randomly 'created' life form 'created' by a mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless process. The basis for my morality is in the bible. What's the basis for your morality and where did it come from?

 

[justlookinla]

Perhaps by "enslave," he means:

"Place someone under your umbrella of protection and forge a relationship that lasts a lifetime."

Could be. It'd still be interesting to find the source from which he's determining 'enslavement' is right, wrong or indifferent.

 

[AV1611VET]

Could be. It'd still be interesting to find the source from which he's determining 'enslavement' is right, wrong or indifferent.

A child being born into a family would be "enslaved" to them.

Meaning he is under that family's umbrella of protection for life.

He would even carry the family name -- and DNA.

One can even adopt a child, enslaving them as well.

Paul, who referred to himself as a "servant," made it clear we are adopted children of God.